The Multi-Purpose Logistics Module, or MPLM, carries supplies and equipment to the station.
Delivers the External Stowage Platform to the station.
Remove and replace Control Moment Gyro.
Those are the highlights of the mission. In English: make sure the shuttle works, deliver some food and air, deliver an overdue piece of the space station, and fix a broken gyro. Additionally, they will be testing three tile patch kits to determine which works best in a microgravity vaccuum.
Somebody replied to you implying that the ant experiment on Columbia was the highlight. I don't feel like making two posts, so I'll point out here that it was one of over 80 experiments carried by Columbia. That particular experiment was highlighted simply because it was from students.
While I guess what you're saying is true, it has always puzzled me. Then again, I left a very rural area to go to a school twice the size of my hometown (2500 students). I guess the environment breeds different sets of interests. I for one don't find wandering aimlessly around downtown at all interesting. The theatres here are all owned by the same poorly operated company (Regal), you have pay most stores just to use their parking lots, and there's no place to mountain bike. The only real advantage I've experienced so far is that Portland has a pretty well organized adult rec soccer league. Well, plus I get a pretty good laugh from city people joking about cow tipping. What a bunch of uneducated concrete-dwellers.
This is actually more like using an existing arm rather than learning to use a tool. We all had to go through a process of learning to use our own arms when we were babies. Our neurons carry the signals from our brains to our muscles and the muscles react according to the signal. We unconsciously figured out during our infancy what signals made our muscles do particular movements. In this case, the neurons interface with tiny electrodes that pick up the signals and a computer translates them into instructions for the robotic arm. Over time, the monkeys observe the effect of their "thoughts" on the movement of the arm and unconsciously learn to control the arm as if it were one of their own.
There's also some very interesting related research going on with the goal of accomplishing the same thing with eyes.
Sheesh...harsh response guys. I read it three times to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding him. I get it now, but it's still crappy grammar. Plus, my last professor always told us to get excited when we find a counterexample to a statement.
Counterexample! The Mersennes (2^n-1) and the primes form intersecting sets with their intersection being, of course, the Mersenne primes. The primes are not, as you stated, a subset of the Mersennes, nor is the opposite case true.
Oh come on. About isn't all that bad. I remember one particular topic I needed some information on and could not find it clearly presented in any site other than About. In fact, almost all the other sites only discussed the topic in a very indirect and non-specific manner, so that I was left far more confused than when I first clicked on the links. About finally gave me some firm answers about the right and wrong ways to approach my dilemna and taught me some priceless lessons.
I'm referring to the content I found on fashion.about.com. I still don't understand why, and I still refuse to comply, but at least I know you're not supposed to wear white socks with black shoes and I have a vague idea how to tie a tie.
He said no conventional design has ever failed. Browsing the test tables a bit showed that we had 17 successful attempts before our failed attempt. This was an early attempt at creating a very low yield weapon. It's expected yield was only 200 tons, and they used 5 tons of HE in order to attempt to start it. It was definitely not a conventional design.
but the fact still remains that a system like this just hasn't been tested yet,
Oops, forgot to add this. Development and testing is the entire market right now. Although they are offering free use of volume in their upcoming launches to interested parties as part of the proof of concept, they are not really marketing hab modules yet. They plan to launch a relatively small (8 ft x 10 ft) "Genesis" test module near the end of the year, and another one next year. Following those, two "Guardian" modules will carry prototype life support systems. The goal is to launch a pair of full size, but unmanned "Nautilus" modules by 2008 and possibly dock the two together. These will have a total volume of 330 cubic meters, which is about equivalent to an 1100 sq. ft. house. By the time these 6 modules are thoroughly tested, they should have enough data to make a call whether they're safe for human occupancy or not.
It's structural rigidity comes from the interior air pressure. They're talking about filling them at 10 psi, which means 1440 pounds of force on every square foot. That's fine for something that stays in orbit, like the initial versions. A low earth orbit also offers a great deal of protection from radiation. They've already done tests firing small particles at high velocities at the fabric and say the the performance is similar to that off NASA's modules. If a bolt head hit the module (extremely low probability) they'd basically have to model it after an Abrams tank to protect themselves. In that case, it would probably be better to have something thin that the projectile would go straight through without expending much energy, leaving a small hole that can be patched and without creating any spalling. Since it's flexible, heat expansion shouldn't be a problem, except perhaps near windows and hatches, but they're already addressing that as an issue with folding and unfolding.
I personally think this has great potential to lead to, if not space yachts, at least space time shares or something similar within our lifetimes. Paul Allen, for example, might think to himself, "If I apply the law of diminishing marginal utitily, I realize I would get more enjoyment out of having one yacht in the Puget Sound and a share in this space cabin thingy than I would from having two yachts."
I'm not quite sure what a "-Droideka-" is, but my best guess is what I think the Chinese alien said before the dumb tripod robots attacked the two guys with funny ponytails in George Lucas' crash and burn movie, which I refuse to associate by title with the Star Wars movies that made him famous.
If you want a good SciFi reference relevant to rolling balls of death, think Arena by Frederic Brown.
Doesn't matter. If you want to make a new point about something, do it on your own show. Don't take a show that I enjoyed as a child and turn a man into a woman. Don't take evil robots with a clear motivation for what they do (they're evil robots) and turn them into women just to pick up on viewers you would otherwise lose to skinamax. Again, if you really want to be creative, create your own freaking storyline.
Perhaps someone should let the person who came up with idea, the person who wrote the article, and the person who submitted the article, that the idea of terraforming has been kicked around in one form or another by plenty of people. Heck, did none of these people even watch Arnold Schwarzenager do it in Total Recall? We could also probably save the "scientist" who came up the idea a little embarrassment if we let him know right now that flourine compounds aren't breathable.
Someone should also let the multitude of people out there who refuse to click on the article before crying "global warming is bad" that this isn't something NASA is planning on putting in their next budget and would take centuries anyways.
You are right about a few things. From what I've heard about the mission, I would even rate the Mars Express as more than half of the mission. I also applaud the ESA's recent success with Hguyens. I waited a long time for that one. You were asking for it with the US landers comment though.
From the Mars rovers site
These are the primary science instruments to be carried by the rovers:
Panoramic Camera (Pancam): for determining the mineralogy, texture, and structure of the local terrain.
Miniature Thermal Emission Spectrometer (Mini-TES): for identifying promising rocks and soils for closer examination and for determining the processes that formed Martian rocks. The instrument will also look skyward to provide temperature profiles of the Martian atmosphere.
Mössbauer Spectrometer (MB): for close-up investigations of the mineralogy of iron-bearing rocks and soils.
Alpha Particle X-Ray Spectrometer (APXS): for close-up analysis of the abundances of elements that make up rocks and soils.
Magnets: for collecting magnetic dust particles. The Mössbauer Spectrometer and the Alpha Particle X-ray Spectrometer will analyze the particles collected and help determine the ratio of magnetic particles to non-magnetic particles. They will also analyze the composition of magnetic minerals in airborne dust and rocks that have been ground by the Rock Abrasion Tool.
Microscopic Imager (MI): for obtaining close-up, high-resolution images of rocks and soils.
Rock Abrasion Tool (RAT): for removing dusty and weathered rock surfaces and exposing fresh material for examination by instruments onboard.
That covers the spectrometers and sample handling tools for you. Also, the 9 CCD's operating in or near the visible spectrum constitute a total of 5 cameras on each of the rovers. They've provided data on everything from forensics on the heat shield to the insides of craters to clouds and dust storms to the insides of martian rocks.
I admit, our space agency is milking the awesome photos returned by the rovers for all the publicity they're worth, but Spirit and Opportunity are clearly more than just another lousy Yank tourist taking pictures of the Tower Bridge only to label it as London Bridge in their photo album.
I'm well aware that it was based on 70's and 80's technology, but it earned it's fame in the 90's, which is why I call it an icon of the 90's, not a product of the decade.
I too was disappointed by the results of the report. A little surprised too. There were quite a few people criticising NASA for the cost of the MER's compared to the Beagle. Now the criticism has been turned around.
The politics of this bug me slightly less than the total lack of real insight. It sounds like the report can be summarized as, "The mission failed because we didn't spend enough money on it." Only a government entity could truly believe that money is the solution to a problem. I would be much more comfortable had it said something to effect of, "We believe that we cut too much from the budget for subsystems X and Y, since in retrospect (or testing), these appear to have the highest probability of failure. We also believe that in the future, a new subsystem Z should be utilized to allow for better forensic analysis. Future projects must account for these features in their budgets..."
From a sentimental standpoint I really like the idea of recovering the Hubble and sticking it in the Smithsonian. I've been told that it is a feasible idea, aside from the ridiculous cost. The Hubble really was one of the technological icons of the 90's.
Enter rational extra, stage left. Addresses slashdot troll:
"I say dear troll, though thy speach bait a soul like flame, I hold my wit and calmly implore thee an answer to the question upon my breast. By what reason, I ponder, be this a crime? Tis clear from thy impassioned tone that thou wishest a cessation, but thy words reveal not why."
Believe it or not, a lot of conspiracy theorists are convinced that HAARP is, aside from the obvious application of mass mind control, a weapon for creating earthquakes.
Try a google search with "haarp" and "earthquake", or even "tsunami" (or read through rense.com for long enough) and you'll find plenty of comments about all of the sneaky applications, but seldom even an attempt to explain how it works. I've tried but been unable to figure out how, of all things, they've concluded that HAARP is for generating earthquakes. I could understand why they would suspect mind control or a cancer weapon, given that it's basically a big radio antenna, but earthquakes?
On an even funnier note, I've come across blogs discussing building a house with aluminum foil inside the walls so you don't have to wear your tin foil hat indoors. They actually seemed serious.
All that's left is to grab a dremel and grinding bit to smooth up the edges, as the process is not perfect. Here you can see that one of the sides is almost completely smooth while the other is a tad rough, but still overall a good effect.
If you look at the pictures, you will notice the edge is not perfect and indeed there are problems with using this method for intricate designs. Especially if you use duct tape as your insulator like this guy did. You could cut your design labor down considerably by using paint (I'm not a chemist, but I suppose latex would work), but you would still need to pull out your Dremel to smooth out the cut, as the author mentioned.
Still this is worthy of being on slashdot because it may save a little labor over all, and more importantly, it's totally nerdy.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the functioning of the experiment improperly, but it sounds like they just watch for emissions from these high speed particles as they encounter the atmosphere. How do they tell the difference between these particles and micrometeorites with higher masses but lower velocities? Is it a simple matter of duration?
Slashdot Mirror
You bet they are. From the spaceflight website
- Return to Flight test mission.
- The Multi-Purpose Logistics Module, or MPLM, carries supplies and equipment to the station.
- Delivers the External Stowage Platform to the station.
- Remove and replace Control Moment Gyro.
Those are the highlights of the mission. In English: make sure the shuttle works, deliver some food and air, deliver an overdue piece of the space station, and fix a broken gyro. Additionally, they will be testing three tile patch kits to determine which works best in a microgravity vaccuum.Somebody replied to you implying that the ant experiment on Columbia was the highlight. I don't feel like making two posts, so I'll point out here that it was one of over 80 experiments carried by Columbia. That particular experiment was highlighted simply because it was from students.
While I guess what you're saying is true, it has always puzzled me. Then again, I left a very rural area to go to a school twice the size of my hometown (2500 students). I guess the environment breeds different sets of interests. I for one don't find wandering aimlessly around downtown at all interesting. The theatres here are all owned by the same poorly operated company (Regal), you have pay most stores just to use their parking lots, and there's no place to mountain bike. The only real advantage I've experienced so far is that Portland has a pretty well organized adult rec soccer league. Well, plus I get a pretty good laugh from city people joking about cow tipping. What a bunch of uneducated concrete-dwellers.
This is actually more like using an existing arm rather than learning to use a tool. We all had to go through a process of learning to use our own arms when we were babies. Our neurons carry the signals from our brains to our muscles and the muscles react according to the signal. We unconsciously figured out during our infancy what signals made our muscles do particular movements. In this case, the neurons interface with tiny electrodes that pick up the signals and a computer translates them into instructions for the robotic arm. Over time, the monkeys observe the effect of their "thoughts" on the movement of the arm and unconsciously learn to control the arm as if it were one of their own. There's also some very interesting related research going on with the goal of accomplishing the same thing with eyes.
Sheesh...harsh response guys. I read it three times to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding him. I get it now, but it's still crappy grammar. Plus, my last professor always told us to get excited when we find a counterexample to a statement.
Oh come on. About isn't all that bad. I remember one particular topic I needed some information on and could not find it clearly presented in any site other than About. In fact, almost all the other sites only discussed the topic in a very indirect and non-specific manner, so that I was left far more confused than when I first clicked on the links. About finally gave me some firm answers about the right and wrong ways to approach my dilemna and taught me some priceless lessons.
I'm referring to the content I found on fashion.about.com. I still don't understand why, and I still refuse to comply, but at least I know you're not supposed to wear white socks with black shoes and I have a vague idea how to tie a tie.
He said no conventional design has ever failed. Browsing the test tables a bit showed that we had 17 successful attempts before our failed attempt. This was an early attempt at creating a very low yield weapon. It's expected yield was only 200 tons, and they used 5 tons of HE in order to attempt to start it. It was definitely not a conventional design.
It's structural rigidity comes from the interior air pressure. They're talking about filling them at 10 psi, which means 1440 pounds of force on every square foot. That's fine for something that stays in orbit, like the initial versions. A low earth orbit also offers a great deal of protection from radiation. They've already done tests firing small particles at high velocities at the fabric and say the the performance is similar to that off NASA's modules. If a bolt head hit the module (extremely low probability) they'd basically have to model it after an Abrams tank to protect themselves. In that case, it would probably be better to have something thin that the projectile would go straight through without expending much energy, leaving a small hole that can be patched and without creating any spalling. Since it's flexible, heat expansion shouldn't be a problem, except perhaps near windows and hatches, but they're already addressing that as an issue with folding and unfolding.
I personally think this has great potential to lead to, if not space yachts, at least space time shares or something similar within our lifetimes. Paul Allen, for example, might think to himself, "If I apply the law of diminishing marginal utitily, I realize I would get more enjoyment out of having one yacht in the Puget Sound and a share in this space cabin thingy than I would from having two yachts."
I'm not quite sure what a "-Droideka-" is, but my best guess is what I think the Chinese alien said before the dumb tripod robots attacked the two guys with funny ponytails in George Lucas' crash and burn movie, which I refuse to associate by title with the Star Wars movies that made him famous.
If you want a good SciFi reference relevant to rolling balls of death, think Arena by Frederic Brown.
Doesn't matter. If you want to make a new point about something, do it on your own show. Don't take a show that I enjoyed as a child and turn a man into a woman. Don't take evil robots with a clear motivation for what they do (they're evil robots) and turn them into women just to pick up on viewers you would otherwise lose to skinamax. Again, if you really want to be creative, create your own freaking storyline.
Super, hyper, and mega...you're mixing up your units there. Your generator is bound to accomplish nothing other than crashing into Mars.
Perhaps someone should let the person who came up with idea, the person who wrote the article, and the person who submitted the article, that the idea of terraforming has been kicked around in one form or another by plenty of people. Heck, did none of these people even watch Arnold Schwarzenager do it in Total Recall? We could also probably save the "scientist" who came up the idea a little embarrassment if we let him know right now that flourine compounds aren't breathable.
Someone should also let the multitude of people out there who refuse to click on the article before crying "global warming is bad" that this isn't something NASA is planning on putting in their next budget and would take centuries anyways.
I admit, our space agency is milking the awesome photos returned by the rovers for all the publicity they're worth, but Spirit and Opportunity are clearly more than just another lousy Yank tourist taking pictures of the Tower Bridge only to label it as London Bridge in their photo album.
I'm well aware that it was based on 70's and 80's technology, but it earned it's fame in the 90's, which is why I call it an icon of the 90's, not a product of the decade.
I too was disappointed by the results of the report. A little surprised too. There were quite a few people criticising NASA for the cost of the MER's compared to the Beagle. Now the criticism has been turned around.
The politics of this bug me slightly less than the total lack of real insight. It sounds like the report can be summarized as, "The mission failed because we didn't spend enough money on it." Only a government entity could truly believe that money is the solution to a problem. I would be much more comfortable had it said something to effect of, "We believe that we cut too much from the budget for subsystems X and Y, since in retrospect (or testing), these appear to have the highest probability of failure. We also believe that in the future, a new subsystem Z should be utilized to allow for better forensic analysis. Future projects must account for these features in their budgets..."
From a sentimental standpoint I really like the idea of recovering the Hubble and sticking it in the Smithsonian. I've been told that it is a feasible idea, aside from the ridiculous cost. The Hubble really was one of the technological icons of the 90's.
No, because GIMP obvious way cheaper than Photoshop and we would be wasting taxpayer money by going any other way.
I'm not bailing you out of this one Mike. This is your dishwater, you bath in it.
Enter rational extra, stage left. Addresses slashdot troll:
"I say dear troll, though thy speach bait a soul like flame, I hold my wit and calmly implore thee an answer to the question upon my breast. By what reason, I ponder, be this a crime? Tis clear from thy impassioned tone that thou wishest a cessation, but thy words reveal not why."
In more clear words: Why is it wrong?
Believe it or not, a lot of conspiracy theorists are convinced that HAARP is, aside from the obvious application of mass mind control, a weapon for creating earthquakes.
Try a google search with "haarp" and "earthquake", or even "tsunami" (or read through rense.com for long enough) and you'll find plenty of comments about all of the sneaky applications, but seldom even an attempt to explain how it works. I've tried but been unable to figure out how, of all things, they've concluded that HAARP is for generating earthquakes. I could understand why they would suspect mind control or a cancer weapon, given that it's basically a big radio antenna, but earthquakes?
On an even funnier note, I've come across blogs discussing building a house with aluminum foil inside the walls so you don't have to wear your tin foil hat indoors. They actually seemed serious.
Still this is worthy of being on slashdot because it may save a little labor over all, and more importantly, it's totally nerdy.
I admit this is techincally flamebait, but it needs to be said:
To all the wireless companies out there: Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Suck it.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the functioning of the experiment improperly, but it sounds like they just watch for emissions from these high speed particles as they encounter the atmosphere. How do they tell the difference between these particles and micrometeorites with higher masses but lower velocities? Is it a simple matter of duration?