I don't even have to Google. I complained to them close to four years ago that they had someone stealing email addresses. They wouldn't admit it then and didn't believe me when I offered sufficient proof it was happening. While I'd really like more details, at least they're admitting it. That's a start.
unfortunately I live in a brightly lit city and know of no place where I can go to shoot the stars
Try http://www.darksky.org/darksky/. Click on Dark Sky Finder version 3 and input your coordinates. It will show you the dark sky sites closest to you.
Alternative backing materials have been used - a concrete disk is shown at below. Two 3/4" plywood disks, bonded together, can also be used. But for low cost, light weight and all around good durability, Plaster of Paris can't be beat.
They mention using plaster. I prefer dental stone, but the process is very similar.
Some amateurs even aluminize their own mirrors as well, but most do not. It actually can be fully DIY if you want.
Sure. It's not nearly as much equipment as one might think. The Stellafane ATM pages http://www.stellafane.com/atm/atm_main.htm are a good starting place to learn about how it's done.
The best book I've found on the subject is How to Make a Telescope by Jean Texereau. Another fine set of books are Amateur Telescope Making - Volumes 1, 2, and 3 by Albert G. Ingalls (Editor).
Yes, entry level. A lot of amateur astronomers have ground their own mirror for their first telescope. It's not a difficult thing to do at all, although I'm sure it might sound as if it would be to someone who hasn't done it.
Yes, $1000 is a rather small budget where astrophotography is concerned. A good mount alone can cost many times that amount. Please don't skimp on the mount. I assure you, few things in life are more frustrating and miserable than attempting quality astrophotography on a cheap, inadequate mount.
You can get a quality telescope for $1000, especially if you build your own. I grind my own mirrors because the mirror I make myself is quite a bit better than all but a very few of the ones commercially available. It's quite a bit of fun too.
Your best course of action would be to hold off on getting a telescope for now. Get good astronomical binoculars ($200 - $400) and learn the sky. Once you've done that, you'll have a much better idea of exactly the aspects of astronomy that interest you and you'll have some additional time to decide upon the right equipment. You'll also have more time to save some additional money for qualityequipment.
I've always used targeted addresses of random letters and numbers with Ameritrade and I ran into this same thing two years ago. I let them know and I got the same excuse of a dictionary attack. When I complained that such a long address of random letters and numbers was expressly designed to avoid a dictionary attack, and that I strongly suspected that someone on the inside was selling/using email addresses for the pump and dump spam, I suddenly stopped receiving any replies to my emails. I can only conclude that TDAmeritrade is aware of this problem, but just doesn't care. I wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm not.
What about what I said wasn't right? I said they wore them "at times" during the mission. I never said they wore them at all times. They certainly didn't.
I don't think so. All three Apollo astronauts had space suits and wore them at times during the mission, even in the Command Module, in case of a unplanned cabin depressurization.
For Apollo XI, Aldrin had suit serial # A7L-077, Armstrong had suit serial # A7L-056, and Collins had suit serial # A7L-033.
A problem with this is that spam isn't about content, but rather consent. It's not the content of any particular message that makes it spam, but rather it hinges simply on whether the sender has your permission to send to your email address.
If someone willingly signs up for male enlargement product emails, or mortgage refi emails, or anything else for that matter, they aren't spam. How would a FrogHerder know just by looking at the message?
In this case, they had checked the ground and it seemed ok, but they later went back to check it again more precisely and found a very small difference between the grounds of the 4 different sensors in the box.
Just to give everyone a sense of this discrepancy in the ground, it is a very, very slight one; "fractions of a milliohm" as one NASA engineer put it. This very minor ground difference, coupled with some extremely brief transient spikes in the system (possibly due to electromagnetic interference from a heater), might cause the sensor to display incorrect information. If this sensor fails again, and the ground issue appears to be the cause, NASA will likely go ahead and launch anyway because the heater is turned off during flight.
Does it worry anyone that the guys at NASA grossly miscalculated the life of the bot?
They didn't. It was designed with a three month lifetime in mind. As has been stated earlier, to be reasonably assured of a three month lifetime, you design for a much longer lifetime. If you get lucky, you'll get a lot longer lifetime and, if not, you hope you get three months. That's just the way it works.
These engineers are doing something that hasn't been done many times before, and doing it damn well. Even if these rovers had failed after only two months, it'd still be a success to me. After all, does anyone usually complain when anything they own exceeds it's guaranteed lifetime? Sheesh. Give these guys a break and the respect they deserve.
Why do you have to leave the planet to survive? You have a much better chance if you stay here and fix the problems locally rather than running away.
You're forgetting that the biggest threat to us as a species may not come from ourselves. A strike by a large asteroid or comet could easily doom humankind. If we're all sitting here on Earth, that's it. If we've left the cradle, some will survive. Remember it's not a question of if this will happen, it's simply a matter of when.
Yes, NASA cancelled the remaining Apollo missions, but I think it's only fair to point out that the cancellation was mainly the result of Congress reducing the FY1971 NASA appropriation. Without the budgetary issue, Apollo 18,19, and 20 would almost certainly have flown.
NASA's main problem now is the same as it's been for many, many years. Support for the space program is "a mile wide and an inch deep". Most people are in favor of having a space program, but few ever let their representatives in Congress know.
Look at what we did with the technology of the 1960's. Can you imagine what we could do our current level of technology??? It would be astounding, if only the funding was available.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't even have to Google. I complained to them close to four years ago that they had someone stealing email addresses. They wouldn't admit it then and didn't believe me when I offered sufficient proof it was happening. While I'd really like more details, at least they're admitting it. That's a start.
Sure. It's not nearly as much equipment as one might think. The Stellafane ATM pages http://www.stellafane.com/atm/atm_main.htm are a good starting place to learn about how it's done. The best book I've found on the subject is How to Make a Telescope by Jean Texereau. Another fine set of books are Amateur Telescope Making - Volumes 1, 2, and 3 by Albert G. Ingalls (Editor).
Yes, entry level. A lot of amateur astronomers have ground their own mirror for their first telescope. It's not a difficult thing to do at all, although I'm sure it might sound as if it would be to someone who hasn't done it.
Yes, $1000 is a rather small budget where astrophotography is concerned. A good mount alone can cost many times that amount. Please don't skimp on the mount. I assure you, few things in life are more frustrating and miserable than attempting quality astrophotography on a cheap, inadequate mount.
You can get a quality telescope for $1000, especially if you build your own. I grind my own mirrors because the mirror I make myself is quite a bit better than all but a very few of the ones commercially available. It's quite a bit of fun too.
Your best course of action would be to hold off on getting a telescope for now. Get good astronomical binoculars ($200 - $400) and learn the sky. Once you've done that, you'll have a much better idea of exactly the aspects of astronomy that interest you and you'll have some additional time to decide upon the right equipment. You'll also have more time to save some additional money for qualityequipment.
I've always used targeted addresses of random letters and numbers with Ameritrade and I ran into this same thing two years ago. I let them know and I got the same excuse of a dictionary attack. When I complained that such a long address of random letters and numbers was expressly designed to avoid a dictionary attack, and that I strongly suspected that someone on the inside was selling/using email addresses for the pump and dump spam, I suddenly stopped receiving any replies to my emails. I can only conclude that TDAmeritrade is aware of this problem, but just doesn't care. I wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm not.
What about what I said wasn't right? I said they wore them "at times" during the mission. I never said they wore them at all times. They certainly didn't.
For Apollo XI, Aldrin had suit serial # A7L-077, Armstrong had suit serial # A7L-056, and Collins had suit serial # A7L-033.
A problem with this is that spam isn't about content, but rather consent. It's not the content of any particular message that makes it spam, but rather it hinges simply on whether the sender has your permission to send to your email address. If someone willingly signs up for male enlargement product emails, or mortgage refi emails, or anything else for that matter, they aren't spam. How would a FrogHerder know just by looking at the message?
Just to give everyone a sense of this discrepancy in the ground, it is a very, very slight one; "fractions of a milliohm" as one NASA engineer put it. This very minor ground difference, coupled with some extremely brief transient spikes in the system (possibly due to electromagnetic interference from a heater), might cause the sensor to display incorrect information. If this sensor fails again, and the ground issue appears to be the cause, NASA will likely go ahead and launch anyway because the heater is turned off during flight.
They didn't. It was designed with a three month lifetime in mind. As has been stated earlier, to be reasonably assured of a three month lifetime, you design for a much longer lifetime. If you get lucky, you'll get a lot longer lifetime and, if not, you hope you get three months. That's just the way it works.
These engineers are doing something that hasn't been done many times before, and doing it damn well. Even if these rovers had failed after only two months, it'd still be a success to me. After all, does anyone usually complain when anything they own exceeds it's guaranteed lifetime? Sheesh. Give these guys a break and the respect they deserve.
You're forgetting that the biggest threat to us as a species may not come from ourselves. A strike by a large asteroid or comet could easily doom humankind. If we're all sitting here on Earth, that's it. If we've left the cradle, some will survive. Remember it's not a question of if this will happen, it's simply a matter of when.
Yes, NASA cancelled the remaining Apollo missions, but I think it's only fair to point out that the cancellation was mainly the result of Congress reducing the FY1971 NASA appropriation. Without the budgetary issue, Apollo 18,19, and 20 would almost certainly have flown.
NASA's main problem now is the same as it's been for many, many years. Support for the space program is "a mile wide and an inch deep". Most people are in favor of having a space program, but few ever let their representatives in Congress know.
Look at what we did with the technology of the 1960's. Can you imagine what we could do our current level of technology??? It would be astounding, if only the funding was available.