I like Persephone for this planet(oid?). Since Persephone is goddess of Hades, the name fits a planet that far out pretty well, plus I've always felt that any planet in our solar system should be named after a Roman god, to keep with the scheme. It kind of bugged me the last time a "10th planet" was discovered, and they named it Sedna? I'm sorry who is that? An Inuit god? I don't think you can get much farther from Rome. Imagine the confusion the breakdown in the naming system will cause in 200 years:
"Hi! So you're from Sedna, eh? Let's see, she was the Inuit goddess of the sea, so that must be in the Betelgeuse system, right? What! But I thought the Sol planets were named after Roman gods?
In case anybody is curious, I thought I'd note that the current distace to 2003 UB313 of 97 AU's is a bit further than Sedna's closest approach of 76 AU's, but well within it's aphelion of 928 AU's, due to Sedna's extremely eccentric orbit. No word that I've seen on estimations of 2003 UB313's eccentricity.
Thank goodness someone actually wrote something worth reading. I thought all 500 posts would be in the stupid "Pirates Bay" arguing about illegal distribution off of MSDN.
I am severely disappointed to hear that IE7 is still not properly supporting CSS1. This is more than a little frustrating, since it will probably be quite a few more years until the next major update comes out, and in the meantime, Microsoft will practically single-handedly be holding the adoption of the newest web standards at a standstill. Sorry kids, better hold onto your gif's and png's for rounded corners for the next 10 years or so.
The Russians are also doing very little in the way of vehicle development or remote probes (which consume a very large portion of NASA's budget). I'd bet, with a allowances for cost-of-living differences, we could do about as much per dollar if the politics involved in the US space program were different.
If I were up there, I don't think I'd be anymore worried about foam that fell off and hit nothing than I already would be simply based on the hype that surrounds this mission. There's nothing fundamentally more dangerous about this mission than the 70 or so missions that were successful (with a few small mishaps, perhaps) that were flown between the last flight of the Challenger and that of the Columbia, and quite a bit that's much better as a result of 2 years of review. Nonetheless, the media, and as a result 95% of the US population, is holding their breath expectantly (eagerly?) waiting for the shuttle to spontaneously explode in a shower of ceramic tiles, duct tape, and tax dollars. Is this hysteria really going to help the space program? I don't think so.
Granted, it turns out the foam around the tripod area falls off more often than previously thought, but people are ignoring the fact that this only caused fatal damage in 1 out 113 flights, it probably didn't cause any damage this time, and we now know it's a bigger problem and can address it further. People need to calm down. The point has been made. Sit back and let the engineers take care of it.
PS - the parent's comment was a lot funnier than it was insightful. Silly mods.
Ummm....NASA pretty much decided that 2 years ago. You're a little behind the time. As soon as the ISS is finished, the Shuttle is going to be retired, and we'll have a lapse in the availability US manned launching until the Crew Exploration Vehicle is ready, which will be based on current heavy lifting technology and a reusable crew capsule. Payload will be handled seperately. In case you have to ask, the Shuttle has to be used to finish the station because most of the components have already been designed and even built around the shuttle's payload bay, rather than the Delta IV's.
All the other space countries are still using rockets.
She always said I'd fry my eyes if I stared at the microwave watching the burrito spin around.
For what it's worth, I don't know anyone who's genuinely gone blind after birth, and most people I know use cell phones. It seems, at least, that the damage, if real, does not happen very quickly. Regardless, I'm a skeptic.
If I remember correctly, the average solar flux at the earth's surface is somewhere around 1 kW / sq meter at high angles of incidence. Suppose you've got a 5 m^2 solar panel on the roof of your car (that's pretty big), and you spent a lot of money on it, so it's 20% efficient. This means you're generating about 1 kW, which is only about 1.4 horsepower, and that's the peak. Let's just guess that you need 40 horsepower to move your car around town, so you'll have to charge for about 30 times as long as you drive, not accounting for the fact that it only charges that fast at lunch time.
Perhaps someone should check my numbers. This is the first time I've calculated it out, but even I'm a little surprised the power is that low.
I had read in a news article during one of the noteworthy accidents, although I don't remember for certain which one but I think it was the Kursk, that sounds of the accident had been recorded by SOSUS but not noticed immediately because the stations were no longer manned full time. While I'm not surprised that the system is being expanded, it also seems logical that there would be less need to monitor, for example, the GIUK gap as closely as during the cold war.
I would be interested in finding out more about their status, but unfortunately, the FAS SOSUS entry has not been updated recently. It did mention, however, several stations, including Keflavik, Iceland had been closed.
No, it would not. As the article says, the sensors were in place to help ensure adherence to the nuclear test treaties by detecting nuclear detonations, which are a heck of a lot louder than nuclear submarines (it has been said that the Ohio class SSBN's are quieter than the ocean around them...currents, fish, etc).
There does, however, already exist several large sonar chains known as SOSUS (SOund SUrveillance System). These were built by the navy in the 50's specifically for tracking submarines. It was upgraded over the years, but since the need has dwindled, it is not actively manned anymore. If I remember correctly, recordings from this were used to help the Russians figure out what went wrong on the Kursk.
Hurray for science! Cheers for science mixed with alcohol! That group needs a budget increase, and I vote that Captain Morgan be put in charge of the mission.
Because face it, someone always disagrees (maybe the next poll should be "Top Web Fad.")
10.) The hampster dance (much as I hate it, a lot of other people watch it)
9.) myspace
8.) Hot or Not
7.) Homestar Runner
6.) Red vs. Blue
5.) Blogger (aka "Not worth reading")
4.) Craigslist
3.) Googlebombing (see # 5)
2.) Ebay
and also winning the prizes for "Most annoying" and "Dumbest"...
1.) AOL'ese, hacker'ese, and other condensed "languages"
I sure hope you can't see the rover tracks in all of them. If I remember correctly, Apollo 15 was the first mission to carry a rover. This is just proof that the moon landing was a conspiracy and the tracks must be from trucks hauling all the camera and sound gear, the "astronauts," and the fake landers to the "landing site."
You'd think they would've at least been smart enough to scatter the tracks with a broom so those in the tin-foil hat mafia with nice telescopes wouldn't be able to unravel the mystery so easily.
Except now if you google litigious bastards, you get litigiousbastards.com as the top hit. In fact, I scanned quickly, but I didn't notice the SCO group in the first 3 pages of results.
I had to dig back a bit through my Dilbert calendar:
PHB to Dilbert in his cubicle: I needed to make an engineering decision about your project this morning. You'll need to act like you agree with it so I don't look stupid (at the meeting).
Manager at meeting to Dilbert: Explain to us how fiber capacity can be increased by serial input at breakfast.
One more. The setting is in a meeting after the PHB just got restored to his managerial position after being temporarily demoted to engineer.
PHB: Let's ping the director of marketing and double-click on the budget. Then we can interface in batch mode and put a scope on his bandwidth
Alice: Please stop doing that!
PHB: Have I mentioned that I was an engineer for a week?
Yes. They've put quite a bit of effort into making sure nothing goes wrong this time, about 2 1/2 years worth, in fact. Since you can't guarantee success with everything, though, they want to be able to tell as soon as possible if something happens and hopefully come up with a solution, or else be able to figure out what did go wrong if things go really sour.
I think it's more a matter of the country has lost sight of the fact that exploring space is dangerous, but the benefits are worthwhile.
I totally agree with you. The shuttle is pretty much as ready to launch as it can get. I'd even argue it's safer now than when it was brand new. My disagreement was with the argument that it would be good for science/NASA/anything if the Discovery had an accident.
Excuse me, were you one of the Challenger managers who told the engineers to quit whining and launch or how do you justify saying such crap? Getting an increase in the budget for unmanned probes is not worth the loss of human life. Yes, the unmanned missions should get more funding, but the argument ends there. Don't go tossing in the "it would serve NASA right" garbage. I could almost accept if you said something along the lines of "I wish NASA would look at what they had to go through to get this far and realize what a waste the shuttle is," except for the fact that they already have looked at it and realized it. That's why the shuttle is being retired as soon as the ISS is done. It would be sooner, but too much has been invested in the ISS to have it's completion pushed back another 5-10 years while the remaining launches get redesigned or repackaged to fit on Delta or Atlas rockets.
Frankly, I feel the manned portion of the program could use more funding, too, but only after it has a clearer sense of direction than "let's go to the moon again." Human beings in space create a much fuller sense of purpose and accomplishment than robots, as well as some unique scientific opportunities.
They say that cable users have the highest percent saying they are satisfied overall, followed closely by DSL, but the table a few lines down the page shows DSL with 68% of customers satisfied, while cable has 66%. I know I'm bad at math, but I figured my troubles were limited to trying to figure out how 20 kbits/s = 256 kbytes/s.
Anyway, between that and the parent's point, I gave up reading the article and accept the fact that it doesn't matter anyways, since the options in my area are qwest and comcast.
I was gone for a week (no internet), but I found this discussion interesting enough to respond to now that I'm back. I also posted the description of the cellular mechanisms involved you responded to earlier.
You're absolutely right, that this technology can be used to deliver dangerous items, and my guess was your fears were based on that. The thing is, most technology has the same benefit/danger tradeoff. I suspect this has a much lower potential to be abused in a significant way than many other products because of the way it works. This method affects individual cells when they internalize the nano-particles. A toxin, then, would only affect individual cells and you would need relatively large amounts to kill sufficient tissue to cause real damage. Compare that to nerve-agents, which effectively trick the nervous system into a massive overreaction. You then get an extremely small, localized exposure causing muscle spasms in the entire body leading to hemorrhaging or fatal exhaustion. Really, the threat is no greater than already existing methods of mischief, and very likely much more difficult to produce.
Now if these things could self-replicate and move from victim to victim like in Michael Crichton's Prey, then I would be much more worried.
Slashdot Mirror
"Hi! So you're from Sedna, eh? Let's see, she was the Inuit goddess of the sea, so that must be in the Betelgeuse system, right? What! But I thought the Sol planets were named after Roman gods?
In case anybody is curious, I thought I'd note that the current distace to 2003 UB313 of 97 AU's is a bit further than Sedna's closest approach of 76 AU's, but well within it's aphelion of 928 AU's, due to Sedna's extremely eccentric orbit. No word that I've seen on estimations of 2003 UB313's eccentricity.
Then read the stinking alternate text, you lazy bum!
Thank goodness someone actually wrote something worth reading. I thought all 500 posts would be in the stupid "Pirates Bay" arguing about illegal distribution off of MSDN.
I am severely disappointed to hear that IE7 is still not properly supporting CSS1. This is more than a little frustrating, since it will probably be quite a few more years until the next major update comes out, and in the meantime, Microsoft will practically single-handedly be holding the adoption of the newest web standards at a standstill. Sorry kids, better hold onto your gif's and png's for rounded corners for the next 10 years or so.
The Russians are also doing very little in the way of vehicle development or remote probes (which consume a very large portion of NASA's budget). I'd bet, with a allowances for cost-of-living differences, we could do about as much per dollar if the politics involved in the US space program were different.
If I were up there, I don't think I'd be anymore worried about foam that fell off and hit nothing than I already would be simply based on the hype that surrounds this mission. There's nothing fundamentally more dangerous about this mission than the 70 or so missions that were successful (with a few small mishaps, perhaps) that were flown between the last flight of the Challenger and that of the Columbia, and quite a bit that's much better as a result of 2 years of review. Nonetheless, the media, and as a result 95% of the US population, is holding their breath expectantly (eagerly?) waiting for the shuttle to spontaneously explode in a shower of ceramic tiles, duct tape, and tax dollars. Is this hysteria really going to help the space program? I don't think so.
Granted, it turns out the foam around the tripod area falls off more often than previously thought, but people are ignoring the fact that this only caused fatal damage in 1 out 113 flights, it probably didn't cause any damage this time, and we now know it's a bigger problem and can address it further. People need to calm down. The point has been made. Sit back and let the engineers take care of it.
PS - the parent's comment was a lot funnier than it was insightful. Silly mods.
She always said I'd fry my eyes if I stared at the microwave watching the burrito spin around.
For what it's worth, I don't know anyone who's genuinely gone blind after birth, and most people I know use cell phones. It seems, at least, that the damage, if real, does not happen very quickly. Regardless, I'm a skeptic.
That would make for a really tall vehicle. The design would probably have had to be significantly different.
If I remember correctly, the average solar flux at the earth's surface is somewhere around 1 kW / sq meter at high angles of incidence. Suppose you've got a 5 m^2 solar panel on the roof of your car (that's pretty big), and you spent a lot of money on it, so it's 20% efficient. This means you're generating about 1 kW, which is only about 1.4 horsepower, and that's the peak. Let's just guess that you need 40 horsepower to move your car around town, so you'll have to charge for about 30 times as long as you drive, not accounting for the fact that it only charges that fast at lunch time.
Perhaps someone should check my numbers. This is the first time I've calculated it out, but even I'm a little surprised the power is that low.
I had read in a news article during one of the noteworthy accidents, although I don't remember for certain which one but I think it was the Kursk, that sounds of the accident had been recorded by SOSUS but not noticed immediately because the stations were no longer manned full time. While I'm not surprised that the system is being expanded, it also seems logical that there would be less need to monitor, for example, the GIUK gap as closely as during the cold war.
I would be interested in finding out more about their status, but unfortunately, the FAS SOSUS entry has not been updated recently. It did mention, however, several stations, including Keflavik, Iceland had been closed.
No, it would not. As the article says, the sensors were in place to help ensure adherence to the nuclear test treaties by detecting nuclear detonations, which are a heck of a lot louder than nuclear submarines (it has been said that the Ohio class SSBN's are quieter than the ocean around them...currents, fish, etc).
There does, however, already exist several large sonar chains known as SOSUS (SOund SUrveillance System). These were built by the navy in the 50's specifically for tracking submarines. It was upgraded over the years, but since the need has dwindled, it is not actively manned anymore. If I remember correctly, recordings from this were used to help the Russians figure out what went wrong on the Kursk.
Hurray for science! Cheers for science mixed with alcohol! That group needs a budget increase, and I vote that Captain Morgan be put in charge of the mission.
Because face it, someone always disagrees (maybe the next poll should be "Top Web Fad.")
10.) The hampster dance (much as I hate it, a lot of other people watch it)
9.) myspace
8.) Hot or Not
7.) Homestar Runner
6.) Red vs. Blue
5.) Blogger (aka "Not worth reading")
4.) Craigslist
3.) Googlebombing (see # 5)
2.) Ebay
and also winning the prizes for "Most annoying" and "Dumbest"...
1.) AOL'ese, hacker'ese, and other condensed "languages"
I sure hope you can't see the rover tracks in all of them. If I remember correctly, Apollo 15 was the first mission to carry a rover. This is just proof that the moon landing was a conspiracy and the tracks must be from trucks hauling all the camera and sound gear, the "astronauts," and the fake landers to the "landing site."
You'd think they would've at least been smart enough to scatter the tracks with a broom so those in the tin-foil hat mafia with nice telescopes wouldn't be able to unravel the mystery so easily.
Kirk: "Mr. Scott, are you sure you don't want to take shore-leave on this luxurious planet we're orbiting."
Scotty: "Oh no sir, I'm catching up on my technical manuals."
Except now if you google litigious bastards, you get litigiousbastards.com as the top hit. In fact, I scanned quickly, but I didn't notice the SCO group in the first 3 pages of results.
I had to dig back a bit through my Dilbert calendar:
PHB to Dilbert in his cubicle: I needed to make an engineering decision about your project this morning. You'll need to act like you agree with it so I don't look stupid (at the meeting).
Manager at meeting to Dilbert: Explain to us how fiber capacity can be increased by serial input at breakfast.
One more. The setting is in a meeting after the PHB just got restored to his managerial position after being temporarily demoted to engineer.
PHB: Let's ping the director of marketing and double-click on the budget. Then we can interface in batch mode and put a scope on his bandwidth
Alice: Please stop doing that!
PHB: Have I mentioned that I was an engineer for a week?
Yes. They've put quite a bit of effort into making sure nothing goes wrong this time, about 2 1/2 years worth, in fact. Since you can't guarantee success with everything, though, they want to be able to tell as soon as possible if something happens and hopefully come up with a solution, or else be able to figure out what did go wrong if things go really sour.
I think it's more a matter of the country has lost sight of the fact that exploring space is dangerous, but the benefits are worthwhile.
There's also the option of ATO and wait for Atlantis.
I totally agree with you. The shuttle is pretty much as ready to launch as it can get. I'd even argue it's safer now than when it was brand new. My disagreement was with the argument that it would be good for science/NASA/anything if the Discovery had an accident.
It makes more sense if you say the whole phrase:
T minus 43 hours = launch time minus 43 hours
Excuse me, were you one of the Challenger managers who told the engineers to quit whining and launch or how do you justify saying such crap? Getting an increase in the budget for unmanned probes is not worth the loss of human life. Yes, the unmanned missions should get more funding, but the argument ends there. Don't go tossing in the "it would serve NASA right" garbage. I could almost accept if you said something along the lines of "I wish NASA would look at what they had to go through to get this far and realize what a waste the shuttle is," except for the fact that they already have looked at it and realized it. That's why the shuttle is being retired as soon as the ISS is done. It would be sooner, but too much has been invested in the ISS to have it's completion pushed back another 5-10 years while the remaining launches get redesigned or repackaged to fit on Delta or Atlas rockets.
Frankly, I feel the manned portion of the program could use more funding, too, but only after it has a clearer sense of direction than "let's go to the moon again." Human beings in space create a much fuller sense of purpose and accomplishment than robots, as well as some unique scientific opportunities.
They say that cable users have the highest percent saying they are satisfied overall, followed closely by DSL, but the table a few lines down the page shows DSL with 68% of customers satisfied, while cable has 66%. I know I'm bad at math, but I figured my troubles were limited to trying to figure out how 20 kbits/s = 256 kbytes/s.
Anyway, between that and the parent's point, I gave up reading the article and accept the fact that it doesn't matter anyways, since the options in my area are qwest and comcast.
I was gone for a week (no internet), but I found this discussion interesting enough to respond to now that I'm back. I also posted the description of the cellular mechanisms involved you responded to earlier.
You're absolutely right, that this technology can be used to deliver dangerous items, and my guess was your fears were based on that. The thing is, most technology has the same benefit/danger tradeoff. I suspect this has a much lower potential to be abused in a significant way than many other products because of the way it works. This method affects individual cells when they internalize the nano-particles. A toxin, then, would only affect individual cells and you would need relatively large amounts to kill sufficient tissue to cause real damage. Compare that to nerve-agents, which effectively trick the nervous system into a massive overreaction. You then get an extremely small, localized exposure causing muscle spasms in the entire body leading to hemorrhaging or fatal exhaustion. Really, the threat is no greater than already existing methods of mischief, and very likely much more difficult to produce.
Now if these things could self-replicate and move from victim to victim like in Michael Crichton's Prey, then I would be much more worried.
Errr...no more posting on Friday's for me