Voyger 1 outdistances the solar wind

bobman1235

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/buqtdpuZxvk?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/buqtdpuZxvk?fs=1&hl=en_US&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Jstas

bobman1235 wrote: »

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/buqtdpuZxvk?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/buqtdpuZxvk?fs=1&hl=en_US&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

YAY!!! :biggrin:

tonyb

HBombToo wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3

This energy my friend! Mining operations are being considered and cost benefit continues to be very attractive.

Look before you shoot is always a best practice.
HBomb

Do you have to use a wiki link to make your point ? Really Henry, why support a moron bent on turning the world upside down.
Regardless, H3 is used in nuclear fusion, key word being "Nuclear". Something we as a country have said is bad and haven't built a new reactor in decades. It may have it's use for research that may lead to a other energy source, but I don't see a ton of new reactors being built or the word Nuclear embraced by too many. However, if the goal is to reduce the use of foreign oil, then for right now,nuclear seems to be the only option for mass produced power.

shack

NASA is one of the few government agencies that I would be willing to triple (or more) their annual budget. The technology derived by the programs NASA runs permeate our daily lives in ways we can't imagine....and can't imagine doing without.

IMO to not support NASA is shortsighted. People who are a lot smarter than me certainly feel that way.

"The question to ask is whether the risk of traveling to space is worth the benefit. The answer is an unequivocal yes, but not only for the reasons that are usually touted by the space community: the need to explore, the scientific return, and the possibility of commercial profit. The most compelling reason, a very long-term one, is the necessity of using space to protect Earth and guarantee the survival of humanity."

William E. Burrows

"I don't think the human race will survive the next thousand years, unless we spread into space. There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet. But I'm an optimist. We will reach out to the stars."

Stephen Hawking

"Knowing what we know now, we are being irresponsible in our failure to make the scientific and technical progress we will need for protecting our newly discovered severely threatened and probably endangered species--us. NASA is not about the 'Adventure of Human Space Exploration,' we are in the deadly serious business of saving the species. All Human Exploration's bottom line is about preserving our species over the long haul."

Astronaut John Young

"In the long run, a single-planet species will not survive. One day, I don't know when, but one day, there will be more humans living off the Earth than on it."

NASA director Mike Griffin

Mars? We may think we know...but until we actually go there we don't know what isn't possible.

newrival

tonyb wrote: »

Do you have to use a wiki link to make your point ? Really Henry, why support a moron bent on turning the world upside down.

I think you're confusing wikipedia (or wiki link) with wiki leaks.

there are millions of different "wiki links" and perhaps millions of wiki servers that are all useful for sharing information like an online editable encyclopedia. wikileaks is the one that is releasing the internal government documents

cnh

That's correct tonyb. But the Chinese are very interested in He3 and their first satellite mission around the moon (Chang'e 1) had that exploration as one of its goals.

However, harvesting enough He3 from the moon will not be an easy task! And there is, as I understand it, more work to be done to use this source.

Nonetheless..in an interview with the father of Chinese space science, Ouyang Ziyuan, he discusses this and other successful investigations of China's first moon exploration satellite, the Chang'e 1, (which was followed by the Chang' e 2) (Chang'e is a kind of Chinese Moon Goddess from Chinese mythology....remind you of something? Apollo, perhaps?

Some of the similarities (at this point in history) with the American 60s and early 70s are very 'interesting'? A number of my students, last year, were working with Ouyang Ziyuan and we discussed the Chinese space program in classes--a great matter of pride and Nationalism there.

cnh

tonyb

newrival wrote: »

I think you're confusing wikipedia (or wiki link) with wiki leaks.

there are millions of different "wiki links" and perhaps millions of wiki servers that are all useful for sharing information like an online editable encyclopedia. wikileaks is the one that is releasing the internal government documents

All owned under the same umbrella, or am I wrong ?

bobman1235

Yes, you are wrong.

WIki is a general term, not a corporate entity.

From, amusingly, the Wikipedia page about WikiLeaks : WikiLeaks is not associated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation.

newrival

did someone say Carl Sagan?

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MlikCebQSlY?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MlikCebQSlY?fs=1&hl=en_US&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zSgiXGELjbc?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zSgiXGELjbc?fs=1&hl=en_US&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>



(he's truly a personal hero of mine)

newrival

This whole situation just highlights our abhorrent policies in regard to nuclear energy. We haven't buit a nuclear plant in decades. Hell, we haven't built a new coal plant, refinery, or chemical plant in decades. We build all these damned wind turbines, which are nice, but extremely expensive, inefficient, and cont intensive. We have the ability to make clean, cheap energy (nuclear) that could completely rid us of being dependent on foreign energy, and we havent done it. Uranium is an otherwise worthless material and as such is very cheap relative to other fuels.

Strong Bad

I think it's pretty damn amazing that we're still receiving data from something launched over 30 years ago and is 10.6 billion miles away. Just amazing!

I personally think NASA is a great success story, despite the bumps along the way. No one or nothing is perfect! You're going to take hits along the way, but you have to keep moving forward. Anyone that thinks that this is pissing money away needs to open their eyes! I say we do a massive cleanup of the welfare and social security programs (alot of pissed away money there!), then take the money saved and throw some at NASA to increase their funding!

The only holdup to our exploring of other planets is a viable propulsion system. Some supernerd out there is going to solve this puzzle! It's just a matter of time.

tonyb

bobman1235 wrote: »

Yes, you are wrong.

WIki is a general term, not a corporate entity.

From, amusingly, the Wikipedia page about WikiLeaks : WikiLeaks is not associated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation.

Not so sure....

Despite using the name "WikiLeaks", the website is no longer wiki-based as of December 2010[update]. Also, despite some popular confusion[87] due to both having the term "wiki" in their names, WikiLeaks and Wikipedia have no affiliation with each other;[88][89] i.e. "wiki" is not a brand name. Wikia, a for-profit corporation loosely affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation, did however purchase several Wikileaks-related domain names (including "wikileaks.com" and "wikileaks.net") as a "protective brand measure" in 2007.[90]

The "about" page originally read:[91]

To the user, WikiLeaks will look very much like Wikipedia. Anybody can post to it, anybody can edit it. No technical knowledge is required. Leakers can post documents anonymously and untraceably. Users can publicly discuss documents and analyze their credibility and veracity. Users can discuss interpretations and context and collaboratively formulate collective publications. Users can read and write explanatory articles on leaks along with background material and context. The political relevance of documents and their verisimilitude will be revealed by a cast of thousands

The wikimedia foundation, seems to be a collective of organizations, with the owner of wikipedia sitting at the table. They claim no association, then purchased wikileaks domain names ? One more thing, how accurate can it be if anyone can edit it ? Without any facts ? Do you see where I'm comming from ? Wikipedia is also listed as a 501c3, they are funded by donations and your taxpayer money in the way of grants.

bobman1235

Strong Bad wrote: »

The only holdup to our exploring of other planets is a viable propulsion system. Some supernerd out there is going to solve this puzzle! It's just a matter of time.

Buh? That is FAR from the only thing stopping us. That may be the only thing stopping us from exploring MARS, but every other planet in our solar system would be impossible for us to "visit" for LOTS of other reasons (some are pure gas, some the gravity would crush us instantaneously, some are too hot, most are too cold). And planets outside our solar system, we could have the best propulsion imaginable, that could take us near the speed of light, and it woudl still take centuries to get to the nearest solar system outside of our own that potentially has planets.

tonyb

newrival wrote: »

This whole situation just highlights our abhorrent policies in regard to nuclear energy. We haven't buit a nuclear plant in decades. Hell, we haven't built a new coal plant, refinery, or chemical plant in decades. We build all these damned wind turbines, which are nice, but extremely expensive, inefficient, and cont intensive. We have the ability to make clean, cheap energy (nuclear) that could completely rid us of being dependent on foreign energy, and we havent done it. Uranium is an otherwise worthless material and as such is very cheap relative to other fuels.

Agreed... and guess who we just gave half our uranium mining rights to, the Russians. Sometimes I just shake my head and go WTF is going on here ?

nooshinjohn

newrival wrote: »

This whole situation just highlights our abhorrent policies in regard to nuclear energy. We haven't buit a nuclear plant in decades. Hell, we haven't built a new coal plant, refinery, or chemical plant in decades. We build all these damned wind turbines, which are nice, but extremely expensive, inefficient, and cont intensive. We have the ability to make clean, cheap energy (nuclear) that could completely rid us of being dependent on foreign energy, and we havent done it. Uranium is an otherwise worthless material and as such is very cheap relative to other fuels.

The sole reason is to give our nation's treasure to the rest of the world. "Give THEM the wealth" is the current mantra. If we were independent of foreign energy, the main source of global wealth redistribution would come to an end and then the world will really hate us.