Slashdot Mirror


NASA's Got a Plan For a 'Galactic Positioning System' To Save Astronauts Lost in Space (space.com)

From a report: Outer space glows with a bright fog of X-ray light, coming from everywhere at once. But peer carefully into that fog, and faint, regular blips become visible. These are millisecond pulsars, city-sized neutron stars rotating incredibly quickly, and firing X-rays into the universe with more regularity than even the most precise atomic clocks. And NASA wants to use them to navigate probes and crewed ships through deep space. A telescope mounted on the International Space Station (ISS), the Neutron Star Interior Composition Explorer (NICER), has been used to develop a brand new technology with near-term, practical applications: a galactic positioning system, NASA scientist Zaven Arzoumanian told physicists Sunday (April 15) at the April meeting of the American Physical Society.

With this technology, "You could thread a needle to get into orbit around the moon of a disant planet instead of doing a flyby," Arzoumian told Live Science. A galactic positioning system could also provide "a fallback, so that if a crewed mission loses contact with the Earth, they'd still have navigation systems on board that are autonomous." Right now, the kind of maneuvers that navigators would need to put a probe in orbit around distant moons are borderline impossible.

102 comments

  1. Re:Talk about putting the cart before the horse! by Kremmy · · Score: 2

    Talk about ignoring the last half century of history.
    We have probes at the farthest edges of the solar system.
    We have needed this longer than I have been alive.

  2. pulsars for positioning is idea with old roots by iggymanz · · Score: 4, Informative

    the plaques on the Pioneer spacecraft launched in 1972 and 1973 showed the Earth's position from 14 pulsars

    1. Re: pulsars for positioning is idea with old roots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be interesting to look up the ascension/declination/distance of those pulsars and just see what kind of triangulation you can get by with to give you a decent positional fix. Milli-arc-second resolution to position you within a light minute? Whatever. There's GOTTA be a pretty horrendous tradeoff regarding capability vs usability.

      I'm sure their accuracy really isn't in the necessary range for thread-the-needle orbital insertions... anywhere.

    2. Re: pulsars for positioning is idea with old roots by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      It's replicated on Voyager too. Unfortunately the accompanying audio can be read as 'no intelligent life.'

    3. Re: pulsars for positioning is idea with old roots by slew · · Score: 1

      the plaques on the Pioneer spacecraft launched in 1972 and 1973 showed the Earth's position from 14 pulsars

      Just because it was an old idea, doesn't mean it was a good idea...

      Unfortunately, these vintage pulsar map would be nearly impossible to use for its intended purpose of allowing someone in the far distant future to locate us...

      However, for a short term galactic map usable on human time scales, pulsars might prove much more useful.

    4. Re: pulsars for positioning is idea with old roots by CRB9000 · · Score: 1

      We need 32 pulsar fixes. Nobody can do anything useful with just 14.

    5. Re: pulsars for positioning is idea with old roots by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      Hey, that's no way to talk about Janeway.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    6. Re: pulsars for positioning is idea with old roots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please don't link to forbes.com. They are know to have hosted malware-laden advertisements in the past:

      http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/17/voyagers-cosmic-map-of-earths-location-is-hopelessly-wrong-synopsis/

    7. Re: pulsars for positioning is idea with old roots by Strider- · · Score: 1

      I dunno, they might ask us to send more Chuck Barry.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    8. Re: pulsars for positioning is idea with old roots by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      Sorry but author was ignorant. The problems pointed out are for over many millions of years and immense distances. But the probes will go by other stars in a much shorter timescale, near first one in less than 100,000 years. The plaques would be useful for stars near earth and in tmespans of couple million of years.

    9. Re: pulsars for positioning is idea with old roots by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      article is incorrect, assumes times and distances which don't apply to probes as they will go near many star systems in less than 2 million years. So the nearby pulsars if any aliens find them in tens of thousands to couple million years will be the same and they won't change much.

      article is just a meme

    10. Re: pulsars for positioning is idea with old roots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the plaques on the Pioneer spacecraft launched in 1972 and 1973 showed the Earth's position from 14 pulsars

      Yeah, but positioning is not the reason we can't send a probe to orbit a distant moon.

      Paraphrasing Bill Clinton, It's the fuel, stupid.

    11. Re: pulsars for positioning is idea with old roots by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Darn, I was hoping the alien invasion force would have a problem with scale and be swallowed by a small dog.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    12. Re: pulsars for positioning is idea with old roots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The odds of the probes being intercepted by intelligent life at the first stars they approach is astronomically low, so the author's point is clearly not ignorant. Yours on the other hand...

    13. Re: pulsars for positioning is idea with old roots by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      the odds are nothing will ever find it anyway, ever

  3. Curious how this is really different by ausekilis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    GPS works by triangulating between 4-6 satellites that are all spread out. A 3d hexagon with a person in the middle somewhere.

    With extra-terrestrial navigation, the person is very far outside of that hexagon. It's really hard to find an exact position when you have multiple sources that - for all intents and purposes - are co-located. Get far enough from Earth and all GPS satellites are one dot in the distance. Looks like they've found a way to use various stars as the points of that hexagon. Cool.

    1. Re:Curious how this is really different by TFlan91 · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, wrong. Kinda. Hexagon is the right idea, but pulsars, pft.

      They found the seventh chevron.

    2. Re:Curious how this is really different by slew · · Score: 1

      GPS works by triangulating between 4-6 satellites that are all spread out. A 3d hexagon with a person in the middle somewhere.

      Since with GPS all the satellites need to be above the horizon, so they are all located on one side of you and are moving fast (so fast they need to use relativistic corrections).

      Also, GPS is actually based on trilateration (knowing the time and location of the satellites), not triangulation, but nice try...

    3. Re:Curious how this is really different by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Additionally GPS satellites don't have omnidirectional antennas. They have directional antennas that point downwards at the earth. For low earth orbit satellites this is not a problem. Some satellites in higher orbits are also able to use them because the beam is slightly larger than the earth and doesn't always point right at it. This allows you to pick up a satellite that is on the other side of the earth but not directly occluded by it.

    4. Re:Curious how this is really different by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, we need an 8th point for galaxies.

    5. Re:Curious how this is really different by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      But why was it built with 9?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    6. Re:Curious how this is really different by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 9th chevron is the point in time. Just watched an episode where SG-1 travelled in time, so the gate system is capable of this (in the show, time travel was an accident based upon a solar flare).

      Not sure how they program the time chevron, considering that all the other chevrons are programmed using symbols, and that really won't work for a time parameter...

      Prove me wrong!

  4. Maybe it's just me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But if you're lost in space, you should be more worried about air, water, food, temperature, and shelter.

    Just having a screen telling me I'm two million light years from Andromeda, while interesting, is as useless as an eBook about a topic no one cares about.

    1. Re:Maybe it's just me by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      More like something happens to your radio or antenna, but your systems are still otherwise OK. So you can get back to earth from some point in space, but mission control can't make course corrections and such. Fortunately, you have this space GPS doobly-doo that can let your computer guide itself.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Maybe it's just me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More importantly you need a lights dimming system on the ship's bridge, so that you save a few hundred watts on lighting while your super warp engines only use one billion watts down from five billions.

    3. Re:Maybe it's just me by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Good luck not getting shot down coming in from orbit without a radio and without being expected.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    4. Re:Maybe it's just me by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      What? Who would shoot down a spacecraft? Especially one that they'd see coming for months or even years? It's not like people would forget that they launched and then lost contact with it.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    5. Re:Maybe it's just me by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      That would depend on if the controlling agency and government was even still in existence. And the paranoia of what replaced it. ICBMs are also returning spacecraft with no identifying radio.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    6. Re:Maybe it's just me by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I think you are on a whole different level than I am... I'm talking about mitigating an antenna or equipment failure, and you are talking about the end of life as we know it. You are correct, knowing your location in space will not save us from nuclear war.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    7. Re:Maybe it's just me by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      And worse yet, knowing your location in space will not save you from some idiot on the ground thinking your returning spacecraft is nuclear war.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    8. Re:Maybe it's just me by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      That is just not a problem. First of all, they would know that they lost a spacecraft and would be looking for it. A spacecraft with a last known position and trajectory would be very easy to find, with its fuel supply defining any possible deviations. Second of all, nuclear war doesn't begin with a single re-entry - it begins with hundreds of launches. Stuff hits the Earth all the time from space without triggering nuclear war or attempts at a shootdown. Just a few years ago a huge meteor nailed Russia, causing millions in damage. No war, no attempts to shoot it down. Spacecraft-sized objects seem to hit earth every few years, and so far no nuclear crises.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  5. Better to have and not need... by haonlladdis · · Score: 1

    ...than to get off at the wrong exit of Intergalactic Highway 39.

  6. Re:Wake me when they can actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh fuck off. NASA has an excellent track record of developing and releasing technologies that have advanced space exploration for everyone. This technology would be useful to every country and company that launches anything out of earth orbit regardless of whether or not NASA ever sends another astronaut to space.

  7. Warning, warning, warning Will Robinson. by OffTheLip · · Score: 1

    Sorry, couldn't resist and get off my lawn.

    1. Re:Warning, warning, warning Will Robinson. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I watched 5 minutes of the reimaged version that has just come out. Was enough.

    2. Re:Warning, warning, warning Will Robinson. by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      "Have no fear, Smith is here!"

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
  8. Re:Wake me when they can actually... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    Don't be too hard on him - he's paid to post anti-US stuff.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  9. Crewed missions? by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

    Are people insane? Have you forgotten about the speed of light and basic physics? You aren't going to be visiting "distant moons" with crewed missions. That includes Mars.

    1. Re:Crewed missions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not? If Elon has his way, we'll be visiting Mars and its moons within 10 years. People are already lining up to join the crews. No reason we couldn't get to Jupiter a few decades after that, even with the propulsion technology we already have. It just takes solving a long series of problems, all of which are tractable -- this is a solution to one of them.

      Basic physics is no barrier to sending people around the solar system. It's all about human will, priorities and cooperation.

    2. Re:Crewed missions? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Have you forgotten about the speed of light and basic physics? You aren't going to be visiting "distant moons" with crewed missions. That includes Mars.

      I'm curious. What part of basic physics says that a spacecraft cannot be built which can travel for a couple-three years?

      Note that in terms of travel time, Mars is closer to Cape Canaveral than China was to Spain when Chris set out in the Santa Maria....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:Crewed missions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apart from that, with a big enough laser array (which has become a real possibility due to the advances in the last two decades in laser tech, funded by CD, DVD and BlueRay drives respectively), you can drive a small probe very fast to Mars ( 1 day) or a big one in a week or so. It's nothing that we cannot do with current tech.

    4. Re:Crewed missions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mars is closer to Cape Canaveral than China was to Spain when Chris set out in the Santa Maria...

      Ah, intimacy... It only yields children and problems. I want none from you.

    5. Re:Crewed missions? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      I'd point out that Chris Columbus miscalculated the size of the ocean *by half*, and nearly lost his ship to mutiny inspired by starvation, before sighting land.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  10. Re:Wake me when they can actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only Russia and China have the ability to put people into space.

  11. Re:Talk about putting the cart before the horse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Talk about ignoring the last half century of history."

    Like the part where we don't even have the Concorde anymore, no one's been to the Moon in almost as long, and all we do is send trained monkeys into Low Earth Orbit?

    "We have probes at the farthest edges of the solar system."

    How many are manned? Could you design a system that would keep a person alive for 40 years with no external inputs and no resupplies?

    "We have needed this longer than I have been alive."

    No, you have dreamed about sci-fi that will never happen. Get a real goal.

  12. Re:Talk about putting the cart before the horse! by CRB9000 · · Score: 2

    I'm so sorry your investment in Buggy Whip futures has turned you sour on the future.

  13. Re:Talk about putting the cart before the horse! by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

    I think what the GP means is that no _astronaut_ has been so far from earth as to need this tech. It may well save a probe, but it won't save an astronaut... because if they're far enough away to need this, then knowing where you are isn't much help.

    --
    Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
  14. SR-71 Blackbird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not really that new. The SR-71 had an "Astro-inertial navigation system" that could track stars day and night to locate the aircraft.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird#Astro-inertial_navigation_system
    In addition, the use of pulsars to accurately determine Earthly position had been considered since at least the 1980s [citation required]. (I worked for a major US inertial navigation test system outfit in the 80s and the use of pulsars was discussed to solve a particularly nasty set of specs required by one customer.)

    1. Re:SR-71 Blackbird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure all the nuclear ICBMs have celestial navigation systems too.

    2. Re: SR-71 Blackbird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, not celestial, inertial.

      B52s have a celestial system tho.

    3. Re: SR-71 Blackbird by rossdee · · Score: 1

      Trident SLBM s use star maps to improve their accuracy
      since they could be launched from anywhere

  15. What about the Chinese ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America may have terminally lost its way but what about the Chinese ?

  16. Re:Talk about putting the cart before the horse! by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

    There is nobody that is even alive today, nor probably for the next several centuries, that is going to need something like this.

    And George Boole was just a madman.

  17. I have Often Wondered... by sycodon · · Score: 1

    ... when watching Star Trek, if currently NASA had in a mind a method that could be used much like a GPS.

    This could very well be useful in our lifetimes if they were to build a ship powered by Ion, plasma, etc. drives that could point and go instead of relying on being thrown across space like a rock.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  18. Precision by TFlan91 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    GPS has what, ~3/4 meters precision? That's on Earth.

    This would eventually have 1 km precision in _all_ of space. Ya that's a big circle on my futuristic, hologram smartphone Goopple Maps (c), but in _all_ of space?! Damn...

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

      No, it won't.
      There was recently an article talking about how pulsars aren't as regular or reliable as originally thought, and we've now observed as least one hiccup in a three year observational period.
      That's a big deal.

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

      > but in _all_ of space?! Damn...

      Probably not outside of our galaxy, and most of space is outside of our galaxy.

    3. Re:Precision by WallyL · · Score: 1

      GPS has what, ~3/4 meters precision? That's on Earth.

      This would eventually have 1 km precision in _all_ of space. Ya that's a big circle on my futuristic, hologram smartphone Goopple Maps (c), but in _all_ of space?! Damn...

      What, a 708m diameter too large for you?

  19. Re:Wake me when they can actually... by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

    I don't disagree, but they should really be focused on recycling technologies. We still have to send water up to crack into oxygen while throwing the shit overboard and continuously taking in new resources. We need mechanisms to recycle (not filter) things like Ammonia and shit for space habitation a Hell of a lot more than we need a tech to navigate which would be dependent upon a tech for propulsion we aren't anywhere near having yet (that's not to say this isn't useful research, but they should really be focused on advanced propulsion development and waste reclamation - the former just to be able to get anywhere [dread reckoning with an engine is better than GPS without so much as having legs] and the latter to be able to actually survive without constant resupply from Earth and the associated logistic chain.)

  20. Pulsar "quakes" by shayd2 · · Score: 2
    Just a side comment. Neutron stars do change pulse times. Not often but often enough that a GPS system will need error handling code for one "missing" signal.

    See Neutron pulse rate

    1. Re:Pulsar "quakes" by TFlan91 · · Score: 1

      Ha! There was just a story a few days about about the discovery of a pulsar "hiccup".

      Now there is a story claiming their reliability, classic Slashdot move, classic move.

    2. Re:Pulsar "quakes" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In another article, I remember that they mentioned this problem. But they'd selected something like 5-10 pulsars that were the most reliable, and planned to use those.

    3. Re:Pulsar "quakes" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      edit: it was actually four pulsars.

      "In the SEXTANT demonstration that occurred over the Veteran’s Day holiday in 2017, the SEXTANT team selected four millisecond pulsar targets — J0218+4232, B1821-24, J0030+0451, and J0437-4715 — and directed NICER to orient itself so it could detect X-rays within their sweeping beams of light. The millisecond pulsars used by SEXTANT are so stable that their pulse arrival times can be predicted to accuracies of microseconds for years into the future."

      https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/nasa-team-first-to-demonstrate-x-ray-navigation-in-space

  21. Awesome! by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    So after our own solar system is utterly destroyed, the few survivors will still have some idea where they are! Unfortunately, faster than light travel still isn't even a remote possibility.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Awesome! by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      The fastest man made object has only acheived 0.00024% the speed of light. And that was an unmanned probe. Faster than light travel is impossible (we can prove this). Even getting a significant fraction of the speed of light with a manned or unmanned probe isn't even a remote possibility.

    2. Re: Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What about all those particles produced at cern. Are they not man made objects?

    3. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Faster than light travel is impossible"

      Sure under current models but a paradigm shift may very well make it possible.

    4. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Galaxies beyond the Hubble horizon are moving away from us faster than light. I wouldn't give up all hope yet.

    5. Re: Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. The only way for FTL travel to work is to find a way to take a shortcut outside of spacetime. Wormholes and that kind of shit, which are theoretically possibly with magic technologies and infinite energy sources.

      There's no way for anything to reach lightspeed without using up all its mass accelerating. The faster you move, the more mass you need to throw behind you to accelerate. It's a simple equation: e=mc^2

    6. Re:Awesome! by meglon · · Score: 1

      Not exactly. They're receding from us faster than the speed of light, but it's a combination of their relative directional movement and that the actual space in between is expanding (mostly the expanding part).

      But a bit more on point, 120 years ago traveling through the air on a heavier than air vehicle wasn't even remotely possible.... so there is that time thing to consider.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    7. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Stark Trek they fly so fast, that the stars in the galaxy are flying past the windows. To get that effect in real life according to the Celestia space simulator you'll have to travel 5-20 light years a second.

      Flying around in our solar system with the speed of light is boring as fuck, it takes forever to get anywhere. Try spending 8 minutes being a ray of light emanating from the Sun and flying past Earth, the speed of light is not fast.
      What changes do 'God' need to make to make the speed of light go 600.000 km/s instead of 300.000 the higs field ?

    8. Re:Awesome! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Assuming that Special Relativity holds, FTL travel is equivalent to time travel. If you have one, you have the other.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    9. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      History of humankind should have thought us one thing in particular: it is very improbable that any belief, model of reality and physical understanding humankind had at $date is going to survive extreme advancements in science and technology for long timeframes after $date.

      That's why science, rebuttal of science, free speech and freedom of teaching is the most important thing there is, because the only thing we is that our knowledge is finite and in almost all cases eventually proven wrong.

      I'm not saying Einstein was wrong. I'm saying that every era of humanity had their own Einsteins - Aristotles, Archimedes, Newtons - and we later discovered that each of their description of reality was incomplete.

      It would not be a miracle if we found a way around Einstein's speed of light. It would be a miracle if this description of physics would NOT be found incomplete eventually.

  22. Re:Talk about putting the cart before the horse! by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 1

    I disagree, George Boole was false.

    --
    That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
  23. Re:Wake me when they can actually... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    Actually, I suspect we do, right now. We would just have to skip some testing and take chances.

    'safely put people in space' is a better goal.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  24. Getting Lost is Hard with Current Tech by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    We have probes at the farthest edges of the solar system.

    Indeed we do but crucially those probes do not contain astronauts nor can they do much more than float through the void so even if they got lost there is nothing they can do about it. With our current technology manned spacecraft have large teams of people on Earth monitoring them and very limited propulsion so getting lost is extremely hard and, if it happens, there is probably nothing to be done anyway. Indeed, given that the furthest anyone has ever gone so far is the moon you can find out where Earth is by just using your eyes.

    1. Re:Getting Lost is Hard with Current Tech by mark-t · · Score: 1

      This was kind of my point... Even at the edges of the solar system, you will still have a pretty good idea where earth is just by looking towards the sun, which will still be readily distinguishable from other stars in the sky even at that distance., and in fact much further out still than even that.

    2. Re:Getting Lost is Hard with Current Tech by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      You don't understand how triangulation works, do you? One point of reference doesn't tell you where you are. At best, it tells you how far away you are from that point of reference.

    3. Re:Getting Lost is Hard with Current Tech by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

      Actually, that does not help. The Solar System is a large place and the Earth is 150 million kilometres from the sun and very hard to see even from Jupiter or Mars. Your original point is still correct though but for a different reason: our propulsion technology is so limited that for the foreseeable future interplanetary flights will involve precise launch windows and months of coasting without thrust. This means that it is hard to get lost since gravity is determining where you go and, if you did somehow manage to get lost then there is almost no chance that you could ever get back...so all this tech will do is tell you precisely where you will be when you die which, scarily, may be months away if you have enough life support.

  25. Re:Talk about putting the cart before the horse! by Kremmy · · Score: 2

    > No, you have dreamed about sci-fi that will never happen. Get a real goal.

    We use the stars to navigate the land, the seas, and the sky.
    We built a constellation of artificial stars that speak our gadgets use to locate themselves.
    And now we're talking about using natural (as far as we know) pulsing stars as a constellation of stars that speaks to our gadgets, using them to locate themselves.
    What I'm talking about is in no way science fiction. It's the plainly visible, natural advancement of technology.

  26. Signaling the Borg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This idea was used in Enterprise to signal the Borg. The episode was Regeneration, in the second season, involving the crashed Borg sphere from First Contact. The frequencies of three pulsars were used as position references to provide the location of Earth. The signal was sent by Borg drones in the 22nd century and would arrive in the delta quadrant in the 24th century. The approach for positioning sounds a lot like what's being done here.

  27. nasa: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We watched star trek and saw them do it.

  28. Re:Talk about putting the cart before the horse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    all we do is send trained monkeys into Low Earth Orbit?

    you can thank Nixon for that. he killed the moon program and started development of the shuttle program which couldn't get beyond low earth orbit.

  29. Re:Talk about putting the cart before the horse! by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

    Like the part where we don't even have the Concorde anymore, no one's been to the Moon in almost as long, and all we do is send trained monkeys into Low Earth Orbit?

    Or maybe like the part where NASA has the launch of a Mars probe scheduled for about 3 weeks from now on May 5th?

    Oh, wait, that really fucks up your argument, doesn't it?

  30. GPS by bananaquackmoo · · Score: 1

    So... they made a different version of GPS and named it... GPS? Global... Galactic... they might want a name that starts with a different letter.

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

      I nominate GaPS. Can I get a second?

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

      So... they made a different version of GPS and named it... GPS? Global... Galactic... they might want a name that starts with a different letter.

      They didn't use any letters in common. It is called XNAV.

  31. Re:Talk about putting the cart before the horse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Talk about ignoring the last half century of history. We have probes at the farthest edges of the solar system. We have needed this longer than I have been alive.

    I can see how this might come in handy if we ever decide to travel to Mars or something, but given our manned spaceships' traveling capabilities up until now all a lost astronaut had to do was look around till he saw a big blue planet and then head straight for it.

  32. Re:Talk about putting the cart before the horse! by Strider- · · Score: 1

    The Apollo missions included a periscope and modified sextant to allow the astronauts to navigate based on sightings from various stars. It was critically important to ensure the craft was where they thought it was.

    --
    ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
  33. NTP Stratum by darkain · · Score: 1

    Great! Atomic Clocks are already Stratum 0 in NTP. Does this make these new things Stratum -1?

  34. Re:Talk about putting the cart before the horse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, in a story about a galactic positioning system for ASTRONAUTS, launching an unmanned probe to Mars really fucks me up.

    Clinical sub-idiot.

  35. Re:Talk about putting the cart before the horse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I disagree, George Boole was false.

    That's true!

  36. Re:Talk about putting the cart before the horse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Talk about ignoring the last half century of history."

    Like the part where we don't even have the Concorde anymore, no one's been to the Moon in almost as long, and all we do is send trained monkeys into Low Earth Orbit?

    "We have probes at the farthest edges of the solar system."

    How many are manned? Could you design a system that would keep a person alive for 40 years with no external inputs and no resupplies?

    "We have needed this longer than I have been alive."

    No, you have dreamed about sci-fi that will never happen. Get a real goal.

    Yes this is where your brand of trolling goes the way of the dodo... you dodo.

    This is needed if we are going to have men on mars and men on the moon and that is not a pipe dream according to the people who are controlling the purse strings at this point in history. Of course you are not on the same page but that is not surprising as you seem to make this mistake a lot on /. when you post drivel like you do.

  37. Impossible by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    Right now, the kind of maneuvers that navigators would need to put a probe in orbit around distant moons are borderline impossible.

    Human space history is full of deemed impossible things that were accomplished.

    The real challenge nowadays is to accomplish anything within modern space industry Quality Assurance standards.

  38. Help! by ShoulderOfOrion · · Score: 2

    The GPS said this wormhole was a shortcut!

  39. Already done? by cashman73 · · Score: 1

    Didn't the Ancients already figure this out using a set of six astrological symbols representing any point in space, with the seventh symbol representing the point of origin? Plus, Captain Samantha Carter figured out how to account for stellar drift.

  40. Re:Talk about putting the cart before the horse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Blackbird spyplane had a navigation system based on celestial navigation. It had a database of the brightest stars and could calculate the coordinates of the aircraft both during night-time and day-time. Special filters masked out atmospheric light and allowed starlight to be detected.

  41. Re:Talk about putting the cart before the horse! by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    And I think we still don't have it.

    Unless you land a probe *on* the distant moon first, that starts broadcasting the moon's position relative to the rest of the galaxy, a galactic positioning system still is not going to help the hypothetical probe find its way into orbit.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  42. Re:Wake me when they can actually... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    Intra-sub-system orbit != space

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  43. Um, delta-vee? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    "You could thread a needle to get into orbit around the moon of a disant planet instead of doing a flyby,"

    If a probe is heading for a distant planet, it's moving pretty fast, because we don't want to wait several lifetimes to get the information back. If it's moving pretty fast, its nowhere near orbital speed for a moon (Triton?), and its trajectory is going to be limited so it won't be able to play fancy games with gravity slingshots. That's the big problem with getting into orbit. Not precision of trajectory.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes