Despite what people may think, the evolution of stars are still not completely understood. Esp, how do stars affect their neighboring environment? To answer the question, it is important to *look* at their immediate surroundings. But that's hard to do, since the stars themselves are blindingly bright and overwhelms the fainter features around them (e.g., you can't see coronae with your naked eyes, unless the sun itself is eclipsed).
This technique would allow us to study the surroundings of stars. And that can be quite useful.
Now, I note that such technique has been used before else where. But not at Keck. It is difficult to do with the Keck because its twin telescopes employ a set of fragmented mirrors, which in turn makes it very difficult to achieve interference (those mirrors generate some phase mismatches, which kill the interference).
It's about time for the adminstrator to criticize the ISS (and the shuttles)! Dr. Griffin, you got my vote.
On the other topic, will the ISS ever be useful? I doubt it at this point. The number of the crew on board the ISS is limited by the capacity of a return vehicle available in case of emergency. At this point, that's 3 with Soyuz capsule. Unless there is a more capable one coming on line, the ISS will NOT function as a laboratory as it is originally intended (note: at this point there are no more than two docking bays in the design -- one docking bay open for a supply vehicle, and another for the escape vehicle). Quite frankly I don't know how ready NASA/Russia would be when European Space Agency (ESA) or JAXA (Japan) put up modules and demand NASA to let them occupy the modules. That simply ain't gonna happen.
So why did we built it in the first place? Well, first, the Russian had it and the U.S. didn't. It must have occurred to the Congress (and NASA talking heads) that the U.S. could build one, too? Second, the space industry needed a handout (federal grant) from the government? The industry was suffering from one budget cut to another. And the R&D in space research is an art; if you don't exercise the skill, you'll lose it. So did the Congress (and the industry lobbists) see the need for some project (on the cheap) to sustain the technological skills in the field? Is it kind of like what the U.S. did with Tennessee Valley Authority program after the Great Depression (in order to boost the economy)?
I'm totally speculating on these. Doesn't mean to speak with authority at all. But the social aspect of this development leading to this day is sort of interesting.
True that. But Mars does have a residual magnetic field imprinted on the crust. I recall Mars Global Surveyer has found such evidence.
The main reason that Mars lost its atmosphere (or water) is that Mars is less massive, which allows particles (gases) moving at a tail of Maxiwellian velocity distribution. Having a magnetic field help trap charged particles, though I'm not sure how significant that process is in terms of planetary evolution.
In any case, just having a magnetic field wouldn't do.
I really shouldn't hotlink it w/o written consent from the author, but...heck, CalTech ought to be able to handle the load. Anyway, I make no extra comment of my own on this incident, but you guys might want to read up why the US guys did what and how they did.
That probably isn't exactly fair to ISAS, which has merged with NASDA that was plagued with failure after failure with its H-I and II rockets. These institutions now form JAXA, instead.
The ISAS's mu-series rocket has been fairly successful, except for a major failure of M-V rocket that carried ASTRO-E1 mission in 2000. So comparing NASA and ISAS is like apple-and-orange comparison that makes no sense, either.
But making it "interesting to all" doesn't -- or shouldn't -- mean the article can be written inaccurately. Back in time when there was no picture to convey science through media (e.g., radio), I bet those reporters knew better how to formulate their thoughts and then to report the fact via eloquent words as accurately and vividly as possible. I guess that sort of thing is a dying art (or did science become that complex? I'm having a harder time believing that).
This type of biological research convinces me firmly that the intelligent design (ID) is just another horse crap made up by humans. The base of ID's claim lies on the belief that the design of some rudimentary living organisms are just too complex to be built by accident. Hence some higher intelligence -- beyond human intelligence -- must be involved in creating such organisms. But now, we are stepping closer to make one on our own. What does that say about humans? Are we becoming a god?
No. It's all about perception. From our point of view, some things may look too complex to be formed accidentally. But as science advances, our perception does evolve (or should). If our society continues to exist (not sure if that happens in Kansas or in Bill Frist's home, but let's not go there), then what it seems an impossible task may not be so impossible any more.
Why not transfer the whole data to DVD and then sell copies of the DVD? NASA get to do their research, and other people get to analyse the data in new and interesting ways.
Selling? First, they are making these data files freely available for download. Second, these data sets contain no cool image or anything that tickles fancy from Jane and Joe Sixpacks. So I'd expect less than 1000 copies would be sold if it were to be on the market.
And not that many engineers or scientists are qualified enough to entangle a problem like this. This is one of those precision engineering at first, and then science next.
For those who are wondering about the high cost....for hiring two good engineers for full-time year (two FTEs), it would cost over 150K (incl. a typical NASA overhead). The rest goes to hardware and administration. Yeah, it'd be nice if every qualified individual jumps in to study what goes on with the Pioneer datasets. That'd be neat and cheap. But that's just some utopian thought that is unlikely to materialize (I'm sure there are more crackpot *self-acclaimed* theorists who would come forward to explain away this anomaly from philosophical standpoint).
is there any particular reason for America's tendency to send many, many more unmanned than manned missions into space?
You answered your own question. Because it's cheaper. Hell, much cheaper.
The fact that, if you were to put an astronaut on board an unmanned rocket, you'd kill the bastard by exploding his guts internally plus squishing via high Gs during the launch. So to make it safe for manned mission, each rocket has to be designed with more safe proof structure for human bodies.
None of that would be required for an unmanned rocket, which makes it cheaper to launch. Expendable missions are that cheap and cost-efficient today. In future with further development of reuseable vehicles, it could be a day when manned vehicles would be far more efficient and norm someday. (Or one can only dream...)
The company's objective is to research, design and develop this "smalltug" spacecraft, not (guessing based on the articles) about putting it into the orbit. Marshall would most probably pick up the bill for that.
Nontheless, $20mil is a good price tag. I hope Andrews Space does succeed in this (and if it doesn't, well, then it won't get any more than the first phase of the 1.25mil budget...I wish we can slap this kind of thing onto NGST, Boeing or TRW).
It doesn't matter. Dumb people would still buy Longhorn anyway.
Or maybe would it finally pursuade people to migrate onto Mac? (I don't dare to say "linux" yet).
Depends who owns data bits
on
Software Telescope
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Why do projects like this have to be done on supercomputers?
Technical points aside, one political reason for not going to distributed processing is this: some want their data bits to be strictly proprietary.
By distributing, there will be a chance that the distributed data bits would be compromised and captured by someone else (e.g., leading to scooping the cheif investigator). It's a long shot, I know, but that is something that the organization like this need to take into account.
The best place you can perhaps access to watch the launch is at the river back 10 miles away from the pad. You'll need to purchase an advanced ticket to enter the Kennedy site. Said tickets may be sold out by now, though. But if you do, you will meet at the visitors center and a tour bus will take you to the viewing site to see the launch. Google "Kenndy Space Center + Visitor's center + Shuttle launch" (plus "Delaware" may help) to find out more.
If you do take a bicycle or kayaks to approach the launch site, the chances are that NASA security (or Marines) would spot you and halt the entire launch sequence -- i.e., you'd be responsible for scrubbing a shuttle launch. So DON'T.
[If you donate a few million dollars to your senators or the president, you probably could call them and ask them to pull strings to get you a VIP pass to watch the launch from the viewing site at 2 miles distance. Now that's a treat you'd not forget.
Not many slashdot readers are (unfortunately) as an observant and careful reader as you are. People tend to swallow what is dangled in front of them and to take it as a "hard" fact. I'm just adding my 2 cents to make them think a bit deeper (if at all).
Yeah, this could be proven to be utterly wrong in 5 years; or it could be used as a benchmark study for the cosmological study of large scale structure. The community will decide that sooner or later.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not just about finding a planet.
Despite what people may think, the evolution of stars are still not completely understood. Esp, how do stars affect their neighboring environment? To answer the question, it is important to *look* at their immediate surroundings. But that's hard to do, since the stars themselves are blindingly bright and overwhelms the fainter features around them (e.g., you can't see coronae with your naked eyes, unless the sun itself is eclipsed).
This technique would allow us to study the surroundings of stars. And that can be quite useful.
Now, I note that such technique has been used before else where. But not at Keck. It is difficult to do with the Keck because its twin telescopes employ a set of fragmented mirrors, which in turn makes it very difficult to achieve interference (those mirrors generate some phase mismatches, which kill the interference).
It's about time for the adminstrator to criticize the ISS (and the shuttles)! Dr. Griffin, you got my vote.
On the other topic, will the ISS ever be useful? I doubt it at this point. The number of the crew on board the ISS is limited by the capacity of a return vehicle available in case of emergency. At this point, that's 3 with Soyuz capsule. Unless there is a more capable one coming on line, the ISS will NOT function as a laboratory as it is originally intended (note: at this point there are no more than two docking bays in the design -- one docking bay open for a supply vehicle, and another for the escape vehicle). Quite frankly I don't know how ready NASA/Russia would be when European Space Agency (ESA) or JAXA (Japan) put up modules and demand NASA to let them occupy the modules. That simply ain't gonna happen.
So why did we built it in the first place? Well, first, the Russian had it and the U.S. didn't. It must have occurred to the Congress (and NASA talking heads) that the U.S. could build one, too? Second, the space industry needed a handout (federal grant) from the government? The industry was suffering from one budget cut to another. And the R&D in space research is an art; if you don't exercise the skill, you'll lose it. So did the Congress (and the industry lobbists) see the need for some project (on the cheap) to sustain the technological skills in the field? Is it kind of like what the U.S. did with Tennessee Valley Authority program after the Great Depression (in order to boost the economy)?
I'm totally speculating on these. Doesn't mean to speak with authority at all. But the social aspect of this development leading to this day is sort of interesting.
True that. But Mars does have a residual magnetic field imprinted on the crust. I recall Mars Global Surveyer has found such evidence.
The main reason that Mars lost its atmosphere (or water) is that Mars is less massive, which allows particles (gases) moving at a tail of Maxiwellian velocity distribution. Having a magnetic field help trap charged particles, though I'm not sure how significant that process is in terms of planetary evolution.
In any case, just having a magnetic field wouldn't do.
If a rock is massive enough to have a molten core and sustain any magnetic field (and not orbiting a more massive counterpart), I'd call it a planet.
If it has a sustained atmosphere, then that's a plus, too (c.f., Mercury doesn't have one, however).
Bad economy does that to them...in a sense it's the fault of the White House and Congress.
tan(88.6361deg) = 42.
Is that what you wanted?
Mike Brown makes some comments in his web page:
On discovery of new planet
I really shouldn't hotlink it w/o written consent from the author, but...heck, CalTech ought to be able to handle the load. Anyway, I make no extra comment of my own on this incident, but you guys might want to read up why the US guys did what and how they did.
That probably isn't exactly fair to ISAS, which has merged with NASDA that was plagued with failure after failure with its H-I and II rockets. These institutions now form JAXA, instead.
The ISAS's mu-series rocket has been fairly successful, except for a major failure of M-V rocket that carried ASTRO-E1 mission in 2000. So comparing NASA and ISAS is like apple-and-orange comparison that makes no sense, either.
Hayabusa was launched by ISAS, FWIW.
But making it "interesting to all" doesn't -- or shouldn't -- mean the article can be written inaccurately. Back in time when there was no picture to convey science through media (e.g., radio), I bet those reporters knew better how to formulate their thoughts and then to report the fact via eloquent words as accurately and vividly as possible. I guess that sort of thing is a dying art (or did science become that complex? I'm having a harder time believing that).
I've gotta confess, I really was a TROLLfor this parent post.
This type of biological research convinces me firmly that
the intelligent design (ID) is just another horse crap
made up by humans. The base of ID's claim lies on the belief
that the design of some rudimentary living organisms are
just too complex to be built by accident. Hence
some higher intelligence -- beyond human intelligence --
must be involved in creating such organisms. But now, we
are stepping closer to make one on our own. What does that
say about humans? Are we becoming a god?
No. It's all about perception. From our point of view, some
things may look too complex to be formed accidentally. But
as science advances, our perception does evolve (or should).
If our society continues to exist (not sure if that happens
in Kansas or in Bill Frist's home, but let's not go there),
then what it seems an impossible task may not be so impossible
any more.
Well, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
Mary-Sue Haliburton?
EnronHaliburton2004, are you related? Say ain't so!
A guy who works at "Pure Energy System" posts exclusive article posted on PESN (Pure Energy System News)? Isn't that the same as a free ad?
Not that anything wrong with that...
Why not transfer the whole data to DVD and then sell copies of the DVD? NASA get to do their research, and other people get to analyse the data in new and interesting ways.
Selling? First, they are making these data files freely available for download. Second, these data sets contain no cool image or anything that tickles fancy from Jane and Joe Sixpacks. So I'd expect less than 1000 copies would be sold if it were to be on the market.
And not that many engineers or scientists are qualified enough to entangle a problem like this. This is one of those precision engineering at first, and then science next.
For those who are wondering about the high cost....for hiring two good engineers for full-time year (two FTEs), it would cost over 150K (incl. a typical NASA overhead). The rest goes to hardware and administration. Yeah, it'd be nice if every qualified individual jumps in to study what goes on with the Pioneer datasets. That'd be neat and cheap. But that's just some utopian thought that is unlikely to materialize (I'm sure there are more crackpot *self-acclaimed* theorists who would come forward to explain away this anomaly from philosophical standpoint).
and farewell, James.
Hey, if this isn't news for horny nerds, I don't know what would.
is there any particular reason for America's tendency to send many, many more unmanned than manned missions into space?
You answered your own question. Because it's cheaper. Hell, much cheaper.
The fact that, if you were to put an astronaut on board an unmanned rocket, you'd kill the bastard by exploding his guts internally plus squishing via high Gs during the launch. So to make it safe for manned mission, each rocket has to be designed with more safe proof structure for human bodies.
None of that would be required for an unmanned rocket, which makes it cheaper to launch. Expendable missions are that cheap and cost-efficient today. In future with further development of reuseable vehicles, it could be a day when manned vehicles would be far more efficient and norm someday. (Or one can only dream...)
No, I feel I'm partly wrong. These guys are working with SpaceShipOne guys and not clear if their bills include that part of the budget.
The company's objective is to research, design and develop this "smalltug" spacecraft, not (guessing based on the articles) about putting it into the orbit. Marshall would most probably pick up the bill for that.
Nontheless, $20mil is a good price tag. I hope Andrews Space does succeed in this (and if it doesn't, well, then it won't get any more than the first phase of the 1.25mil budget...I wish we can slap this kind of thing onto NGST, Boeing or TRW).
It doesn't matter. Dumb people would still buy Longhorn anyway.
Or maybe would it finally pursuade people to migrate onto Mac? (I don't dare to say "linux" yet).
Why do projects like this have to be done on supercomputers?
Technical points aside, one political reason for not going to distributed processing is this: some want their data bits to be strictly proprietary.
By distributing, there will be a chance that the distributed data bits would be compromised and captured by someone else (e.g., leading to scooping the cheif investigator). It's a long shot, I know, but that is something that the organization like this need to take into account.
The best place you can perhaps access to watch the launch is at the river back 10 miles away from the pad. You'll need to purchase an advanced ticket to enter the Kennedy site. Said tickets may be sold out by now, though. But if you do, you will meet at the visitors center and a tour bus will take you to the viewing site to see the launch. Google "Kenndy Space Center + Visitor's center + Shuttle launch" (plus "Delaware" may help) to find out more.
If you do take a bicycle or kayaks to approach the launch site, the chances are that NASA security (or Marines) would spot you and halt the entire launch sequence -- i.e., you'd be responsible for scrubbing a shuttle launch. So DON'T.
[If you donate a few million dollars to your senators or the president, you probably could call them and ask them to pull strings to get you a VIP pass to watch the launch from the viewing site at 2 miles distance. Now that's a treat you'd not forget.
Someone ought to mod you up.
Not many slashdot readers are (unfortunately) as an observant and careful reader as you are. People tend to swallow what is dangled in front of them and to take it as a "hard" fact. I'm just adding my 2 cents to make them think a bit deeper (if at all).
Yeah, this could be proven to be utterly wrong in 5 years; or it could be used as a benchmark study for the cosmological study of large scale structure. The community will decide that sooner or later.
Of course, in the title, I meant to say "cosmology far from understood"...geez, I need to get some sleep.