The comment was intended as a general thought on whether users should have to trust the programmers of any application, whether it be a game or a browser or a specialized net/Internet application. I use Mozilla, for example, because it's open source and in part because that way the authors can't hide anything sneaky in it.
These are my personal feelings, but: if Microsoft et al think the user is untrustable and thus needs to be walled out from the system, then why should users trust Microsoft et al in return?
A very well written and informative article. I'm intrigued by the story of ShowEQ -- and the fact that Sony seems to want to protect their system by deciding what users can and can't run on their computers. It reminds me of the video player that uninstalled Ad-aware automatically, claiming that running it wasn't allowed under its license. I don't believe that such things are really legal -- are they not an invasion of privacy and an illegal search? (Alas, the Constitution's protections against this in the US are only applicable to the government itself, but such practices, I feel, are going too far) Sooner or later, I think, Sony will be dragged into court over this and sued. What if, for example, they use their little spy applet to suck data off someone's computer that gives them an advantage (a competitor's computer that had confidential information, for example?).
I am, though, a little surprised to see that the ShowEQ people haven't been sued under the DMCA. And I'm glad they haven't, because what they are doing is reverse engineering and they are not actually hacking into the client or the server, so it is legal. They are not trying to pirate the game. They are merely trying to see what exactly their computer is saying to the server and what it is receiving from it. A perfectly fair thing to do, I think, because it IS their own property and the owner of it has the right to know what exactly is happening, so they can choose whether or not to run a given application instead of having to trust the programmers. Checks and balances.
Note: I don't play Everquest. I call it EverCrack, actually. I don't play games that I have to pay a monthly fee for. I prefer to play single-player games, or sometimes multiplayer, offnetwork, with people I already know.
Five shuttles? Don't count Enterprise -- she can't fly in space. There are four: Columbia, Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour.
Discovery is down for maintenance and upgrades right now, which leaves three. Columbia is too heavy to fly to the space station with any amount of useful payload on board, so she flies research missions that don't dock with the station -- the next flight will be a research mission, actually.
That leaves two: Endeavour, in orbit now, and Atlantis, which is being processed right now to carry the next bit of the station up. When Atlantis is up, Endeavour will be in processing.
Schnucks. I live in St. Louis. If I were that guy, I'd have had my name changed.
And they did have those carts in my local store for a bit -- I was disappointed when they disappeared, as I had fun goofing with them. They also had digital price displays you could push a button on to get the unit price for something. Those, too, vanished.
You'd think they'd be easier to update than the "by hand" ones, but apparently not...
Why not instruct your card company to charge back all attempts by Yahoo to cancel your service? After getting whacked by charge back fees ON TOP OF getting reverse-billed for each of the monthly payments, they should eventually get the idea. Call your card issuer.
This kind of thing is one of the major benefits of having a card. And just think -- if they get enough chargebacks, they'll eventually have to pay more for being able to accept cards, and if it gets really bad, get their accounts rescinded.
Those protections are there for you, not just the big companies.
The A-4 rocket on which this one is based actually did use alcohol and liquid oxygen for fuel. Alcohol isn't that hard to make, so designing a ballistic missile that uses readily-available (more so than others, I imagine) during a major war was a wise decision. Wernher von Braun was many things, but "idiot" wasn't one of them.
However, the A-4 can't launch anything very heavy into space -- it wasn't designed to be able to. It couldn't even when made into a two-stage rocket for the WAC-Corporal program. One of its descendants finally did, though -- the Jupiter-C rocket, a modified Redstone (itself an A-4 derivative) launched Explorer 1 (the first US satellite) into space in January 1958. But Explorer 1 was not all that massive.
So the Canadian Arrow rocket is just going to end up re-creating Alan Shepard's flight, more or less. Rather just, I think, considering that he was launched by a Redstone missile.
One of the later Keyhole satellites -- 11 or 12, I'm not sure which and I haven't had the time to look into it since deciding to last week -- actually is based on the Hubble design. However, the optics are not the same -- they cannot be.
As others have said already, the primary mirror is not of the right design to look back at the Earth and actually yield the right kind of details. Hubble focuses to infinity and an earth-imaging satellite only has to focus to a distance of a few hundred miles -- the exact altitude depends on the satellite's orbit.
Furthermore, Hubble's optics are too sensitive to be pointed at the Earth or the Moon -- both are so bright that they'd blow out the sensors.
However, it is entirely possible for such a satellite to be launched by the Shuttle -- the size of the payload bay, don't forget, was set by a DoD request ("you set it up like this or we don't pay you to help develop it") and there were a bunch of DoD flights back in the 1980s and early 1990s. And Hubble is just about perfectly sized to fit in the bay -- it's the largest payload, physically, ever launched, I think.
So it'd make sense that the civilian version of the KH-1x satellite in question exactly fits -- because that's the payload the shuttle was designed for. (A set payload bay size then leads to the overall size of the orbiter, which leads to the wing design, which leads to the requirements for engines, fuel, boosters, etc...)
It also means that, since the Soviets copied the US shuttle design for Buran, ALL reusable space planes that have ever flown were designed to carry this mystery DoD payload! Even the one that's not ours! (I don't say "manned" because Buran carried no crew during its only flight.)
I hate the "dark side" misconception and every time I hear it I want to bash the asker over the head with that damn CD. "But a big, famous band said it, it's got to be true!" "Yeah, and how do you know they passed grade school science? Now shut up and read this astronomy textbook..."
Isn't it a 2-CD set? Good, heavier. All the better to bash morons with.
Actually, the Corona program did use Kodak film. Due to static problems with early film (which caused arcing on the exposed negatives), Kodak developed polymer-based film.
I work in an electron microscopy lab and the film used for the EM systems is Kodak 4489 "ESTAR Thick Base" -- which means that my paychecks depend directly on something that was developed for use in space. (As a space buff -- Buran is/was the Soviet space shuttle -- I'm quite pleased with that situation.) A spinoff, as they're commonly called.
The EM film is mounted on metal plates for exposing and when developed yields 8cmx10cm transparencies using Kodak D-19 developer. For Corona, the exposed film was placed in a reentry capsule which parachuted back to earth and was retrieved midair by a C-119 Flying Boxcar aircraft. It doesn't take that long to develop at all and can be ready for analysis the same day.
"KODAK Electron Micrography Film 4489 has approximately half the speed of KODAK Electron Image Film SO-163 film, but exhibits less curl and shorter pump-down times. Coated on a 7mils Estar support, KODAK Electron Microscope Film offers exceptional dimensional stability and eliminates the use of traditional glass support products."
We are still using film because (1) electron microscopes are very expensive, so ours are from the mid-1970s, (2) it's not that easy to retrofit them, at least as far as I understand it, for full digital, and (3) it's not all that hard to put the negatives on a lightbox and shoot them with a professional digital SLR, which is how we get the images into computers for processing. And, of course, (4) digital camera technology still hasn't beat out film for quality yet, though we're hoping to get a Canon EOS-1Ds soon that will start to close the quality gap.
(The film is kept in a vacuum once in the microscope -- something else which I'm sure was a benefit for Corona.)
If you want to see some sample EM images taken with the Kodak film, see our lab's image gallery. Don't bother with Kodak's sample images, they suck.;)
I'm pretty sure that Kodak also designed the Corona camera system, though I'm not certain who the actual builder was.
Charter doesn't enable the direct link function, and with many cable boxes (including Charter's) the IR blaster doesn't always work. I don't have a TIVO yet but I'm addicted due to a friend who does have one (so I'll buy one after I move). His solution? A "black box" that covers the IR blaster and the sensor on the cable box so there's virtually no way the "change channel" command can be missed.
My solution, after I move and buy a TIVO? Not use digital cable. Forget about cable boxes -- they're more headache than they're worth. I temporarily don't have a TV, so I unplugged the cable box... and Charter sent a service guy to my apartment to find out why. Uhm? Why do I need my cable box plugged in if I have no TV temporarily, and what business is it of theirs anyway?
Starlings, and crows.;) Though West Nile has killed off seemingly 90% of the ones that used to roost around my workplace. Hopefully they'll rebound soon.
I think society needs to reshuffle its priorities. I don't believe Profit Is King. I do a lot of things that cost me more than otherwise (biodegradable car wash/wax stuff, for instance, start with the small stuff) and donate to nonprofits.
Anyway, for people like you and me, I've said in another response to my post that there need to be free (supported by taxpayers, perhaps) or cheap (same) tools to make sites more accessible. Right now the tool that works with my web development software is priced out of reach for hobbyists like me... and that's a shame because change often starts with who? The people.
As for the racism comment... what I had in mind was the notion of rejecting someone because of some attribute about them that they can't change. I can't give myself perfect hearing any more than someone can change the color of their skin. Maybe it could have been said a little better. Hope that clarification helps a little.
Commercial and government sites should be required -- I think that corporations and for-profit companies should have the money to do it, and the government's responsibility is to serve all its people to the fullest. Non-profits should be strongly encouraged to do so, possibly through federal grant money (the government is good at squandering its balanced budget, might as well be on something worthwhile) or other assistance programs.
Individual hobbyists like me should have easy access to the tools they need to do it. And they should be free, or cheap (see "assistance programs" above) -- I want to convert my site to accessibility but the tool that integrates with Dreamweaver costs $$$ so unfortunately it'll end up waiting til the next redesign of my page, which will have it from the start instead of adding it via a pain-in-the-butt retrofit.
But I do have plans to do it, which I wouldn't have if webmaster-education efforts hadn't spread the word about how to do it.
Out of those here I've seen one top-level post which directly deals with someone who is disabled -- someone who has a coworker who is blind.
I am myself hearing-impaired and this means that I fall under the ADA. When I went to college I could get them to give me a note-taker if I'd wanted to.
There are many things I can't do that aren't covered by the law -- for example I've been getting interested in birding. But I can't hear birdsong for the most part, and I have no directional hearing. So any calls I do hear -- I can't tell where they're coming from to take a visual look to see what made the noise.
I accept that shortcoming, as I accept many others, because I know that my disability prevents me from doing some things. But I don't feel that I should be less able to access, say, the Internet -- just because it's not a "physical place". If web pages required sound in order to function rather than sight, I'd be in quite a fix.
Should it matter what it would cost to fix that problem for a webmaster? No. Why? It's discrimination, plain and simple. It sends the message 'We don't want you deaf people coming in here.'
Might as well put up a sign that says "No (insert ethnic group here) need apply."
All they need to do is hire those managers responsible for closing the ones on the West Coast. And the next thing you know, our computers will go on an Internet slowdown campaign to protest the threat of DRM-enabled systems and thus lost sales...
I used to use Spaceflight Now to watch launches and retrieve video later of those I was not able to watch. Now, the videos are locked behind a password which they demand a fee for.
As a taxpayer who (willingly, mind you! note my name!) supports the space program already with tax dollars, I don't feel I should have to pay to view something I already helped to fund. While I still read SFN's text coverage, which is still free, I can't view the videos.
Is there another site out there that posts timely (SFN does it same day or next day) videos of launches? And if the Ecliptic's site fails to post the entire sequence, all 10+ minutes of it, where might I find it?
Heck, what about archives of on-orbit ops, other launch shots, reentry/approach, and landing? I've a video project in mind that I'd like to use footage for...
(solar powered I guess - the W/m^2 will probably be too low to power the probe at that point).
Nope. Actually, solar panels are not a practical means of powering a spacecraft beyond the asteroid belt, and these probes go far, far beyond that.
Pioneer 10 and 11, Voyagers 1 and 2, Ulysses, Galileo, and Cassini (to name many of the "big" and famous probes that are out there right now) are all nuclear powered. They carry radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) that carry plutonium as a fuel source. Surprisingly (?), the Viking I and II landers that touched down on Mars in 1976 are also nuclear-powered.
The probes are gradually dying because their plutonium fuel is running out, not because the sun is fading away. At the distances at which many of these probes travel, the Sun appears (from their location) simply as a bright start among many other stars.
Partly correct... Mars Global Surveyor was lost because a contractor failed to correctly understand that NASA was specifying units in metric and processed the computations for in-flight trajectory corrections using standard English units. So the probe simply burned up in Mars' atmosphere.
A shame; I was there to see the launch.
It's kind of like my recent trip to Canada: During the trip, my Canadian friend and I crossed the border back into the US to attend a convention. If he had failed to recognize that US road signs are in miles per hour, he would have been travelling too slowly (i.e. 70 kph is slower than 70 mph) and concievably have caused a crash if an unwary driver had plowed into the back of our car.
Correctly recognizing the proper units used and adjusting for the difference is an elemental part of operating a motor vehicle across the US/Canada border -- or of operating a multimillion dollar interplanetary spacecraft as it travels to Mars.
Just another reason, I think, that the US should join just about every other country and switch to metric for everything -- road signs and food packaging should just be the beginning.
Eh. Like Joe Public will ever care. But hey, if it saves a few space probes, I'm all for it.
Actually, that was Voyager VI. Except we were told of only two: Voyager I and Voyager II (actually launched first, if I recall correctly, due to a faster trajectory.) Hmmm... Wonder if the Men in Black were involved in that cover-up.;)
It certainly took them long enough to have the Rihannsu... err, Romulans... get a real role in one of the films. Too bad it never happened while I played one in an online RPG. But I still have an interest in them as a lingering result.
If you want to learn more about them, find a copy of Diane Duane's novel The Romulan Way, preferably at a good used-book shop. It's not canon because it's just a novel, but it's damn good. It explains their form of government. (Incidentally, the "Senate" dates to ancient Roman times, I do believe. Many of the ranks the Romulans used, e.g. centurion, do as well.)
Slashdot Mirror
The comment was intended as a general thought on whether users should have to trust the programmers of any application, whether it be a game or a browser or a specialized net/Internet application. I use Mozilla, for example, because it's open source and in part because that way the authors can't hide anything sneaky in it.
These are my personal feelings, but: if Microsoft et al think the user is untrustable and thus needs to be walled out from the system, then why should users trust Microsoft et al in return?
A very well written and informative article. I'm intrigued by the story of ShowEQ -- and the fact that Sony seems to want to protect their system by deciding what users can and can't run on their computers. It reminds me of the video player that uninstalled Ad-aware automatically, claiming that running it wasn't allowed under its license. I don't believe that such things are really legal -- are they not an invasion of privacy and an illegal search? (Alas, the Constitution's protections against this in the US are only applicable to the government itself, but such practices, I feel, are going too far) Sooner or later, I think, Sony will be dragged into court over this and sued. What if, for example, they use their little spy applet to suck data off someone's computer that gives them an advantage (a competitor's computer that had confidential information, for example?).
I am, though, a little surprised to see that the ShowEQ people haven't been sued under the DMCA. And I'm glad they haven't, because what they are doing is reverse engineering and they are not actually hacking into the client or the server, so it is legal. They are not trying to pirate the game. They are merely trying to see what exactly their computer is saying to the server and what it is receiving from it. A perfectly fair thing to do, I think, because it IS their own property and the owner of it has the right to know what exactly is happening, so they can choose whether or not to run a given application instead of having to trust the programmers. Checks and balances.
Note: I don't play Everquest. I call it EverCrack, actually. I don't play games that I have to pay a monthly fee for. I prefer to play single-player games, or sometimes multiplayer, offnetwork, with people I already know.
Five shuttles? Don't count Enterprise -- she can't fly in space. There are four: Columbia, Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour.
Discovery is down for maintenance and upgrades right now, which leaves three. Columbia is too heavy to fly to the space station with any amount of useful payload on board, so she flies research missions that don't dock with the station -- the next flight will be a research mission, actually.
That leaves two: Endeavour, in orbit now, and Atlantis, which is being processed right now to carry the next bit of the station up. When Atlantis is up, Endeavour will be in processing.
Just imagine a beowulf cluster of these ... no, wait. That'd be Hobbiton, wouldn't it?
Schnucks. I live in St. Louis. If I were that guy, I'd have had my name changed.
...
And they did have those carts in my local store for a bit -- I was disappointed when they disappeared, as I had fun goofing with them. They also had digital price displays you could push a button on to get the unit price for something. Those, too, vanished.
You'd think they'd be easier to update than the "by hand" ones, but apparently not
Why not instruct your card company to charge back all attempts by Yahoo to cancel your service? After getting whacked by charge back fees ON TOP OF getting reverse-billed for each of the monthly payments, they should eventually get the idea. Call your card issuer.
This kind of thing is one of the major benefits of having a card. And just think -- if they get enough chargebacks, they'll eventually have to pay more for being able to accept cards, and if it gets really bad, get their accounts rescinded.
Those protections are there for you, not just the big companies.
The A-4 rocket on which this one is based actually did use alcohol and liquid oxygen for fuel. Alcohol isn't that hard to make, so designing a ballistic missile that uses readily-available (more so than others, I imagine) during a major war was a wise decision. Wernher von Braun was many things, but "idiot" wasn't one of them.
However, the A-4 can't launch anything very heavy into space -- it wasn't designed to be able to. It couldn't even when made into a two-stage rocket for the WAC-Corporal program. One of its descendants finally did, though -- the Jupiter-C rocket, a modified Redstone (itself an A-4 derivative) launched Explorer 1 (the first US satellite) into space in January 1958. But Explorer 1 was not all that massive.
So the Canadian Arrow rocket is just going to end up re-creating Alan Shepard's flight, more or less. Rather just, I think, considering that he was launched by a Redstone missile.
One of the later Keyhole satellites -- 11 or 12, I'm not sure which and I haven't had the time to look into it since deciding to last week -- actually is based on the Hubble design. However, the optics are not the same -- they cannot be.
As others have said already, the primary mirror is not of the right design to look back at the Earth and actually yield the right kind of details. Hubble focuses to infinity and an earth-imaging satellite only has to focus to a distance of a few hundred miles -- the exact altitude depends on the satellite's orbit.
Furthermore, Hubble's optics are too sensitive to be pointed at the Earth or the Moon -- both are so bright that they'd blow out the sensors.
However, it is entirely possible for such a satellite to be launched by the Shuttle -- the size of the payload bay, don't forget, was set by a DoD request ("you set it up like this or we don't pay you to help develop it") and there were a bunch of DoD flights back in the 1980s and early 1990s. And Hubble is just about perfectly sized to fit in the bay -- it's the largest payload, physically, ever launched, I think.
So it'd make sense that the civilian version of the KH-1x satellite in question exactly fits -- because that's the payload the shuttle was designed for. (A set payload bay size then leads to the overall size of the orbiter, which leads to the wing design, which leads to the requirements for engines, fuel, boosters, etc...)
It also means that, since the Soviets copied the US shuttle design for Buran, ALL reusable space planes that have ever flown were designed to carry this mystery DoD payload! Even the one that's not ours! (I don't say "manned" because Buran carried no crew during its only flight.)
No, indeed not, just a hidden side. :)
I hate the "dark side" misconception and every time I hear it I want to bash the asker over the head with that damn CD. "But a big, famous band said it, it's got to be true!" "Yeah, and how do you know they passed grade school science? Now shut up and read this astronomy textbook..."
Isn't it a 2-CD set? Good, heavier. All the better to bash morons with.
Actually, the Corona program did use Kodak film. Due to static problems with early film (which caused arcing on the exposed negatives), Kodak developed polymer-based film.
;)
I work in an electron microscopy lab and the film used for the EM systems is Kodak 4489 "ESTAR Thick Base" -- which means that my paychecks depend directly on something that was developed for use in space. (As a space buff -- Buran is/was the Soviet space shuttle -- I'm quite pleased with that situation.) A spinoff, as they're commonly called.
The EM film is mounted on metal plates for exposing and when developed yields 8cmx10cm transparencies using Kodak D-19 developer. For Corona, the exposed film was placed in a reentry capsule which parachuted back to earth and was retrieved midair by a C-119 Flying Boxcar aircraft. It doesn't take that long to develop at all and can be ready for analysis the same day.
According to the Kodak EM film page:
"KODAK Electron Micrography Film 4489 has approximately half the speed of KODAK Electron Image Film SO-163 film, but exhibits less curl and shorter pump-down times. Coated on a 7mils Estar support, KODAK Electron Microscope Film offers exceptional dimensional stability and eliminates the use of traditional glass support products."
We are still using film because (1) electron microscopes are very expensive, so ours are from the mid-1970s, (2) it's not that easy to retrofit them, at least as far as I understand it, for full digital, and (3) it's not all that hard to put the negatives on a lightbox and shoot them with a professional digital SLR, which is how we get the images into computers for processing. And, of course, (4) digital camera technology still hasn't beat out film for quality yet, though we're hoping to get a Canon EOS-1Ds soon that will start to close the quality gap.
(The film is kept in a vacuum once in the microscope -- something else which I'm sure was a benefit for Corona.)
If you want to see some sample EM images taken with the Kodak film, see our lab's image gallery. Don't bother with Kodak's sample images, they suck.
I'm pretty sure that Kodak also designed the Corona camera system, though I'm not certain who the actual builder was.
I'm still waiting for a Mac OS X port of Trillian.
Charter doesn't enable the direct link function, and with many cable boxes (including Charter's) the IR blaster doesn't always work. I don't have a TIVO yet but I'm addicted due to a friend who does have one (so I'll buy one after I move). His solution? A "black box" that covers the IR blaster and the sensor on the cable box so there's virtually no way the "change channel" command can be missed.
My solution, after I move and buy a TIVO? Not use digital cable. Forget about cable boxes -- they're more headache than they're worth. I temporarily don't have a TV, so I unplugged the cable box... and Charter sent a service guy to my apartment to find out why. Uhm? Why do I need my cable box plugged in if I have no TV temporarily, and what business is it of theirs anyway?
Starlings, and crows. ;) Though West Nile has killed off seemingly 90% of the ones that used to roost around my workplace. Hopefully they'll rebound soon.
I think society needs to reshuffle its priorities. I don't believe Profit Is King. I do a lot of things that cost me more than otherwise (biodegradable car wash/wax stuff, for instance, start with the small stuff) and donate to nonprofits.
... and that's a shame because change often starts with who? The people.
Anyway, for people like you and me, I've said in another response to my post that there need to be free (supported by taxpayers, perhaps) or cheap (same) tools to make sites more accessible. Right now the tool that works with my web development software is priced out of reach for hobbyists like me
As for the racism comment... what I had in mind was the notion of rejecting someone because of some attribute about them that they can't change. I can't give myself perfect hearing any more than someone can change the color of their skin. Maybe it could have been said a little better. Hope that clarification helps a little.
Commercial and government sites should be required -- I think that corporations and for-profit companies should have the money to do it, and the government's responsibility is to serve all its people to the fullest. Non-profits should be strongly encouraged to do so, possibly through federal grant money (the government is good at squandering its balanced budget, might as well be on something worthwhile) or other assistance programs.
Individual hobbyists like me should have easy access to the tools they need to do it. And they should be free, or cheap (see "assistance programs" above) -- I want to convert my site to accessibility but the tool that integrates with Dreamweaver costs $$$ so unfortunately it'll end up waiting til the next redesign of my page, which will have it from the start instead of adding it via a pain-in-the-butt retrofit.
But I do have plans to do it, which I wouldn't have if webmaster-education efforts hadn't spread the word about how to do it.
Out of those here I've seen one top-level post which directly deals with someone who is disabled -- someone who has a coworker who is blind.
I am myself hearing-impaired and this means that I fall under the ADA. When I went to college I could get them to give me a note-taker if I'd wanted to.
There are many things I can't do that aren't covered by the law -- for example I've been getting interested in birding. But I can't hear birdsong for the most part, and I have no directional hearing. So any calls I do hear -- I can't tell where they're coming from to take a visual look to see what made the noise.
I accept that shortcoming, as I accept many others, because I know that my disability prevents me from doing some things. But I don't feel that I should be less able to access, say, the Internet -- just because it's not a "physical place". If web pages required sound in order to function rather than sight, I'd be in quite a fix.
Should it matter what it would cost to fix that problem for a webmaster? No. Why? It's discrimination, plain and simple. It sends the message 'We don't want you deaf people coming in here.'
Might as well put up a sign that says "No (insert ethnic group here) need apply."
All they need to do is hire those managers responsible for closing the ones on the West Coast. And the next thing you know, our computers will go on an Internet slowdown campaign to protest the threat of DRM-enabled systems and thus lost sales...
Are you referring to the big one in Northwest Plaza? (Hi from Olivette!)
I used to use Spaceflight Now to watch launches and retrieve video later of those I was not able to watch. Now, the videos are locked behind a password which they demand a fee for.
As a taxpayer who (willingly, mind you! note my name!) supports the space program already with tax dollars, I don't feel I should have to pay to view something I already helped to fund. While I still read SFN's text coverage, which is still free, I can't view the videos.
Is there another site out there that posts timely (SFN does it same day or next day) videos of launches? And if the Ecliptic's site fails to post the entire sequence, all 10+ minutes of it, where might I find it?
Heck, what about archives of on-orbit ops, other launch shots, reentry/approach, and landing? I've a video project in mind that I'd like to use footage for...
What happens when you try to factor too big a prime number? (If you've read the book, you'll know. ;) )
Buran has been destroyed and will never fly again.
(solar powered I guess - the W/m^2 will probably be too low to power the probe at that point).
Nope. Actually, solar panels are not a practical means of powering a spacecraft beyond the asteroid belt, and these probes go far, far beyond that.
Pioneer 10 and 11, Voyagers 1 and 2, Ulysses, Galileo, and Cassini (to name many of the "big" and famous probes that are out there right now) are all nuclear powered. They carry radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) that carry plutonium as a fuel source. Surprisingly (?), the Viking I and II landers that touched down on Mars in 1976 are also nuclear-powered.
The probes are gradually dying because their plutonium fuel is running out, not because the sun is fading away. At the distances at which many of these probes travel, the Sun appears (from their location) simply as a bright start among many other stars.
Partly correct... Mars Global Surveyor was lost because a contractor failed to correctly understand that NASA was specifying units in metric and processed the computations for in-flight trajectory corrections using standard English units. So the probe simply burned up in Mars' atmosphere.
A shame; I was there to see the launch.
It's kind of like my recent trip to Canada: During the trip, my Canadian friend and I crossed the border back into the US to attend a convention. If he had failed to recognize that US road signs are in miles per hour, he would have been travelling too slowly (i.e. 70 kph is slower than 70 mph) and concievably have caused a crash if an unwary driver had plowed into the back of our car.
Correctly recognizing the proper units used and adjusting for the difference is an elemental part of operating a motor vehicle across the US/Canada border -- or of operating a multimillion dollar interplanetary spacecraft as it travels to Mars.
Just another reason, I think, that the US should join just about every other country and switch to metric for everything -- road signs and food packaging should just be the beginning.
Eh. Like Joe Public will ever care. But hey, if it saves a few space probes, I'm all for it.
Actually, that was Voyager VI. Except we were told of only two: Voyager I and Voyager II (actually launched first, if I recall correctly, due to a faster trajectory.) Hmmm... Wonder if the Men in Black were involved in that cover-up. ;)
It certainly took them long enough to have the Rihannsu ... err, Romulans ... get a real role in one of the films. Too bad it never happened while I played one in an online RPG. But I still have an interest in them as a lingering result.
If you want to learn more about them, find a copy of Diane Duane's novel The Romulan Way, preferably at a good used-book shop. It's not canon because it's just a novel, but it's damn good. It explains their form of government. (Incidentally, the "Senate" dates to ancient Roman times, I do believe. Many of the ranks the Romulans used, e.g. centurion, do as well.)