Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Farthest Human-Made Object: First Quarter Century 405

An anonymous reader writes "The NASA Astrobiology Magazine reports today the 25th anniversary of the Voyager I launch, now the farthest human-made object at 93 Sun-Earth distances (93 AU), or 12 light-hours away. Expected battery life to 2020. The fascinating part is that gold record of civilization, which is a strange audio mix of sentimental kisses [wav file, let ET phone home that way] and perhaps the most dated picture of DNA. Some progress there. Voy 1 will likely confuse even modern earthlings-- much less ET. Case in point: In 2002, can we understand that 70's show, when the Polish greeting memorialized as "Welcome, creatures from beyond the outer world"? Unlike those ET creatures we meet daily from the inner world?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Farthest Human-Made Object: First Quarter Century

Comments Filter:
  • DNA is still DNA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by oingoboingo ( 179159 ) on Wednesday August 21, 2002 @07:49AM (#4110483)
    ...and perhaps the most dated picture of DNA

    Huh? Unless something changed recently, all the details illustrated in the DNA diagram are still as valid now as they were in the 70s. Is the story submitter upset because the double helix isn't animated, spinning slowly around, backlit by an offscreen purple fluorescent light source with meaningless reams of genetic code flashing past in the background like in a million bad sci-fi movies?

    You'll still find a very similar style of diagram in any molecular biology textbook.
  • Re:Battery life? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Space cowboy ( 13680 ) on Wednesday August 21, 2002 @07:58AM (#4110508) Journal
    Yes. "The planet" in question being Earth. If a nuclear-powered device explodes on launch, or in low orbit, it's "not a good thing". At the very least you'll get radioactive debris spread over a wide area.

    Simon.
  • by Saggi ( 462624 ) on Wednesday August 21, 2002 @09:32AM (#4110927) Homepage
    Just because the nearest star is really far away, it doesn't make it disappointing. We'll get there some day, it may take time and it may not be easy to phone home, but does it matter.

    1000 years ago, it took years to go or communicate from one end of the known world to the other.

    250 years ago, we reach the new world. But it still took most of a year, and the danger of shipwreck to get there.

    In 100 years from now we may have very fast ships. Lets say 10% of light speed. This would put us on the nearest star in 40 years. People who go on that mission will be expecting it to be so. Civilization is not a one mans cause; it's the perspective of generations.
  • by marm ( 144733 ) on Wednesday August 21, 2002 @10:50AM (#4111479)

    It's a shame that the environmentalists had a hissy fit in the 80's and 90's that blocked this very reliable technology from being used on modern spacecraft.

    Not really. The problem is that in order to make one of these generators safe, it needs to be protected from the launch rocket exploding on take-off. It doesn't matter whether you're an environmentalist or not - if a couple of kilos of plutonium gets vaporised and spread to the four winds on the launch pad, you've just made enormous chunks of the US's only major space launch site unusable until it can be cleaned up. You can stick your head in the sand about it, but that doesn't make the radiation go away. Needless to say, the clean-up operation and interruption to US space activities would cost tens of billions of dollars - and quite possibly a lot more.

    It's perfectly possible to protect these generators from the explosive force caused by a rocket blowing up on the launch pad - it's just a simple engineering problem. The problem is that it costs weight - lots of it, and the number one thing you want to avoid on a rocket launch is extra weight. Every extra kilogram costs you hundreds of thousands of dollars, or costs you one or two or three valuable scientific instruments.

    So unless you absolutely need a radioisotope thermoelectric generator, you don't use one. Solar panels are lighter (because they don't need explosion protection) and, therefore, cheaper to launch (which is the only really major cost consideration - the cost of the space vehicle itself pales in comparison). Modern solar panels are good out to nearly Jupiter. Beyond that you need an RTG. I can only think of one mission that NASA has launched since the Voyagers that has gone out that far - Galileo, which was launched in 1989 - and yes, it had an RTG on-board despite the protests.

    Honestly, NASA - at least the engineers - couldn't give a damn about the environmental issues involved with RTGs. Because as long as their containment engineering is up to scratch - and I rather suspect it is - there simply are no environmental issues. Instead, it comes down to economics - and for most missions that NASA undertakes, which go no further out than Mars, thermoelectric generators lose out badly to solar panels.

    Now, perhaps environmentalist fears are preventing NASA from sending more probes beyond Jupiter because they need an RTG, but that's a different matter entirely. Maybe they need to publicly blow up a few rockets with the generator containers on-board to prove their point.

  • by xQx ( 5744 ) on Wednesday August 21, 2002 @09:27PM (#4116138)
    "mix-up with metric and English units?"

    Just nitpicking here, but metric IS english units. The issue was with American Vs. The-rest-of-the-world units.

    You can't blame the NASA engineers... I mean, when it comes down to it, they are Yanks after all.

    It's always amazed me how Americans have such a facination with whats going on in space, yet don't know, and don't seem to WANT to know whats going on outside their borders on the rest of this planet.

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Working...