Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Miniature Lab Begins Science Experiments in Outer Space (reuters.com)

Posted by msmash on from the moving-forward dept.

An anonymous reader shares a Reuters report: Orbiting the earth at more than 500 kilometers (300 miles), a tiny satellite with a laboratory shrunk to the size of a tissue box is helping scientists carry out experiments that take gravity out of the equation. The technology was launched into space last month by SpacePharma, a Swiss-Israeli company, which on Thursday announced that its first experiments have been completed successfully. In space, with hardly any interference from earth's gravity, cells and molecules behave differently, helping researchers make discoveries in fields from medicine to agriculture. Nestle turned to zero gravity -- or what scientists refer to as microgravity -- to perfect the foam in its chocolate mousse and coffee, while drugmakers like Eli Lilly have used it to improve drug designs.

27 comments

  1. Miniature Lab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Arf Arf Arf!

  2. First for friday! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's friday friday gotta get down on friday!

  3. No it doesn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Butthead

  4. After Trump.... by pablo_max · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sadly, after Trump's massive cuts to science, miniature was the best they could do. I believe they have the below list of experiments to choose from..
    http://www.toysrus.com/product...

    1. Re:After Trump.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would you expect from a guy with miniature hands?

  5. Of all the potential benefits... by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This benefit makes me sad: "Nestle turned to zero gravity -- or what scientists refer to as microgravity -- to perfect the foam in its chocolate mousse and coffee"

    Really? I never considered "imperfect food foam" to be a pressing problem. This seems both arrogant and wasteful.

    1. Re:Of all the potential benefits... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never considered "pictures of dead rocks floating in a radiation-blasted hell" to be a pressing problem either, but don't you dare mock our glorious Future In Space (tm)!

      So, it makes you sad that the billions of people alive right here right now may be able to enjoy their coffee and chocolate a bit more because of your precious space... but fantasizing about Star Trek makes you happy?

    2. Re:Of all the potential benefits... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      What's sadder is that the SCSC was cancelled so that the ISS could be doing this r&d for cheaper. At least that was NASA's promise.

      The SCSC would have been three times larger than the LHC.

    3. Re:Of all the potential benefits... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I can see the ad now: "$70 billion dollars has been spent by world governments so YOU can have the very best fluffy bar from Boondoggle Chocolate Company!"

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    4. Re:Of all the potential benefits... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, *THAT* is what's really sad, that space has such a propaganda and lobbying machine behind it when it's obvious that space is a dead end.

    5. Re:Of all the potential benefits... by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 0

      Suddenly, I'm reminded of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.

    6. Re:Of all the potential benefits... by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Assuming they figure out how to perfect the foam in zero gravity environment, how is this going to help them here on Earth, I wonder.

    7. Re:Of all the potential benefits... by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that seemed pretty infeasible to me, too. However, I finally found a reference about this Nestle research. (http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/Space_for_dessert)

      Two things emerge:
      1. The research was *not* actually on the ISS. It was on a research airplane. So, it's a little less difficult than I thought it was.
      2. The article implies -- but does not explain exactly how -- Nestle was intending to benefit in the production of Earthbound foamy products, by studying them in microgravity.

      In conclusion, it's not as weird as it seemed from reading TFA. Kinda weird, though. Sounds almost like Nestle food scientists managed to boondoggle a ride on the "vomit comet" airplane.

  6. Outer space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A whole 500 kilometers up! Wow! Do the Andromedans know about our outer space capabilities?

    I suppose saying "upper atmosphere" is much less glamorous?

    And guess what... at 500 kilometers up, given that the radius of the Earth is 6000 kilometers, gravity is still very much part of the equation.

    1. Re:Outer space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even 6000 kilometres is nothing compared to the diameter of the Sun.

      And why did you pick the radius of the Earth instead of the diameter?

    2. Re:Outer space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, a quick calculation shows it's still around 86% normal gravity (see below), however you don't really notice it when orbiting due to being in continual free-fall.

      Gravity at given height:
      = gravity at radius earth * (radius earth / (radius earth + height)) ^ 2
      = 9.81 m/s^2 * (6370 / (6370 + 500))^2
      = 8.4 m/s^2

      (Radius and height in km just for simplicity, because the units cancel; you just care about the square of the percentage difference from the centre of mass. Use meters if you're doing other calculations, to match the units on the gravity constant.)

    3. Re:Outer space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because the thing is in orbit around the earth, duh. Please surrender your nerd credentials at the door.

    4. Re:Outer space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, because that's how gravity is calculated, with reference to the distance to the center ... but I better let you go back to grade school, I've used up enough of your time.
      Also, this thing isn't orbiting the Sun, so mentioning it also makes little to no sense.
      Why didn't the article mention the circumference of the orbit instead of the altitude?

      Here, maybe this can help:

      http://www.distancetomars.com/

      Boy, you sure come off pretty stupid in this exchange, I'm guessing you started St Paddy's day a bit early and you're already knee-deep in empty bottles?

  7. refer to as? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scientists call it "microgravity" because it's not zero gravity: the experiment will always feel a small tide. Zero gravity is an ideal equivalent to 0 kelvins for low temperatures. You can approach it but not achieve it.

  8. Did they at least call it "Scoop"? by Grog6 · · Score: 1

    If I lived in Piedmont, I'd be worried; a lot of things seem to be repeating lately. :)

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
  9. Terrible summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Earth still exerts a gravitational pull at orbital altitudes. They're not doing experiments outside of the influence of Earth's gravity, they're doing experiments in free fall.

    1. Re:Terrible summary by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      The Earth still exerts a gravitational pull at orbital altitudes. They're not doing experiments outside of the influence of Earth's gravity, they're doing experiments in free fall.

      You were close. Because the unit was orbiting, it was not in "free" fall. Whatever the decay rate of its orbit, then that's the micro-gravity it was under (ignoring atmospheric braking).

      What's the difference between free fall and stable orbit? Well, hmmn, it's got to do with orbital speed and altitude. Take any satellite, like the ISS, and just stop its orbit, leaving it at the altitude it is. The earth's gravity will exert a noticeable effect on it – it will go into free fall.

      Difference without a distinction, almost.

  10. How is this news? by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

    You can buy a Cube-Sat online. 10 x 10 x 10 cm^3, and it fits into a standard deployment thingie – which the rocket going up, with a bit of space/weight to spare, is happy to "fill-up the bus" before launch. You can buy double and triple-sized Cube-Sats, and it sounds like this one was 20 x 10 x 10 cm^3.

    High-school kids do projects with these routinely. Commercial giants getting into the game is no surprise––they just don't get a subsidy to put the thing into orbit.

    It is not news that anyone ran an experiment with a Cube-Sat: http://www.cubesat.org/about/

  11. Bullshit by dschiptsov · · Score: 1

    Earth gravitational force is absolutely negligible compared to molecular forces. Even hydrogen bonds are to strong to be affected by gravity.

    1. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, this is why water forms balls in my kitchen if I leave the faucet running. Holy fuck that's some powerful stupid you got in your skullhole, son.

  12. atmospheric drag CAUSES the decay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? The decay is caused by atmospheric drag. There are some other non-conservative forces up there, but radiation push (solar sail affect) is close to conservative and the affect of magnetic fields is conservative, so almost all of the decay is from atmospheric drag ... and to the idiot who thinks LEO is outer space, please put your nerd card into the round bin.