the current theory is that planetesimals -- bodies of rock like asteriods -- come together though gravitiational force to form planets. and over time, those bodies condense through that same force. while it is safe to say that astral bodies similar to EROS are crucial to planet formation, no conclusive proof can be offered to prove that EROS is litle more than an insignifcant asteroid. planetesimals are really little more than large bodies of rock or solid matter. it seems to me that NASA may just be looking for a way to give more value to the (now lifeless) NEAR mission.
The importance of the NEAR mission was not its longevity, but its intial accomplishment. NASA was able to plan, launch, and navigate a satellite to a distant and fast-moving body. While this may not seem any different than landing on a planet, one must consider that an asteroid's course is less certain and less predicatble. More impressive than the intial navigation to the asteriod was the feat of landing on a rotating body of rock with unknown surface features. So while this may be the end of NEAR's mission, don't be glum about about the end. Rater, try to admire its accomplishments.
But at the same time, one must consider the rights of the people under that government. The government -- in Australia anyway -- has an obligaton to its people. In a case such as this, the government is blatantly nullifying the individual right of a citizen to act in a personally responsible manner.
How does one go about getting a nice russian submarine from which to launch such a payload-carrying device? More importantly, where does one get an ICBM, ah well.
Slashdot Mirror
the current theory is that planetesimals -- bodies of rock like asteriods -- come together though gravitiational force to form planets. and over time, those bodies condense through that same force. while it is safe to say that astral bodies similar to EROS are crucial to planet formation, no conclusive proof can be offered to prove that EROS is litle more than an insignifcant asteroid. planetesimals are really little more than large bodies of rock or solid matter. it seems to me that NASA may just be looking for a way to give more value to the (now lifeless) NEAR mission.
swung by, yes. but landed on? no.
The importance of the NEAR mission was not its longevity, but its intial accomplishment. NASA was able to plan, launch, and navigate a satellite to a distant and fast-moving body. While this may not seem any different than landing on a planet, one must consider that an asteroid's course is less certain and less predicatble. More impressive than the intial navigation to the asteriod was the feat of landing on a rotating body of rock with unknown surface features. So while this may be the end of NEAR's mission, don't be glum about about the end. Rater, try to admire its accomplishments.
But at the same time, one must consider the rights of the people under that government. The government -- in Australia anyway -- has an obligaton to its people. In a case such as this, the government is blatantly nullifying the individual right of a citizen to act in a personally responsible manner.
How does one go about getting a nice russian submarine from which to launch such a payload-carrying device? More importantly, where does one get an ICBM, ah well.