Huygens Probe Lands on Titan 686
WillDraven writes "CNN, NASA and the ESA are reporting that the Huygens space probe has entered the atmosphere of Saturn's moon Titan after traveling 2.2 billion miles. Pictures from the moon's surface should be available sometime this afternoon" according to the NASA TV schedule. What we know so far is that Huygens landed successfully and sent at least the carrier signal from the surface to Cassini for 90+ minutes, more than expected, and that Cassini has successfully repointed at the Earth and begun relaying the data it received, beginning with test packets. Huygens now sits on Titan, silent forever, while we wait to see whether or how much valuable data Cassini obtained and can send back. Update: 01/14 17:20 GMT by M : So far: they report zero lost packets in the transmission, but one of the two independent data-collection systems is apparently giving some problems. Update: 01/14 21:40 GMT by J : The news is pretty much all good: a very successful mission. Expect to see many photos within hours, but for now apparently only three have been released. Ice blocks or rolling stones -- let the debates begin!
This all might not have happened (stupid hippies) (Score:5, Insightful)
I feel that it is because we have become completely and hopelessly terrified of danger. Many men and women died (yes, tragically) in those eras exploring the great unknown. But without their sacrifice, we would never have been able to accomplish what we have (please no "settling the new world = genocide" lectures).
Apollo 1, The Space Shuttles Challenger and Columbia's losses were all tragic. And I am NOT saying that their loss should be shrugged off as "eh, someone had to die to explore space." What I am saying is that we as humans needed to grow and explore space, much as the Europeans needed to grow and explore beyond their continent. When there was a tragic event in colonial exploration (Jamestown), those people learned from their mistake and tried again and usually succeeded. When we fail today, we usually cower up and shut down all exploration for a half-decade or so.
Hell, look at how these stupid hippies tried to stop Cassini from ever occuring [animatedsoftware.com]. They were so afraid of the 0.001% chance of Cassini crashing into Earth (which itself had a fraction of a percent chance of actually contaminating the planet with any plutonium) that they wanted the entire mission shut down.
Scared people like this, afraid to take chances are what almost kept us from everything glorious we're learning today and everything we will learn from Cassini tomorrow. And most scary, these people and all others who are afraid of taking chances have kept us from learning from all the cancelled missions and missions that will never be in the future because it's always "better safe than sorry" to them.
A fortune in stuff out there... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope that the homesteaders on Earth's moon have the integrity to set up a barrier around the Apollo 11 landing site, that is one patch of tracks in the dust and debris that I would consider sacred.
Bob-
Another bad piece of editorship because... (Score:3, Insightful)
You know who you are...
Re:First Data Recieved via Cassini! (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry for the periods,
Re:Regarding the permanent silence of Huygens... (Score:2, Insightful)
Another issue has to do with launch vehicles. At the time Cassini was put up, we didn't have the same delivery vehicles (aka, rockets) that we do today, and thus the overall system was constrained in weight and size to a greater extent than the Mars rovers were.
Regardless, the probe is there, and it's alive, unlike some other probes I recall (Beagle 1 and 2) attempting to fly through their intended targets, rather than land on them. I'll be interested to see what we can assertain from this little outing, and whether or not it spurs more numerous probes in the future.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children???? (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, just try and tell me how the people of Indonesia would be better off without Velcro and Tang?
-dynamo
Re:This all might not have happened (stupid hippie (Score:4, Insightful)
stupid hippies avoiding danger (Score:4, Insightful)
A couple of questions here. I'm sure you're aware that plutonium is highly radioactive and among the most lethal toxic substances known to man. Lets agree that it's bad stuff to let loose in the environment. So the question is one of risk mittigation and management. Are the scientific gains from launching RTG powered probes throughout the solar system worth the risk of plutonium contamination due to a launch disaster? Launch failures occurr pretty regularly, so we know that regular use of RTG technology in space probes will mean environmental contamination at some point. So how bad would one failure be? How about two? Five? Good questions worth debating. Or do you argue that only "stupid hippies" concern themselves with risk management?
Please note that risking the lives of a space capsule full of men, who take on that risk willingly, is quite different from risking civilians without their knowledge or consent. --M
Re:What Horrors! (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, there's always the old law that nature always finds a way. But there's not much nature on this planet that can tolerate those temperatures.
A really interesting philosophical question is why not seed Venus with bacteria and orgnaisms able to tolerate the heat and pressure and try to terraform it? Why not? It's not like we'd be crowding out the Venusians.
But, yeah, bring on the cool pics!
So quite posting rants on slashdot... (Score:3, Insightful)
Science and Exploration is something everyone can be involved in. Study the images publicly available, learn the equipment, apply for the jobs and volunteer to assist.
The only way science will cease to exist is if you look to place blame on people not accepting risk or being hippies.
The only person to blame for your poor views on science and exploration are yourself.
Hippies or not, its dangerous to launch nukes into the atmosphere - you don't risk your own civilization to benefit science.
Re:Is it just me or ....... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not like mars at all, which is relatively hospitable.
A "few hours of data" collected by a computerized probe is enough to keep planetary scientists busy for decades. Yes, it's worth it.
Is it possible (Score:2, Insightful)
It's pretty much slashdotted, I'm getting video in little 3 second chunks.
Any other way to view this bidness with the spacemen and the glayven attempt no landiiiings.?
Re:Minor explanation (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything has failsafes. For instance, suppose you're powering down the runway in a Boeing 777, just about fast enough to take off, and the nose of the plane starts to lift.
Suddenly, the right engine fails. There isn't enough runway left for the plane to safely slow down and stop. Oh god, you're going to die, right?
Nope, the plane is built to be able to take off even if an engine fails. So under normal circumstances, the plane actually has far more power than it needs, because it's designed to continue to function safely even when severely compromised. The designers aren't "showing off", they're building in intelligent failsafes.
It's the same deal with spaceships, only far moreso because it's been years since the probe has had a mechanic available to look at it. It has to work, even millions of miles away from home in incredibly hostile conditions and years since its last tune up.
So the designers build redundancy and failsafes into everything. The spacecraft should be able to handle the failure of a number of systems and be able to keep right on ticking, although of course it may suffer reduced capability as a result.
In the case of Huygens, it has more batteries than it needed to carry out its mission. Batteries can fail, or not perform as efficiently as they were expected to. So you slap an extra one in, just in case. Apparently the batteries all performed well, so the probe ended up surviving significantly longer than it was "supposed to".
Re:stupid hippies avoiding danger (Score:2, Insightful)
OK, facts worth debating on risk management. But do you honestly think calling people concerned about plutonium dispersal "stupid hippies" helps the debate? --M
I have a suggestion for you.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Since you're so keen on taking risks to help humanity, why don't you sign up for some high-risk medical research. There's a chance it will make you sick, but as far as you're concerned, it's for the greater good. Your impact on the well-being of other people would be immeadiate and significant.
There's a reason most people don't want to sacrifice lives for space exploration -- in the grand scheme of things, it's really not that important. We'll get there pretty soon anyways, so I don't see why lives need to be sacrificed to speed things up.
Maybe people who want to raise awareness of the danger posed by satellites carrying plutonium are hippies to you, but I think they have a pretty good point. If nobody cared about it, there wouldn't be any pressure on space agencies to take precautions. Nuclear satellites have crashed before -- we're lucky that they landed in uninhabited areas.
Re:For the record... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:stupid hippies avoiding danger (Score:1, Insightful)
Sometimes you just have to call a duck a duck.
Re:stupid hippies avoiding danger (Score:1, Insightful)
Which is not to say plutonium doesn't have to be handled carefully, because it does, but if you want to bury an RTG under my children's playset please go ahead.
sPh
Re:Minor explanation (Score:5, Insightful)
sPh
Re:Yeah (Score:3, Insightful)
gee. whats wrong with you? a nice mission, good cooperation, good science. who cares, if its got NASA, ESA or CowboyNeal stamped on it?
The results will be available to everyone.
Kudos to 'stupid hippies' (Score:2, Insightful)
Speaking of 1 in 100,000 odds, that's about the risk that space science faces due to anti-Pu Activists.
Now, alongside Cassini, put up your 'settling the world=genocide' pre-emptive denial, and toss in Love Canal, Bhopal, TMI, and Chernyobl, or any other man-made disasters that come to mind.
Every risk deserves attention. Ethics and economics are a scary combination. I'm as cynical as the next guy about whether lawyers are worth the grief they cause, yet I get really nervous about calls for lawsuit limits due to it's risk of making product liability an economic calculation (I don't ever want to hear a business argument of "we will make $X million profit per anticipated casualty, and lawsuits are cost-limited to $250k in damages, each").
I'll conceed we're cushy enough that we seem to have become a nation of scaredy-cats. Land of the Free, Home of the Brave has become Land of the Safe, Home of the Timid. I agree that the risk of a Pu event due to Cassini was tiny. And I was eager to see Cassini's opposition lose. But I'm glad that people stood up in opposition. The questions need to be asked, answered, debated. And the risks we face need to include utter bankruptcy and disgrace if we disregard risks and our actions kill bystanders. Sometimes the level of responsibility should literally be harsher than just being 'willing to die', whether for commerce or knowledge.
As anyone who studies risk analysis knows, just because the odds are miniscule, doesn't mean the damage still wouldn't be terrible if something goes horribly wrong, and we should never hide from that discussion. Ethically, we literally need to promote the review of these serious (albeit tiny) risks. We can't brush them aside. Not while asking bystanders to die if we screw up.
Please don't talk trash about people that are just trying to keep our decisions humane.
Oh, and (Mayflower - Columbus) = 128. Columbus: 1492. Mayflower: 1620. 128 *YEARS* between 'em. And the costs, complexities, etc... they're too different to compare simplistically.
Whose space program budget just increased? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think anyone would agree that is a healthy chunk of money.
How can you say space exploration has stagnated when we are about to try and go to Mars, we just launched a comet impacting satellite yesterday, and we have two frisky rovers rambling about on mars looking at shiny metal objects? How can you say space exploration has stagnated when we have two very rich people trying to start private space programs? Long term THAT is going to bring real space exploration.
Seems to me that all things considered SPace exploration is doing pretty well, and it's just your mood that has stagnated.
Yeah it would be cool to have more money devoted to space but here's a little secret - if we were not in a war NASA would probably not get a penny more, instead some expensive construction project would be started in a powerful senitors home state.
You always have to remember when thinking about a government program that they are INDEPENDANT - shutting down any given program elsewhere is not going to automatically give more money to the program you like.
So keep crying while the rest of us excitedly follow the developments of various ongoing space missions.
Re:Is it just me or ....... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yeah (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the message says: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:stupid hippies avoiding danger (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:stupid hippies avoiding danger (Score:3, Insightful)
Too bad people forget that the REALLY nasty stuff is either organic or at least molecules containing different elements. A gram of butolinotoxin could kill more people than a truckload of plutonium.
And yes, it IS highly radioactive. Or how else could you power a thermoelectric generator with it? Not only those short half-life isotopes can have a high activity, a few kg of Pu are not to be unterestimated.
So all in all, its no doomsday device, but the combination of being quite toxic plus quite radioactive makes the whole stuff rather nasty.
I wouldnt want it under the playground, honestly.
Re:stupid hippies avoiding danger (Score:2, Insightful)
This is something I just don't understand. Why not decide a pro/oppose position based on the specifics of each situation? I oppose the use of nuclear weapons, until faced with an asteroid hurtling toward earth. I think traditional steam nuclear power is "dangerous" but better than oil-dependency induced economic collapse. I'm not convinced RTGs strapped to a controlled explosion (rocket) are such a good idea, but this doesn't make me opposed to all nuclear solutions. I sure would like to read a report on the subject that is more factual and less politically motivated though. --M
Re:So quite posting rants on slashdot... (Score:4, Insightful)
Admittedly there has been no case of spacecraft trying to slingshot but hitting the planet instead. Therefore the risk seems reasonably low. I still think the proper cautious approach is to use other planets for the slingshots until we know that RTG containment actually works at those speeds.
Not that hard (Score:3, Insightful)
It's easy to modify the pure Dutch pronunciation to something Americans (for instance) can handle.
Pronounce it "how-hunts" (just changing the sounds we don't normally make in English into the closest equivalents). This is easy to remember, almost correct, and it's how we deal with most foreign names and words. How do you pronounce the name of the composer "Chopin"? You'll look like an ass in the US if you either:
1) Say "chop-in"
2) Use a full French accent with the nasal last vowel sound.
Just say "show-pah".
Same thing with Beethoven. We say bay-toe-vin, not beeth-ow-vin; we use an approximation of the actual German pronounciation. Sorry for the all-music examples, that's what came to mind.
There are examples of names that got butchered and stayed that way (Dr. Seuss should rhyme with "joyce"), but usually we end up with a general approximation, and sometimes people change the spelling of their names to make it easier. This happens a lot with Gaelic names, because of the very different use of the alphabet (the name Maeve is normally spelled "Maudbh".. would you pronounce that "mao-duh-buh-huh"?).
Anyone know how Huygens is being pronounced in the news, etc.?
Pathetic! (Score:5, Insightful)
I am so pissed off right now I can hardly speak!
Re:Pathetic! (Score:3, Insightful)
As what? A janitor? No scientist would make comments like that, because a real scientist knows how unpredictable this sort of work is.
Yes, as a scientist. I'd be happy to compare degrees with you anyday, Mr. Anonymous Jackass. A real scientist also knows how important public support is; without public enthusiasm, there will be no more 3-billion dollar missions.
The Mars rovers did "real science", and they had a PR operation that blows ESA out of the water.
Re:For the record... (Score:2, Insightful)
NASA really has something to learn about broadcasting
Seriously. I mean, what happened to the proud organization that faked the moon landings?
um, yeah, but without Europe, you'd have nothing (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Pathetic! (Score:2, Insightful)
Almost immediately they get them, you've got three delicious images from a new world, and you're complaining?!
Crazy.
The whole them/us thing is also rediculous. People upset me. This science malarky is great, however...
Re:Pathetic! (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh dear, representation from language groups who paid for it in their own language.
Not everyone's like Americans with an attention span of five minutes. There'll be plenty of information coming out over the next few weeks.
Oh yes, the "Pre-Enlightenment" comment. It's not Europe that's having debates about putting creationism in science curricula...