Slashdot Mirror


Voyager 1 Exits Our Solar System

eldavojohn writes "The first man-made craft to do so is now entering a 'cosmic purgatory' between solar systems and entering an interstellar space of the Milky Way Galaxy. With much anticipation, Voyager 1 is now 'in a stagnation region in the outermost layer of the bubble around our solar system. Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back.' After three decades the spacecraft is still operating and apparently has enough power and fuel to continue to do so until 2020. The first big piece of news? 'We've been using the flow of energetic charged particles at Voyager 1 as a kind of wind sock to estimate the solar wind velocity. We've found that the wind speeds are low in this region and gust erratically. For the first time, the wind even blows back at us. We are evidently traveling in completely new territory. Scientists had suggested previously that there might be a stagnation layer, but we weren't sure it existed until now.' This process could take months to years to completely leave the outer shell but already scientists are receiving valuable information."

83 of 341 comments (clear)

  1. Amazing by ossuary · · Score: 5, Funny

    It is just freaking amazing that things electronics can still work after being exposed to such an environment for so long. Good job Voyager and good job old school NASA. Just don't come back home in a few hundred years with a chip on your shoulder!

    1. Re:Amazing by travisco_nabisco · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I too am completely amazed that the Voyager is still sending back useful data after all these years.

      Sometimes I wonder how much further ahead humanity would be if we built everything with the need to have it last decades before becoming nonfunctional, then I realize that with the rate technology has advanced, that is just not possible. Not to mention that we would have a totally different world economy if people weren't continually replacing perfectly functional items, from clothing to electronics to vehicles. So much of the global economy is dependent on people buying more things.

    2. Re:Amazing by scharkalvin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Voyagers transmitter uses a pencil type vacuum tube in the final amplifier. At the time they were designed there were no transistors that could operate at the required frequency and power level and also withstand the expected cosmic radiation in space. Tubes were the ONLY devices RAD hard enough to do the job.
      Since then RCA has quit making tubes (and a lot of other stuff as well).

    3. Re:Amazing by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      If they come back looking like Tricia Helfer I won't be complaining

    4. Re:Amazing by ArsonSmith · · Score: 4, Funny

      we can't even make mars rovers that last very long....ohh wait.

      http://xkcd.com/695/

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    5. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is just freaking amazing that things electronics can still work after being exposed to such an environment for so long. Good job Voyager and good job old school NASA. Just don't come back home in a few hundred years with a chip on your shoulder!

      Well if you want to put the situation into perspective, Voyager one has been going on for 34 years and has YET to leave the solar system. Another 10 years and it will find itself on the threshold of interstellar space. And then no more power it will go dead. Think about it, 47 years in space and it will barely have reached the begining of interstellar space. Half the lifetime of a human being (more or less) and our fastest spacecraft is still right by our home. If this doesn't drive home just how far we are from really reaching into space nothing will.

    6. Re:Amazing by eriks · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not to mention that we would have a totally different world economy if people weren't continually replacing perfectly functional items, from clothing to electronics to vehicles.

      Totally new world economy not based on consuming breakable crap, please! I'd like one.

      Well designed, well-engineered products, that last, would be more "expensive", but in the long run, humanity and the planet will be better off when we finally switch over to a less wasteful system.

      Fortunately we do have examples (like the Voyager probes) of good engineering, not that our washing machines and TVs need to be *quite* that well-engineered, but still, there's a lot of room for improvement.

    7. Re:Amazing by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well if you want to put the situation into perspective, Voyager one has been going on for 34 years and has YET to leave the solar system. Another 10 years and it will find itself on the threshold of interstellar space. And then no more power it will go dead. Think about it, 47 years in space and it will barely have reached the begining of interstellar space. Half the lifetime of a human being (more or less) and our fastest spacecraft is still right by our home. If this doesn't drive home just how far we are from really reaching into space nothing will.

      "Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space, listen..." (HHGG)

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    8. Re:Amazing by keytoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      not that our washing machines and TVs need to be *quite* that well-engineered, but still, there's a lot of room for improvement.

      This level of quality exists for almost anything you would care to buy. These items costs a bit more and they don't carry them at Walmart, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

    9. Re:Amazing by camperdave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But it's in a vacuum already. So all you need to do is stick a filament, an emitter, grid, etc onto the craft and away you go. You don't actually need the tube part. That just holds out the atmosphere.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    10. Re:Amazing by arielCo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sometimes I wonder how much further ahead humanity would be if we built everything with the need to have it last decades before becoming nonfunctional, then I realize that with the rate technology has advanced, that is just not possible. Not to mention that we would have a totally different world economy if people weren't continually replacing perfectly functional items, from clothing to electronics to vehicles. So much of the global economy is dependent on people buying more things.

      Only if you don't mind your next cell phone costing you a few months' salary. Top-notch quality in tech is costly:

      The cost of the Voyager 1 and 2 missions -- including launch, mission operations from launch through the Neptune encounter and the spacecraft's nuclear batteries (provided by the Department of Energy) -- is $865 million.

      (That'd be $3.2B in 2011 dollars)
      http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/news/factsheet.html

      --
      This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    11. Re:Amazing by travisco_nabisco · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But with all those gusty extra-solar winds, who knows where the electrons will end up if we don't keep them in an enclosed space.

    12. Re:Amazing by Scratch-O-Matic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My mom is still using a Mitsubishi television she bought in 1983.

      --


      Evil is the money of root.
    13. Re:Amazing by grouchomarxist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For some products this makes sense, but when it comes to things that change rapidly, like technology, you're making a trade-off between investing vs. features. If I choose a long lasting computer now I may miss out on features that are developed later.

      With clothes there are probably trade offs regarding fashion, but then this is /.

    14. Re:Amazing by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      If they come back looking like Tricia Helfer I won't be complaining

      Please spell Persis Khambatta correctly next time.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    15. Re:Amazing by networkBoy · · Score: 2

      For a lot of items that is worth it.
      for example my kitchen knives, they are rather expensive (not absurd, but easily 10x the price of the cheap walmart set), and worth every penny. I expect at some point my kids will be using them after I am dead.
      much of my tools are of a similar build quality. I want to trust my tools not to break, at all under normal use, and not catastrophically under above max rating use. i.e. using a non rated socket on an impact driver. cheap socket will fracture and grenade, throwing shards of cheap chrome steel all over the place. high end sockets may break and crack, but usually only along one fault line then the socket expands and spins on the nut head, but does not throw debris.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    16. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes. And that is the problem with the economy. When you can't muster the resources to keep "growing" as you blatantly can't on a finite planet, then you go into a world credit crisis because the whole thing is a house of cards built on the premise of waste. Waster of resources, waste of money. And economists call it "economy". If they knew anything about economy they would hire an ecologist to fix their basic theories. Boom and bust is a sign of a broken ecosystem, yet we're to believe that's how an economy should run (you can't get anything else with a "continuous growth" paradigm. It's nothing but a pyramid scheme on a grand scale.) Definitely, things should be built to last. Not building them to last is bad for the economy however it may look on the short term which sadly is all economists and policy makers look at to make nation shaping decisions.

    17. Re:Amazing by perpenso · · Score: 2

      I expect at some point my kids will be using them after I am dead. much of my tools are of a similar build quality. I want to trust my tools not to break, at all under normal use, and not catastrophically under above max rating use.

      I have my grandfather's household tools, keep in mind that in his day you did most of the maintenance and repairs of your home yourself so the collection is a little larger than one might guess. I have a granduncle's tools too and he was a carpenter. Unfortunately the wiring on his power tools are unsafe now but I also have his hand tools from the earlier part of his career. Too bad I flunked wood shop. If your stuff is built like the stuff from the 1940s and 50s it may make it well past your grandkids.

    18. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      not that our washing machines and TVs need to be *quite* that well-engineered, but still, there's a lot of room for improvement.

      This level of quality exists for almost anything you would care to buy. These items costs a bit more and they don't carry them at Walmart, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

      Except that 2 decades ago you could still find well engineered products that lasted that the middle class could afford to buy. Today you either have cheap crap from Walmart, or high end stuff. Whats missing is the whole middle class thing, where you could find quality at an acceptable price.
      Not today unfortunately.

    19. Re:Amazing by skids · · Score: 2

      Why wouldn't you want your washing machine last a long, long time

      Well, washing machines haven't done much on the efficiency front, but if you were talking about a fridge, you wouldn't want to pay for the durability up front if it was going to cost you the same amount as a new fridge every 5 years in electricity, above and beyond what a new fridge would use. In that case, buying a cheaper model that needed to be replaced would actually save money, and ecological impact.

    20. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's funny, two decades ago people were saying exactly what you're saying now.

    21. Re:Amazing by Pharmboy · · Score: 2

      If I choose a long lasting computer now I may miss out on features that are developed later.

      From my experience, 75% of computers that are ten years old still work, more or less. Sometimes a power supply or hard drive (or more likely, monitor) will die, and the other 25% have motherboard failures, but most work fine. We just traded out our 7 year old computers at work, 75% of what we bought back in 04 and haven't done anything except add ram and upgrade the monitors to LCD back in 08 (we are still using all the monitors from 08 now, or gave them away to churches/charity/etc). We moved some of them down to the factory to be used to control CNC machines that run DOS (yes, DOS) because we are worried the old machines there (over 15 years old in a dirty factory) *might* fail some time soon, although we have only had one failure out of 4 machines in this time. I still have IBM servers from the 90s that work perfectly fine as well. Dual PPro 200 boxes gathering dust simply because they heat they generate wasn't worth the bits they moved anymore.

      Most old computers don't die from being broken, they die from rust in the landfill.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    22. Re:Amazing by grcumb · · Score: 3, Informative

      This level of quality exists for almost anything you would care to buy. These items costs a bit more and they don't carry them at Walmart, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

      Congratulations, you've just discovered the Sam Vimes' Boots theory of wealth.

      TL;DR: Only the rich can afford to save money.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    23. Re:Amazing by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But would they be better in the long run or worse? My CRT monitors worked just fine, just got finished replacing the last 2 in the family with 20 inch LCDs i got cheap on cyber Monday. while i will give those CRTs away rather than have them end up in the dump the amount of power they sucked was just unreal compared to the energy star LCDs i picked up, i could have easily run 5 monitors in the place of a single one of those CRTs and still had power left over.

      The problem with making things last is the flip side and that's the fact that each generation the power usage gets MUCH better. My P4 mobile laptop is still running to this day with a customer but at its best it would suck a battery dry in 2 hours flat and cranked out the heat, while my new Zacate netbook runs 6 hours plus on a battery a hell of a lot smaller and plugged in it takes a max 18w under heavy load, most of the time less than 8 I'd say.

      so do we REALLY want people keeping the old tech and draining that much more power, or is it better to have them get something new that uses much less? i'm not an economics guy so i don't know, i just know that the electric bill at my family's house dropped like mad without having those CRTs constantly pulling juice. the bill went down so much that they actually sent someone out to check the meter to make sure we hadn't figured out a way to scam them!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    24. Re:Amazing by AngryDeuce · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My mom is still using a Mitsubishi television she bought in 1983.

      Yeah really, my grandmother used the same damn toaster she bought in the early 60's almost every single day up until the day she died 5 years ago. Her Mr. Coffee was at least 25 years old as well, and her microwave, despite being so old as to have oven style knob controls, worked even better than any microwave I've ever bought.

      Today you need to order commercial-grade appliances from European master craftsmen for thousands of dollars to get the same level of quality my grandmother got on sale at Sears 30+ years ago on her husband's truck driver salary. Pretty sad...

    25. Re:Amazing by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 4, Funny

      As usual with the xkcd comics that people always link to, there was somebody else who did it better...

      http://www.theonion.com/articles/mars-rover-beginning-to-hate-mars,2072/

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    26. Re:Amazing by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 2

      I agree. I read somewhere that it is actually better to use cheap bulbs that burn out quicker, than long lasting bulbs. It's because the manufacturing costs and the manufacturing energy consumption are both lower than the requirements to power that long lasting bulb.

      It's counter intuitive, but it makes sense: long lasting does not automatically consume less.

      If we really wanted long lasting, then we would still be using phones and hard drives from the early 90s. Do we really want that?

    27. Re:Amazing by Agripa · · Score: 2

      But it's in a vacuum already. So all you need to do is stick a filament, an emitter, grid, etc onto the craft and away you go. You don't actually need the tube part. That just holds out the atmosphere.

      You still need to prevent stray currents from between the tube elements and the surrounding conductors. Circuit boards need insulating coatings although the lower voltages normally associated with solid state circuits helps.

    28. Re:Amazing by tibit · · Score: 2

      European-style washers and dryers have not made huge advances in energy efficiency in the last decade. Heck, dryers probably didn't for at least two decades. My parents had a BOSCH condensing dryer for 20 years, and there's no way really to make it any more efficient. A decent washing machine (front-loader) from 10 years ago will use a motor with electronic commutation, and those are as good as it gets. Same goes for a toaster: the ones from today aren't any more efficient than ones from 30 years ago. Coffeemaker, too. I doubt an electric range these days is much better than one from 40 years ago. So, there's a whole class of appliances where there's no improvement to efficiency due to limits of the underlying technology. IT tech is in an entirely different class!

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    29. Re:Amazing by khallow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is a really good point. I suspect an ion drive along with a huge tank of xenon and a nuclear battery (say using strontium 90 or cesium 137, both with half lives around 30 years) would be able to leave the Solar System in a couple of decades, going much faster than Voyager 1 currently is. Hmmm, sounds good enough that I should run some numbers.

    30. Re:Amazing by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Pretty sad...

      Not really. Sadly you can't ask her anymore, but I suspect that those items were very expensive and required careful planning and saving.

      You can get a cheap and nasty microwave these days for 30GBP in a supermarket. You can also get light industrial units for under 600GBP which clock in at 1900W. It's not made by a European master craftsman, or hard to get. And I'll bet that 500GBP to me or you now would be less painful than the microwave was to your gran in the 60's.

      The world now is frankly amazing. Even cheap, nasty stuff is often better then the very best stuff available 20 or 30 years ago, and vastly vastly cheaper. And you can still find the quality stuff (it took me about a minute with google for the microwave), and in fact find it even more easily than ever before.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    31. Re:Amazing by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      Can I point out something? There's selection bias going on here with the vast majority of people who are saying "They don't make them like they used to" and bringing up old devices that still work as examples.

      Here's what I've found. There are some goods that last a long time, and there's everything else. 9/10 items actually end up being thrown away before they fail anyway. Of the remainder, a significant number will fail because the MTBF of some component in it kicks in according to manufacturer's spec, which has always been measured in years, but not decades.

      So what are you left with? The exceptions. And there always will be exceptions. And those items will last a long time, and you'll point it out to your friends and go "Hey, they don't make 'em like they used to. This 'ere TV has lasted 40 years I'll have you know"

      But was that TV typical? Of course not! If it was, then a huge number of Mitsubishi TVs from 1983 would still be in use, and they're not. Some were thrown away because they were obsolete, others not large enough, etc, but even allowing for that, if TVs from that era never failed, they'd be all over the place. It's fair to say the majority that were given time to fail did.

      Likewise all those people claiming that all you have to do is spend three times as much on a fancy European brand. Really?

      The reality is that thirty years from now, the only likely reason someone won't post to Slashdot saying "I bought this Dell 21" LCD monitor back in 2011, and it still works a charm!" is because by that time, people aren't using monitors. Or monitors now have 1200dpi resolutions. Or are 3D. Or go entirely around the viewer. Or for some other reason just aren't practical as far as actually using them goes, much as a CGA monitor from 1983 would be today.

      I have some very old computers from 1990 that are still working. I also have thrown away a lot of stuff from that era that do not work. Those items that survive survive because they win the game of probabilities, not because some manager back in 1990, 1980, 1970, or whatever, said to himself "Let's make a device our consumers will never need to replace." Since the invention of the lightbulb, that's never been the case.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  2. Moving goalposts by Axalon · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wasn't the Oort cloud supposed to be the edge of the Solar System, and that's still a few trillion miles off.

    1. Re:Moving goalposts by Alyred · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Oort cloud is still theoretical, if I recall correctly, but more evidence is stacking up for it. You might be thinking of the Kuiper belt, which is where most of the trans-Neptunian objects lie. The boundary they are talking about is where the solar wind is overcome by the cosmic (intergalactic) plasma currents. Think about the coma on a comet and you have a similar picture to how our solar wind particles look.

      The Oort cloud, if it proves to exist, is speculated to extend quite a ways out -- possibly 2/3 of the way to the nearest star by some estimations. It's a much looser "full shell" of relatively stationary objects, where the Kuiper belt is more similar to a large asteroid belt.

      Wikipedia has some good visualizations and links --
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere

    2. Re:Moving goalposts by Sperbels · · Score: 2

      I don't think there's an accepted definition to where the edge of the solar system is. I've seen articles with this exact same headline published every few years for the past 15 years.

    3. Re:Moving goalposts by geekoid · · Score: 5, Informative

      Voyager will define where the edge is. Or rather, returns enough data so we can decide where it is.

      Really, it's past what was thought of as the edge of the solar system when it was built.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  3. 11 Billion by cyachallenge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Voyager 1 is travelling at just under 11 miles per second and sending information from nearly 11 billion miles away from the sun.

    This reminds me of just how big space is. What absurd distances we're talking about now. I can't be but at awe and terror when I think of the stars.

    1. Re:11 Billion by dkleinsc · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space, listen..." -HHGTG

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:11 Billion by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's even more alarming because Voyager is 11 billion miles away and still might as well just be down the corner getting a pack of smokes in terms of its location relative to known concentrations of anything. 1.1*10^10 miles is a lot; but the nearest extrasolar star system is on the order of 2.5*10^13...

    3. Re:11 Billion by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      11 billion miles sounds like a long way when phrased like that. It doesn't sound so far when you write it as 16.4 light-hours, and remember that the nearest star is about 4.35 light years away. Or, to put it another way, it's travelled 0.043% of the distance from here to Alpha Centauri and is the furthest man-made object away from us. That really puts into perspective how much further (or, rather, faster) we have to go for interstellar space travel to be possible.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:11 Billion by Deadstick · · Score: 5, Funny

      Shit, some of those distances are astronomical.

      rj

  4. This news again? by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:This news again? by wcrowe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Usually these stories get trotted out right around budget cutting time.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
  5. This is what happens when Americans make things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's too bad so many people here were born or grew up after 1990, at which point most American industry had been decimated and sent over to third-world shit heaps like China, India, and Mexico.

    You people will never realize that American-manufactured goods were once the best there were. They were durable, they actually weren't that expensive, and you could trust them.

    Then globalization and so-called "free trade" happened to ruin all of that. Products that you could once buy from an American manufacturer and you'd know they'd work perfectly for decades could now only be obtained from third-world manufacturers. Of course, they skimped on just about every aspect to make the product as cheap as possible. American-made equivalents would have lasted for many years, while these third-world manufactures often break after two or three uses!

    But since the American industry has been destroyed, it's not even possible to buy American-made goods even if you wanted to. You're stuck buying shitty foreign products.

  6. Voyager's on-board sensors by jd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They are hoping to get data on spectral lines not visible from within the solar system, with Voyager 1 now outside the solar system, but they're running into power budget issues. The battery is very, very low on juice, and with AAA not operating that far out, there's no chance of it getting any more. Data collected will therefore be rather more limited than NASA would like, but since existent data is zero any data will be an improvement.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  7. I wish they would send some more of these by youn · · Score: 2, Informative

    With updated equipment, high resolution sensors/ cameras.... heck even put on a hubble like telescope while we're at it... a dozen of these in all directions.... that would definitely kick ass... >

    --
    Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
  8. Re:So long and thanks for all the fish by pak9rabid · · Score: 2

    They forgot the Type-R sticker.

  9. Beautiful by Oqnet · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I read this and I got chills. This is amazing to think that we, even if we ourselves physically have done it have left our solar system. This to me is my moon landing I can't wait to hear what they find once they pass the bubble shell.

  10. dont you mean 'union made goods'? by decora · · Score: 4, Insightful

    lets face facts. they only outsourced for two main reasons.

    number 1, to avoid the EPA

    number 2, to avoid labor unions

    all of that 'classic american technology' was built with union hands and by people paying union dues. they went on something called a 'strike' once in a while, too. fascinating concept - you stop working in order to improve conditions and pressure employers.

    1. Re:dont you mean 'union made goods'? by zill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      number 2, to avoid labor unions

      While I share your distaste of unions, there's no really way to avoid them in a democratic society. Democracy require the freedom of association, which will inevitability lead to unions if a majority of your workers are dissatisfied enough.

    2. Re:dont you mean 'union made goods'? by mattack2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then a company should be able to not hire someone if they belong to a union, as the company's (owner's) right, correct?

    3. Re:dont you mean 'union made goods'? by mattack2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Will you really end up with 0 employees?

      Why aren't there software engineer unions? (I've seen that mentioned here before.)

      Also, aren't various companies anti-union in general? I think Walmart is one example (and yes, I know a lot of people hate them). Walmart does not seem to be in any danger of losing employees.

    4. Re:dont you mean 'union made goods'? by trout007 · · Score: 2

      There are no problems with unions only with government support or hostility towards them. What is interesting is there are no neutral states. There are pro-union and right to work states. One uses force to make an employer deal with unions and the other forces them to allow people to work without joining unions. The neutral position would have the government take no stance on them. Like you said in a free society with freedom of association you would have unions form. But the employer would also have the freedom to deal with the union or not. There are some trade unions that are actually very good at providing training and maintaining standards for members like welders, pipe fitters, iron workers, and electricians. If the local union really consisted of the best talent then employers might want to work with the unions to get the best people and choose not to hire anyone not in the union. If the union was just a corrupt bunch of thugs the employer could choose not to deal with them. Also a good union would attract members while corrupt ones would lose them. This is the beauty of liberty.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    5. Re:dont you mean 'union made goods'? by zill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why aren't there software engineer unions? (I've seen that mentioned here before.)

      Because the software industry is relatively new and treats its employees relatively well. Some industries with high percentage of unions used to mow down their workers with machine guns, so the unions were originally a self-defense mechanism of the workers that was born out of necessity.

      I think Walmart is one example (and yes, I know a lot of people hate them). Walmart does not seem to be in any danger of losing employees.

      Walmart will close entire stores if the workers tries to unionize. So yes, they've probably lost millions of workers and thousands of stores across globe due to this tactic. But so far, like you pointed out, it's been quite effective (at a huge cost to Walmart).

      However keep in mind that this tactic only works if you have a huge number of distinct locations across many different countries. Not many companies fit that criteria.

    6. Re:dont you mean 'union made goods'? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2

      Boeing is moving to non-union plant in South Carolina because the machinists union in Washington struck just to slow down the 787 program and show Boeing how powerful the union was.

    7. Re:dont you mean 'union made goods'? by sFurbo · · Score: 2

      1. If you hire someone on the condition that they will not join the union, then union will simply strike until that person is removed. This prevents you from getting new employees.

      The case seems more to be (at least in Denmark, until it was made illegal) that if you hire anyone and you do not demand them to join the union, the union will strike until that person is fired, or has joined the union. This, of course, makes unions a force against freedom of association (which must include freedom to not be a part of any particular association as well).

  11. Communications numbers by dtmos · · Score: 5, Informative

    The amazing thing (well, one of the amazing things) about the Voyager program is the communication link. Voyager's signal, as received on Earth, is almost unbelievably weak.

    One can use the Friis Transmission Equation to see just how weak the signal from Voyager 1 is at the moment:

    Pr = Pt * Gt * Gr * (lambda/(4 * pi * R))^2, where

    Pr is received power, in watts;
    Pt is transmitted power, in watts;
    Gt is the gain of the transmitting antenna, relative to an isotropic source (a unit-less value);
    Gr is the gain of the receiving antenna (one of the 70m DSN antennas), relative to an isotropic source (a unit-less value);
    lambda is the operating wavelength, in meters, and equal to c/f, or very close to 300/fM, where fM is the operating frequency in MHz;
    and R is the range (distance) in meters.

    Pt = 18 watts (assuming this hasn't degraded over time and distance);
    Gt = 48 dBi, or about 63100;
    Gr = 74 dBi, or about 25.1*10^6;
    fM = 8420 MHz, so lambda = 300/fM = 0.0356 meters; and
    R = 17,545,000,000 km, or 1.75 * 10^13 meters.

    Grinding all this out, one is left with a received signal strength -- at the terminals of a 70-meter dish, mind you -- of:

    Pr = 18 * 63100 * 25.1*10^6 * (0.0356/(4 * pi * 1.75 * 10^13))^2 = 7.45 * 10^(-19) watts, or 745 -- wait for it -- zeptowatts.

    This is equal to -181.3 dBW, or -151.3 dBm. (I don't know how many Libraries of Congress that is.)

    In the year 2020, when the probe's power generator is expected to expire, the probe will be about 2 * 10^13 meters away from Earth; using the same calculation the signal will have weakened slightly, to 5.73 * 10^(-19) watts, or 573 zeptowatts, -182.4 dBW, or -152.4 dBm.

    (Unless I've made some trivial calculation error, of course.)

    1. Re:Communications numbers by CaptainLard · · Score: 2

      I got one...A cell phone that fits in a pocket has a GPS chip in it that can track a GPS signal at -162 dBm (Ublox6 based). Thats ONE THOUSAND times less received energy than what voyager equipment receives! In your pocket! All those posts in here saying "they don't make em like they used to" are correct. Stuff is largely better now (not that voyager isn't freaking amazing and one of the greatest achievements of human technology). A while back I did a back of a napkin calculation based on numbers I found on the internet (for what its worth) and came up with: The amount of power contained in the GPS signal that a device uses to find your position on the earth down to a few meters is 10,000 times weaker than the energy contained in the sound of normal human breathing (not mouth breathing not wheezing, just what you generally can't even perceive from someone standing 3 feet from you). Hows that for amazing?

  12. good. someone has to fight the morons in congress by decora · · Score: 4, Insightful

    otherwise, the only thing we would ever spend money on is bailing out big corporations and bombing people.

  13. Re:good. someone has to fight the morons in congre by Sperbels · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The bombing people part involves paying big corporations for the bombs (and the vehicles used to deliver them) with lots of tax payer money anyway, so that's sort of a bail out too.

  14. Obligatory pirate jokes by zill · · Score: 3, Funny

    'We've been using the flow of energetic charged particles at Voyager 1 as a kind of wind sock to estimate the solar wind velocity. We've found that the wind speeds are low in this region and gust erratically. For the first time, the wind even blows back at us.

    Arrrgh, trim yer sails, and steady on, mate.

    Next fortnight we shall leave the solar system and finally escape from the RIAA.

    1. Re:Obligatory pirate jokes by lennier · · Score: 2

      'We've been using the flow of energetic charged particles at Voyager 1 as a kind of wind sock to estimate the solar wind velocity. We've found that the wind speeds are low in this region and gust erratically. For the first time, the wind even blows back at us.

      Arrrgh, trim yer sails, and steady on, mate.

      Obligatory interactive fiction link:

      Hoist Sail for the Heliopause and Home

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  15. Half of the success is a good name by Delirium+Tremens · · Score: 5, Funny

    Of course, it would travel well with a name like 'Voyager'. It is not like we had called it Phobos-Grunt. I mean, come on, phobos means 'fear' in Greek. And grunt, well, that just does not sound good.

  16. Re:I wonder... by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 5, Informative

    Voyager are not the only ones.

    Pioneer 10 and 11 were both launched with sufficient velocity to escape the solar system. They were launched before Voyager, but did not have as large a velocity, so were passed by the Voyager probes in the 1990s as the furthest from the Earth.

    I'm pretty sure this was planned, since the Pioneer probes has this really cool plaque on them (designed by Carl Sagan), in the event they were found by alien species:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_plaque

  17. Re:This is what happens when Americans make things by mattack2 · · Score: 4, Informative

    it's not even possible to buy American-made goods even if you wanted to.

    While that's true for many types of things, ABC News has been doing a Made in America series for most of this year. (I've only seen a few of the reports when reaired on World News Now.) They've found lots of things made in America, and some was cheaper than the foreign made stuff. I don't remember all of the examples, but toys, furniture, cooking implements were some of them. (The most recent report I saw was a followup where the Bundt pan factory hired a few more people, at least partially because sales had gone way up since the last report.)

    As others have said in past discussions of this type, what do you call a Toyota made (assembled/built) in Kentucky? Is that an American car or a foreign car?

    I disagree with your main premise, but if you want "American made", you can find it, at least for many things.. but you'll sometimes have to pay more, and definitely will have to look harder.

  18. Re:This is what happens when Americans make things by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2

    Products that you could once buy from an American manufacturer and you'd know they'd work perfectly for decades could now only be obtained from third-world manufacturers.

    You mean, like American cars in the 80s? I used to see quite a few of those clunkers when I first came to the US, and their lack of quality was shocking.

    Face it, American products had gone down the shitter a long time before NAFTA. I think this might be the equivalent of the uphill, through the snow, both ways stories old people tell.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  19. Did it hit the wall holding creation yet? by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm pretty excited for when Voyager crashes into the wall at the edge of creation. Then all the angels will fly in and all the sinners who believe in dinosaurs will be SOORRRY.

  20. Re:This is what happens when Americans make things by zixxt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You people will never realize that American-manufactured goods were once the best there were. They were durable, they actually weren't that expensive, and you could trust them.

    Any facts or figures to back up this hyperbole of a statement ?

    --
    ---- GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
  21. Re:This is what happens when Americans make things by Third+Position · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Are you a communist?

    He's a realist. I've still got an HP 11C (made in the USA), bought it almost 30 years ago.
    Its still going strong and boy do the batteries last. A pair of button batteries could last for 10/15 years of use. But that was a time when American industries acutally produced things, and management was not ruled by a band of legalised criminals.

    While the rest of what you say might be true, management has *always* been ruled by a band of legalised criminals. Globalization has merely provided them with the means to dare what they wouldn't have gotten away with before.

    --
    American Third Position
    Finally, a real choice!
  22. Consumers, not businessmen, killed US made goods by drnb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    lets face facts. they only outsourced for two main reasons.

    number 1, to avoid the EPA

    number 2, to avoid labor unions

    all of that 'classic american technology' was built with union hands and by people paying union dues. they went on something called a 'strike' once in a while, too. fascinating concept - you stop working in order to improve conditions and pressure employers.

    You are not facing facts. The fact is that consumers killed US manufacturing. Consumers selected goods based on one and only one criteria: retail price. When presented with a high quality US made product and a less expensive foreign made product the US consumers overwhelmingly chose the foreign made good. It wasn't the CEOs, the 1%, etc. The 99% did it to themselves. Corporations don't care where things are made, only that they sell, and consumers chose what sells and what does not. Corporate greed can lead to domestic manufacture just as easily as it can lead to foreign manufacture, it just depends on US consumers favoring domestic production over retail price. Assuming you are a US citizen and you need a flashlight for your car, there is a $20 US made Maglite next to a $7 chinese made brand, what do you chose? What does your choice tell the Maglite CEO to do?

    Unions knew this too. There was no shortage of "Save a Job, Buy American" bumper stickers in the 1970s. US Consumers didn't care, a classic example of tragedy of the commons.

    Fortunately the internet has made it easier to find US made goods than one might expect by browsing local brick and mortar establishments.

  23. Re:This is what happens when Americans make things by mattack2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Then by that logic, products made by American companies in other countries should count as "American made".

  24. Re:This is what happens when Americans make things by yodleboy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Whatever. I distinctly remember from Back to the Future that all the best stuff is made in Japan. And that was in 1985, so there!

  25. Re:This is what happens when Americans make things by similar_name · · Score: 2

    America invented disposable razors. It was an American idea to make things disposable.

  26. Re:This is what happens when Americans make things by mug+funky · · Score: 2

    truth be told, a lot of the profit is invested where the car was made - people need to be paid, machines need to be maintained/replaced.

    it's not as good as made and owned, but really, what's the difference between a rich person in Japan and a rich person in the USA? the bulk of the good comes from local manufacture. you can see this from the proliferation of USA companies that manufacture overseas - how much are they contributing to life in the USA?

  27. Voyager 1 Exits Our Solar System by Yvan256 · · Score: 2

    Its last message was, oddly enough, "So long and thanks for all the fish".

  28. Re:This is what happens when Americans make things by thrich81 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The successor to Voyager I was built a few years ago -- it's called New Horizons. Launched in 2006 and halfway to Pluto right now. Proudly Made in USA. Tell me about superior Chinese tech when they send something to Pluto.

  29. Re:This is what happens when Americans make things by swalve · · Score: 2

    That's the thing: we STILL make good products. We just gave up on a lot of the cheap shit because we got out-competed by foreigners who figured out how to manufacture stuff cheaper, or had people living in mud huts who were happy to work for less than we spend on lunch.

  30. Its going the wrong way! by Snaller · · Score: 2

    They are entering the slow zone!

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  31. Re:This is what happens when Americans make things by marnues · · Score: 2

    Toss-up and slam-dunk.

  32. Info by dtmos · · Score: 2

    The general DSN site is here; however, for detail on the system hardware, services, and capabilities, see the 810-5 Handbook.

  33. Re:Consumers, not businessmen, killed US made good by drnb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The fact is that consumers killed US manufacturing" The US is still ranked the #1 manufacturer in the world.

    Stats that make that claim usually compare dollar amounts. So extremely high priced products like jet liners, heavy caterpillar tractors, etc distort the numbers and do not reflect huge number of manufacturing jobs that have been exported. These products merely represent the heavy high tech manufacturing which is the last to go and is currently targeted for the next round of job exporting.

    These dollar based stats also show that we are just about to fall from that #1 position. You should look at the historical trend and not look at the current stat out of context.

  34. Re:Worse by mikael_j · · Score: 3, Informative

    You've clearly never seen a proper cheap CRT. Yes, compared to bottom-of-the-barrel TN TFTs they would still have been better when new but with ten years and some age-induced blurring on them even a cheap TN panel will be easier on the eyes.

    Of course, I've been using IPS monitors for years (and CRTs are a pain, you need a vertical refresh rate of at least 75 Hz for them to be usable and even then there are all sorts of other issues which are not cancelled out by "It's got blacker blacks than a TFT!!11one").

    --
    Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
  35. Re:This is what happens when Americans make things by martijnd · · Score: 2

    New Horizons was launched on January 19, 2006, directly into an Earth-and-solar-escape trajectory with an Earth-relative velocity of about 16.26 km/s (58,536 km/h; 36,373 mph) after its last engine shut down. Thus, the spacecraft left Earth at the greatest ever launch speed for a man-made object. It flew by Jupiter on February 28, 2007, the orbit of Saturn on June 8, 2008; and the orbit of Uranus on March 18, 2011. (Source: Wikipedia)

    Nice!