Why do you think the technology was *far inferior*? Most of the limiting items (propulsion) are hardly any better now, and many if not most of the actual hardware end items are no longer available.
As far as space technology is concerned, just about the only thing that has improved significantly is the computer processing capability, and that wasn't a significant limiting factor in 1966. And software development processes have, if anything, gone backwards as far as the ability to generate proper and lean code in a timely manner - in large part because the greatly increased computer performance *permits* the sort of bloat associated with "modern" software development "theories".
If you don't believe me, less than a year ago we had someone expressing amazement that the Mars Rovers OS was fit into a "mere" 2 meg. When it probably could have been 2 assembly code *words* with a tiny bit of hardware to kick it off.
To be frank, based on my experience, the most likely thing to kill ANY space program is software development and that's only an issue when you have "superior technology". Having less computer capability would almost certainly make any space project go faster and be more likely to work - because it requires FAR more engineering discipline in every aspect of the program.
What the heck are you trying to say? That a redundant gyro is foolish and profligate waste of taxpayers money?
The gyro is what makes it go where it is supposed to go. Primary gyro failure, and no redundant unit = big splash in the Atlantic and/or range safety destruct. So you save $250,000 on a second gyro, and risk a $400 million+ dollar program.
The report of data suddenly looking "noisy" about the time the final stage fired is a pretty classic bad news situation. The sequence is usually:
"looking good!"
"clean separation!"
"5-4-3-2-1,kick motor ignition"
data lost
followed by, a short time later
"radar indicates multiple targets..."
Not that I am hoping, but it's a really bad sign.
Brett
The principles of solar sails have been perfectly well understood for decades, and used in varying degrees for the entire time. Note the sails at the ends of the solar array tips on Mariner 4 (little blue squares):
>For a reality show all you really, honestly need is, I >dunno, one camera and an idea. And most seem to get away >with just the camera.
Don't forget a random assemblege of self-absorbed imbeciles. Although I do miss the subtle and nuanced "Chains of Love".
Brett
Re:Driving hard or hardly driving?
on
Television Reloaded
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I'm not sure why this is modded funny! Maybe because there is no "tragicomic" tag.
My brother works for a group that installs aftermarket items on cars, like A/C and Steros/DVD players, and in-dash DVD is a VERY popular modification. Not "back seat so the kids can watch Teletubbies" DVD players, dashboard. I'm not even sure it's explicitly illegal everywhere.
Free advertising! I can easily imagine that the only reason they continue to pursue this is to get free mention of an otherwise dead (and disgusting) product. They sure managed to get a lot of/.'ers to talk about it for a few hours.
>>This is the first instance of one extraterrestrial >>satellite photographing another >No, I'm fairly sure that Oprah took a photo of Star Jones at one point
> Since the Bush administratoin reduced NASA funding and > further increased military funding, it should be > embarassing to them, that the first test of a solar sail > hast to come through private funding, be built in Russia > and launched from a russian submarine.
I don't see why anyone should be embarrassed. The principle behind solar sails has been demonstrated repeatedly since the early space age. Most notably, the Echo communication reflector http://msl.jpl.nasa.gov/QuickLooks/echoQL.html from 1960 had most of the necessary properties, and underwent drastic orbit perturbations (which came as somewhat of a surprise to some involved) as the result of solar pressure. Everybody who builds anything in space pays attention to it and satellites have commonly added small reflectors and or tilted solar arrays to minimize the attitude disturbances. The effect easy to analyze to almost arbitrary accuracy.
Simply deploying a small reflector (and this experiment is a *very small* structure, of necessity) is almost trivial. That's why no one at NASA or DoD is doing it. If there was a good application for a solar sail, I doubt anyone could be convinced to even try a test flight - you'd just build the final full vehicle with *no* testing of the principle.
I'm not trying to take away from this effort, but the one and only reason that space isn't filled with solar sails already is lack of a needed application - not lack of experience!!
recounting the discovery of common strep (Streptococcus mitis) that was left in the camera on Surveyor 3 and returned 3 years later on Apollo 12, surviving the equally difficult environment on the moon.
This really tells you two things - first, that it's possible for bacteria with at least some protection to take the raw space environment for a while, and second, that although there are at least some consideration for preventing contaimination on most if not all landers (including Surveyor) that stuff slips through the cracks. They didn't pay nearly the attention to it on Surveryor that they had on others before and since (some of the early Ranger missions had failures suspected to have been caused by the sterilization procedures damaging the equipment) but they didn't just sneeze in it and shoot it off, either.
Brett
(and yes, space is sort of my personal hobby horse (not to mention my primary source of income), so please forgive my multiple posts!)
That's all true. But don't underestimate the desire of ESA to not believe it until Europeans have "discovered" water on Mars. Or to at least claim credit for some discovery. it is just a press release, after all.
I also might add that this means large quantities of water. Water in small amounts has been visible at the poles in winter for years, and there are numerous pictures of water frost from the surface from Viking 2 in 1976. So there is water, known to some level of certainty, since the invention of the telescope.
It's an interesting additional input, but it's hardly a new discovery.
BTW - don't count the chickens before they are hatched. The type of struts used for the antenna don't usually like being stowed for too long - and now it has been stowed for a year or so longer than intended. Waiting may not have been the conservative move.
Near-misses between geosynchronous satellites is becoming a very serious problem. By near misses, I mean close approaches of less than a kilometer, which is on the level of the position knowledge for dead objects. Particularly so in the closely-packed areas. As far as I know, nothing has actually hit anything else, at least not verifiably. At least not at GEO.
20 years ago, the "space is big" argument held water, but the chances of hitting something if it gets low enough are not really negligible.
But those hollywood execs are just working for our best interest! Good story, it just needs a little "punching up" - you know, a few car chases, explosions, and maybe a wise-cracking robot! People like that.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you think the technology was *far inferior*? Most of the limiting items (propulsion) are hardly any better now, and many if not most of the actual hardware end items are no longer available.
As far as space technology is concerned, just about the only thing that has improved significantly is the computer processing capability, and that wasn't a significant limiting factor in 1966. And software development processes have, if anything, gone backwards as far as the ability to generate proper and lean code in a timely manner - in large part because the greatly increased computer performance *permits* the sort of bloat associated with "modern" software development "theories".
If you don't believe me, less than a year ago we had someone expressing amazement that the Mars Rovers OS was fit into a "mere" 2 meg. When it probably could have been 2 assembly code *words* with a tiny bit of hardware to kick it off.
To be frank, based on my experience, the most likely thing to kill ANY space program is software development and that's only an issue when you have "superior technology". Having less computer capability would almost certainly make any space project go faster and be more likely to work - because it requires FAR more engineering discipline in every aspect of the program.
Brett
Juice is still too busy trying to find the real killers. Apparently a lot of shady types hang around on golf courses. And steal satellite TV.
Brett
Two different people with the same name. It happens.
What the heck are you trying to say? That a redundant gyro is foolish and profligate waste of taxpayers money?
The gyro is what makes it go where it is supposed to go. Primary gyro failure, and no redundant unit = big splash in the Atlantic and/or range safety destruct. So you save $250,000 on a second gyro, and risk a $400 million+ dollar program.
Brett
THAT DOES NOT COMPUTE
The report of data suddenly looking "noisy" about the time the final stage fired is a pretty classic bad news situation. The sequence is usually: "looking good!" "clean separation!" "5-4-3-2-1,kick motor ignition" data lost followed by, a short time later "radar indicates multiple targets..." Not that I am hoping, but it's a really bad sign. Brett
The principles of solar sails have been perfectly well understood for decades, and used in varying degrees for the entire time. Note the sails at the ends of the solar array tips on Mariner 4 (little blue squares) :
h tml
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/past/mariner3-4.
That was in 1964.
The only unique thing about this flight is that it's the only purpose of the mission.
Brett
Like most things, caring for the elderly is just a degenerate form of bending.
Brett
Not to install it! I would suspect it's perfectly legal to watch as long as you aren't driving at the same time.
Brett
>For a reality show all you really, honestly need is, I
>dunno, one camera and an idea. And most seem to get away
>with just the camera.
Don't forget a random assemblege of self-absorbed imbeciles. Although I do miss the subtle and nuanced "Chains of Love".
Brett
I'm not sure why this is modded funny! Maybe because there is no "tragicomic" tag.
My brother works for a group that installs aftermarket items on cars, like A/C and Steros/DVD players, and in-dash DVD is a VERY popular modification. Not "back seat so the kids can watch Teletubbies" DVD players, dashboard. I'm not even sure it's explicitly illegal everywhere.
Brett
Free advertising! I can easily imagine that the only reason they continue to pursue this is to get free mention of an otherwise dead (and disgusting) product. They sure managed to get a lot of /.'ers to talk about it for a few hours.
Brett
>>This is the first instance of one extraterrestrial >>satellite photographing another
>No, I'm fairly sure that Oprah took a photo of Star Jones at one point
He said "satellite" - not "parasite".
Brett
Another day, another proof of goatse's transcendent relevance to the physical world. Brett
Because it was the first time NASA did it! Just like it was a big deal when ESA did it this year. PR! Brett
Not to counter your point (which I largely agree with), to be picky, the ion engines like DS-1 have been around for at least 25 years.
Brett
> Since the Bush administratoin reduced NASA funding and
> further increased military funding, it should be
> embarassing to them, that the first test of a solar sail
> hast to come through private funding, be built in Russia
> and launched from a russian submarine.
I don't see why anyone should be embarrassed. The principle behind solar sails has been demonstrated repeatedly since the early space age. Most notably, the Echo communication reflector http://msl.jpl.nasa.gov/QuickLooks/echoQL.html from 1960 had most of the necessary properties, and underwent drastic orbit perturbations (which came as somewhat of a surprise to some involved) as the result of solar pressure. Everybody who builds anything in space pays attention to it and satellites have commonly added small reflectors and or tilted solar arrays to minimize the attitude disturbances. The effect easy to analyze to almost arbitrary accuracy.
Simply deploying a small reflector (and this experiment is a *very small* structure, of necessity) is almost trivial. That's why no one at NASA or DoD is doing it. If there was a good application for a solar sail, I doubt anyone could be convinced to even try a test flight - you'd just build the final full vehicle with *no* testing of the principle.
I'm not trying to take away from this effort, but the one and only reason that space isn't filled with solar sails already is lack of a needed application - not lack of experience!!
Brett
Well. maybe. But note:
p 98_1.htm
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast01se
recounting the discovery of common strep (Streptococcus mitis) that was left in the camera on Surveyor 3 and returned 3 years later on Apollo 12, surviving the equally difficult environment on the moon.
This really tells you two things - first, that it's possible for bacteria with at least some protection to take the raw space environment for a while, and second, that although there are at least some consideration for preventing contaimination on most if not all landers (including Surveyor) that stuff slips through the cracks. They didn't pay nearly the attention to it on Surveryor that they had on others before and since (some of the early Ranger missions had failures suspected to have been caused by the sterilization procedures damaging the equipment) but they didn't just sneeze in it and shoot it off, either.
Brett
(and yes, space is sort of my personal hobby horse (not to mention my primary source of income), so please forgive my multiple posts!)
Well not to be argumentative, but:
a ge /vl2_22e169.html>
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_p
among many others.
Brett
That's all true. But don't underestimate the desire of ESA to not believe it until Europeans have "discovered" water on Mars. Or to at least claim credit for some discovery. it is just a press release, after all.
I also might add that this means large quantities of water. Water in small amounts has been visible at the poles in winter for years, and there are numerous pictures of water frost from the surface from Viking 2 in 1976. So there is water, known to some level of certainty, since the invention of the telescope.
It's an interesting additional input, but it's hardly a new discovery.
BTW - don't count the chickens before they are hatched. The type of struts used for the antenna don't usually like being stowed for too long - and now it has been stowed for a year or so longer than intended. Waiting may not have been the conservative move.
It'll probably be OK.
Brett
Near-misses between geosynchronous satellites is becoming a very serious problem. By near misses, I mean close approaches of less than a kilometer, which is on the level of the position knowledge for dead objects. Particularly so in the closely-packed areas. As far as I know, nothing has actually hit anything else, at least not verifiably. At least not at GEO.
20 years ago, the "space is big" argument held water, but the chances of hitting something if it gets low enough are not really negligible.
Brett
You and your 3 dimensions, how cute. We have 5, uh, 5000 dimensions. Don't question it!
Your ideas intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Starring Troy McClure?
But those hollywood execs are just working for our best interest! Good story, it just needs a little "punching up" - you know, a few car chases, explosions, and maybe a wise-cracking robot! People like that.