launch windows for Earth to Mars low energy trajectories are 26 months apart.
A manned mission to Mars isn't even in the planning stages yet. NASA is hoping to fly humans to the Moon before 2020, and a human mission to Mars sometime in the 2030s.
Of course, Burt Rutan will probably beat us there!:)
You can see NASA's Vision for Space Exploration at: http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/explore_m ain.html
I just got a memo that states NASA will be using the sythetic aperture radar instrument during Cassini's flyby of Titan on the 26th of this month. This will help us know what the Huygens's landing site is like. I don't know what that will do to the eventual landing, but I can imagine that it might change things.
For us geeks who love numbers, the total information gathered by all the instruments during the Titan flyby on the 26th will be around 3.6 Gbits.
I have to ask you...if it wasn't expected, why did they have equipment to deal with it? It seems to me that the engineers expected it...in fact, here is a quote from JPL's press release in 2002 that proves my point:
"Lens hazing from engine exhaust or other sources is always a possibility on interplanetary spacecraft. Planners designed heaters for Cassini's cameras to cope with just such a situation."
I agree with you that my comparison was a stretch--in fact, that was the point of the analogy. By concentrating on the analogy, though, you are missing my point: Huygens landing on Titan is something that we've never done, we don't know what's on Titan, and the landing has a non-zero chance of failure. You actually agree with this, I think, so I'm not sure what we're talking about any more.:)
We have never built a spacecraft as large or as complex as Cassini/Huygens.
You are correct, we are not in the dark when we build a new automobile, or, for that matter, a spacecraft. However, just think about how many automobiles have been built and how many spacecraft have been built. You are knowledgable, so tell me: how many spacecraft have been built in all of human history that have gone beyond the moon's orbit? Your point is well taken, though, we have done it enough times to include heaters on board, and radiators for the RTGs, and (I assume) louvers for heat balance, and a main dish that doesn't fold, and...well, it goes on and on and on, doesn't it? That's kind of my point, spacecraft are extremely complex objects and Huygens's descent onto Titan isn't an event that we should assume will go smoothly.
You are knowledgable, but you are also a bit tricky in your description...Cassini's main camera did, in fact, get foggy. But this is was expected and we had designed it to heat up to remove the fog. This wasn't so much of a 'repair' as it was a 'planned operation.' The course correction for the doppler shift is a better example, but it's simply a course correction. This isn't Hubble; if something truly goes wrong, not only will we not be able to fix it, we may never know what happened.
Let's not forget that Cassini and Huygens have been in the cold vacuum of space for 7+ years...Genesis had only been in space for 2 years before its parachute didn't open.
Who would expect their car (a machine that is far less complex and delicate than Cassini/Huygens!) to work flawlessly after 7 years here on Earth? A car is a machine that we've had practice building, practice using, and practice repairing--we've never practiced building Cassini/Huygens, we've never had practice using either, and we can't repair them!
Well, unless YOU have a screwdriver that's 1,427,000,000 kilometers long!
Three problems with your comparison to 60 Minutes:
1) That particular 60 minutes was not broadcast 2 weeks before the election and broadcast without commercials.
2) In addition, it didn't preempt 90 minutes of normal shows, thus causing many americans to see it who wouldn't normally have watched it.
3) It wasn't forced upon 62 stations, the stations that show it actually purchase the show regularly.
To compare these two shows is an attempt to use the comparison to validate Stolen Honor, something that has been called into question--not an attempt to invalidate 60 Minutes. This act alone shows that there is something worth questioning.
Slashdot Mirror
launch windows for Earth to Mars low energy trajectories are 26 months apart.
A manned mission to Mars isn't even in the planning stages yet. NASA is hoping to fly humans to the Moon before 2020, and a human mission to Mars sometime in the 2030s.
Of course, Burt Rutan will probably beat us there! :)
You can see NASA's Vision for Space Exploration at: http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/explore_m ain.html
I just got a memo that states NASA will be using the sythetic aperture radar instrument during Cassini's flyby of Titan on the 26th of this month. This will help us know what the Huygens's landing site is like. I don't know what that will do to the eventual landing, but I can imagine that it might change things.
For us geeks who love numbers, the total information gathered by all the instruments during the Titan flyby on the 26th will be around 3.6 Gbits.
It's a pretty neat rover, too...too bad that the public site at JPL isn't very good:
http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/future/mI have to ask you...if it wasn't expected, why did they have equipment to deal with it? It seems to me that the engineers expected it...in fact, here is a quote from JPL's press release in 2002 that proves my point:
"Lens hazing from engine exhaust or other sources is always a possibility on interplanetary spacecraft. Planners designed heaters for Cassini's cameras to cope with just such a situation."
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-releases-02I agree with you that my comparison was a stretch--in fact, that was the point of the analogy. By concentrating on the analogy, though, you are missing my point: Huygens landing on Titan is something that we've never done, we don't know what's on Titan, and the landing has a non-zero chance of failure. You actually agree with this, I think, so I'm not sure what we're talking about any more. :)
We have never built a spacecraft as large or as complex as Cassini/Huygens.
You are correct, we are not in the dark when we build a new automobile, or, for that matter, a spacecraft. However, just think about how many automobiles have been built and how many spacecraft have been built. You are knowledgable, so tell me: how many spacecraft have been built in all of human history that have gone beyond the moon's orbit? Your point is well taken, though, we have done it enough times to include heaters on board, and radiators for the RTGs, and (I assume) louvers for heat balance, and a main dish that doesn't fold, and...well, it goes on and on and on, doesn't it? That's kind of my point, spacecraft are extremely complex objects and Huygens's descent onto Titan isn't an event that we should assume will go smoothly.
You are knowledgable, but you are also a bit tricky in your description...Cassini's main camera did, in fact, get foggy. But this is was expected and we had designed it to heat up to remove the fog. This wasn't so much of a 'repair' as it was a 'planned operation.' The course correction for the doppler shift is a better example, but it's simply a course correction. This isn't Hubble; if something truly goes wrong, not only will we not be able to fix it, we may never know what happened.
Let's not forget that Cassini and Huygens have been in the cold vacuum of space for 7+ years...Genesis had only been in space for 2 years before its parachute didn't open.
Who would expect their car (a machine that is far less complex and delicate than Cassini/Huygens!) to work flawlessly after 7 years here on Earth? A car is a machine that we've had practice building, practice using, and practice repairing--we've never practiced building Cassini/Huygens, we've never had practice using either, and we can't repair them!
Well, unless YOU have a screwdriver that's 1,427,000,000 kilometers long!
Three problems with your comparison to 60 Minutes: 1) That particular 60 minutes was not broadcast 2 weeks before the election and broadcast without commercials. 2) In addition, it didn't preempt 90 minutes of normal shows, thus causing many americans to see it who wouldn't normally have watched it. 3) It wasn't forced upon 62 stations, the stations that show it actually purchase the show regularly. To compare these two shows is an attempt to use the comparison to validate Stolen Honor, something that has been called into question--not an attempt to invalidate 60 Minutes. This act alone shows that there is something worth questioning.