Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Helicopter In Space 120

Posted by Hemos from the johhny-five-is-alive dept.
LazyGun wrote to us about the next generation of Titan Explorers -- the Titan Organic Explorer. The cool part is that it's a helicopter, of sorts. The probe is an interesting proposal, especially to test some of the interesting potential organic properties of Titan's make-up.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Helicopter In Space More

Helicopter In Space

Comments Filter:
  • considering the kind of magnetic field titan is supposed to have, a sork of electro-levitating parafoil could work out quite nicely, and not have any of the power issues [arizona.edu] the you'd have with a helicopter.
  • I for one would love to live on Mars. Even living on the Moon would be pretty cool.

  • Sterility a big issue (Score:4)

    by YIAAL ( 129110 ) on Thursday July 13, 2000 @04:58PM (#935232) Homepage
    Titan's atmosphere contains lots hydrocarbons, meaning that it could perhaps support life. That makes it interesting, but it also means that any spacecraft must be highly sterilized to keep earthlife from maybe getting a foothold on Titan. Yeah, it's really cold. But there's earthlife in places that get within spitting distance of those temperatures -- and it's not entirely sure that everywhere on Titan is that cold. Previous sterilization efforts have been fairly half-assed. This one shouldn't be.
  • You mean terraforming Titan is not an option?
  • From the article:

    "To get the craft to Titan, it would need to be stowed in a small entry vehicle with a heat shield. As this enters the atmosphere, a parachute will extract the helicopter from the heat shield and the rotors will spring into action.

    Now comes one of the mission's greatest challenges: how do you control this helicopter in flight? It takes over an hour for radio signals from Earth to reach Titan, so the craft will have to fly itself. NASA engineers are already working on smart software to control space probes and spot signs of life..."

    And the rotors spring into action! I wonder if that is before or *after* it crashes into an ethane lake and loses contact with NASA?

    And, the smart software to control space probes and spot signs of life! That's rich. While we're at it lets write some software to create world peace and feed the masses!

    Remember this story... because you'll probably be reading about it again in a few years:

    NASA Loses Helicopter on Titan!

  • I would think several years floating through space on the way to Titan would kill off any life hanging on to the spacecraft. Titan is cold, but space is really, really cold. Plus, I'm sure NASA builds their spacecraft in very sterile environments.

  • Que? (Score:2)

    by jabber ( 13196 )
    I presume you've read the article... Heh!

    I know we've all been raised on Star Trek, but few people have qualms about stepping on an ant on their way to work. Is extra-terrestrial life all that different?

    Certainly, until we have an understanding of things, we should not blindly wipe them out. But, if you recall the precautions that were taken by NASA when the first moon rocks were brought back to Earth.. We'', they're professionals after all, they know what they're doing.

    Personally I'm torn on the issue. (I guess I need some more immediate problems, no?) On the one hand, we shouldn't soil yet another planet/moon/world just because we can, but on the other hand... Damn! Why not? If there's gold in them there hills, and it keep our yard a little cleaner... Maslow's pyramid comes to mind.

    And hey, if there is no life there, and we use it as a petri-dish to make some, then all the better. One step closer to realizing Godhood.

  • Re:Wouldn't Electro-levitation work better (Score:3)

    by Petethelate ( 96300 ) on Thursday July 13, 2000 @05:12PM (#935237) Homepage
    Hmm, thought you needed either a bunch of current or high velocity for electro-levitation to work.

    OTOH, small helicopter technology is out there. Just visit any hobby shop and be prepared to drop a thou or so if you think it's kewl. Piezoelectric gyros keep the heading straight, you need about 1HP to keep an 8 pound heli flying on earth, and that's with the aerodynamic penalty you get from a small wing.

    Not sure if it's NASA or some other group sponsoring the contest, but there's an autonomous helicoptor competition out there. Last I heard, the chopper needed to find a few objects and pick them up. Not too tough to do, though I think some of these are lifting a bare-bones laptop.

  • Taking the link too literally (Score:3)

    by Petethelate ( 96300 ) on Thursday July 13, 2000 @05:15PM (#935238) Homepage
    Ah, the joys of running Lose98 and Netscape on my only box with a modem--clicked on the "power issues" link and the machine rebooted. At least, it didn't powercycle.

    Gotta get me a Linmodem...

  • Sounds interesting, but no real rush (Score:5)

    by dschl ( 57168 ) on Thursday July 13, 2000 @05:17PM (#935239) Homepage
    The article states two things -
    1)this idea is at the conceptual stage
    2)a probe will arrive in 2004 which will investigate the organic chemistry of the atmosphere.

    He is drumming up support for the future, but this is not, and may never end up on the drawing boards (although it is an exciting proposal that should be pursued). There are a few other reasons to wait a few years before finalizing the design of this helicopter
    1)analytical technology is in a state of rapid development, with labs on a chip capable of detecting single molecules getting closer every day. In a few years, we will get much more bank for the buck (and more importantly, more data for every kilogram of instruments in the probe. The author of the article, Rlph Lorenz indicated a probe size of 100kg)
    2) we should wait until the results from the 2004 probe have been analysed, in order to direct the research goal of the next probe. The data from the Huygens probe may send future exploration in a new direction.

    I hope moderators will obliterate the ecofreaks whining about a plutonium power source, and the earth-firster flatlanders who see no value in the space program. Life is about risk, and as soon as we turn away from exploring and understanding this universe, we have given up our birthright.

    Darren

  • Re:Yes... but, will it work? (Score:3)

    by Maurice ( 114520 ) on Thursday July 13, 2000 @05:17PM (#935240)
    And, the smart software to control space probes and spot signs of life! That's rich. While we're at it lets write some software to create world peace and feed the masses!

    Actually autonomous navigation software is pretty advanced and getting better all the time. All NASA spacecraft have by spec a certain period of time that they have to be able to survive unattended, because communication is usually not maintained all the time. Deep Space I, which is a current mission testing new technologies has very advanced autonomous navigation software and in fact its star sensor (the main navigation tool) failed but it is still operational because they were able to completely reprogram the craft to use its multipurpose science camera for navigation. It's cool stuff. I know you are a troll but whatever.

  • Smart software. (Score:3)

    by jburroug ( 45317 ) <slashdot@nospaM.acerbic.org> on Thursday July 13, 2000 @05:18PM (#935241) Homepage Journal
    I know open source get's brought up at every given opportunity around here but the "smart software" to control the helicopter seems like a good open source project to me. I'm thinking a Mozilla style effort? NASA still does alot of the work but releases all the code and includes bug fixes and improvements from the community at large. I know that if I could code worth a shit this is a project I'd like to be involved in. Besides with thousands of eyes reviewing the code you know they'd get their metric conversions right!! ;->
  • Actually, just two weeks ago, on this very Slashdot, some guy addressed that very issue. [slashdot.org]

    Check out the first comment [slashdot.org] in particular.

    --

  • helicopter? (Score:4)

    by jpostel ( 114922 ) on Thursday July 13, 2000 @05:19PM (#935243) Homepage Journal
    I don't want to get off on a rant here, but i seem to remember the people at NASA (God luv em) discussing what a technical feat it was just to remote control the Mars Rover. They were just trying to keep it from getting stuck in a ditch or on a rock. How the hell does the guy who wrote that article think they are going to navigate a HELICOPTER?!!?!?

    They talked about the AI helicopter being tested by Carnegie Mellon, but then they discussed the "Large
    raindrops of methane, almost a centimetre across, drift slowly from the red haze. Geysers spout pale plumes of ethane high into the sky." Add this to the facts that the gravity is one seventh that of Earth, and no one knows what the surface looks like, and NASA has some serious planning to do.

    I'm a big proponent of space exploration, but ideas like this are just too sci-fi.
  • In order for an aircraft to work efficiently it has to be calculated out just right. For example, the blades on the helicopter wont generate enough lift if the atmosphere is very thin. And to complicate things, helicopters are ill suited for high winds due to its design. The helicopters power is thust downward for lift and at an angle to go somewhere. Because of this power requirement to lift up there is less forward power. A plane, however, has full forward power which is one reason a plane can go many times faster than a helicopter. The problem is with the high winds and the helicopter can fight them going nowhere. There just wouldn't be power to move. Then there is turblence. Too much turblence can rip any aircraft apart in which a helicopter is not an exception.

    This idea just might flop. I can trust NASA to get around these limitations, right? RIGHT?
  • RTGs, I had to laugh the first time I heard about these things in a spacecraft design course. 5% efficient.... Last I read, the conventional thinking was that they could be engineered up to 10% efficiency.... looks like they need more work. Gotta admit that they are dahm reliable though... both voyagers and galileo are still running on these things (they are still running aren't they) . Many other missions rel(y, ied) on them as well.

    By the way... I think you know what happens if the rocket carrying these babies up accidentally [space.com] doesn't allow the craft to reach orbit. Raining plutonium down on the earth... man does that ruin a weekend barbecue.

    -- Phenym
  • As far as I know, Plutonium does not occur naturally anywhere in the universe. It is sort of man's most toxic contribution to nature.

    Do we really want to put that stuff into a helicopter that is going to fly itself using the best technology available today? I think we should do that only if we want to share our hoards of plutonium with the fanciful organisms that may exist there.

    A better idea is to wait for a better idea.
  • I don't think NASA build their spacecraft in biologically sterile environments - more like clean rooms which keep out macro-contaminants like dust. You would need something like a bio-hazard quarantine centre to exclude bacteria et al.

    The alternative would be to bake the completed craft before it is sealed and loaded onto the launch vehicle, but then the craft has to be built to withstand the baking process.

    As to the cold of space killing any microorganisms on the spacecraft, in fact it has been discovered that microorganisms _can_ survive in space (I don't have a reference handy), hence NASAs decision [slashdot.org] to crash the Galileo probe into Jupiter, to ensure it doesn't accidentally crash into, and contaminate, Europa.

  • Will the TAA issue a permit? (Score:3)

    by meckardt ( 113120 ) on Thursday July 13, 2000 @05:28PM (#935248) Homepage

    I doubt that NASA has cleared the use of a helecopter in Titan's airspace with the Titan Aviation Administration. Flying an unauthorized, not to mention unidentified, flying craft without agency saction could result in a diplomatic incident, and possibly an interplanetary war. Haven't these guys read any of the popular fiction?


    Gonzo
  • Plutonium is a good to use for a power source. It is not used in a nuclear reaction, but its temperature is used to generate electricity by making a thermocouple between the plutonium and the space around. It's good because it's halflife (81 years IIRC) is suitable for medium term missions outside the orbit of Mars. It is dangerous (deadly actually) if you inhale plutonium dust, but when it is in solid pelletized form it can't cause much damage, if you don't get too close. The Russians have crashed plutonium power generators a bunch of times and have recovered the power package mostly intact and posing no danger.
  • We may as well sterilize the craft, but Earth life already got there...well, if we started from Mars life then Mars also. Some Earth material gets blown off the top of the atmosphere constantly, and past large impacts have surely blasted an assortment of rocks and dirt around the celestial neighborhood.

    "Life as we know it" is already scattered around the neighborhood. But let's not intentionally release cats on the Galapagos Islands.

  • Sorry, sterility is not that big an issue (Score:3)

    by dschl ( 57168 ) on Thursday July 13, 2000 @05:41PM (#935251) Homepage
    Did you notice the part about "lakes of liquid ethane" in the article?

    Even if temperatures below -89C (B.P. of ethane) feel like "spitting distance" to you, consider that earthlife requires a lot of conditions - a certain temperature range, sunlight, available carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen (food). Odds are, the organisms you refer to are dormant at low temperatures on earth, and are only active when the temperatures are closer to 0C.

    From the article: "Titan is too cold to permit anything but a whiff of oxygen-containing compounds in its atmosphere, and all the oxygen in its surface is locked up in ice". FYI, ice is a solid. Most lifeforms known to man depend upon reactions taking place in a liquid solution. Not too many lifeforms on this planet that can do the following:
    1)make their own oxygen at temperatures below -89C.
    2)get by with around 1/1000 of earth's sunlight levels at the surface.
    3)extract nitrogen and scavenge carbon from sources on Titan for which such an organism likely has NO existing biochemical pathways.
    4)sythesize their own DNA, proteins, and sugars.
    5)assuming that the available concentrations of chemicals can support life, must have the ability to deal with a LOT of chemicals which are not comon on earth (amino acids with the wrong stereochemistry, sugars that have different substitutions than the relatively few sugars which are common on earth).
    6)survive an 8 year space flight while meeting the above 5 conditions.

    AFTER you find something that even remotely approaches the above conditions, call me.

    Darren
  • Well, that'll really make those top secret black helicopters stealth then, won't it? :)

    --

  • A shocking event in the ongoing saga of OOG (Score:3)

    by OOG_THE_CAVEMAN ( 165540 ) on Thursday July 13, 2000 @05:42PM (#935253)
    Location: A rocky patch of desert land located a few miles past the outskirts of a thriving metropolitan city. A lonely interstate highway is all that passes through the area. The climate is usually hot, but strangely, a small, but heavy, blizzard is rapidly approaching. Snow begins to fall heavily over the desert as the dirt on the ground begins to freeze over. The land itself is flat and nondescript, save for a large rock formation near where the highway runs. A large opening is present in the rock, marking the entrance of a vast cave. Oddly, several cables jut out of the cave's entrance. Large clouds of green smoke are also escaping from the cave.

    The clouds of smoke suddenly cease to appear as the sound of footsteps come from the cave. As the footsteps grow louder, a large caveman stumbles out of the cave. He staggers around confused, as if under some sort of spell. In his left hand are the remnants of a used marijuana cigarette, and in his right hand he clutches a compact disc, on which the letters "open source" can be seen. On close inspection, the caveman appears to be none other than OOG_THE_CAVEMAN. As the blizzard roars, OOG, clearly affected by marijuana, walks aimlessly around the land.

    OOG_THE_CAVEMAN: ARRRGHHHH!!! THIS GOOD CAVE-WEED!!! OOG LIKE BOGARTING FAT JOINT!!! OOG FUCKING HIGH AS HELL!!! MUST GO OUT AND GATHER FRITOS TO SATISFY OVERPOWERING MUNCHIES!!!

    OOG walks in no clear direction. He appears to be heading towards the desolate highway which streaks across the land. But being incapacitated, OOG has great difficulty walking and maintaining his balance. Without warning, OOG stumbles over a rock and falls flat to the frozen ground, only a few yards from the highway. Because he is so stoned, OOG is unable to get up.

    OOG_THE_CAVEMAN: OOG FALLEN AND OOG CAN'T GET UP!!! OOG ALSO HAVE PROBLEM STANDING UP FROM GROUND!!! CAVE-WEED REALLY GOING TO OOG HEAD!!!

    OOG, unable to get up, passes out while lying on the frozen ground. The snow falls mercilessly and freezes to form ice as it hits the ground. After a few hours, our hero OOG lies trapped in a block of ice near the side of the highway.

    The storm suddenly vanishes, but OOG is still embedded in the ice. Suddenly, a large, obnoxious SUV bearing several Harvard bumper stickers and driven by two yuppie students appears on the highway. One of them notices the frozen caveman and tells the driver to stop. Intrigued, they go outside where OOG is imprisoned in ice and stare at the block.

    Student #1: Why isn't that OOG_THE_CAVEMAN frozen in that block of ice?

    Student #2: Indeed it IS OOG! I remember reading many of his insightful posts on the website, Slashdot!

    Student #1: Yes, he makes many quality posts... but many of those bad moderators are prejudiced towards intelligent caveman and abuse the 'overrated' tag to moderate him down without risking justice via metamoderation.

    Student #2: Well, I think we should help out OOG and thaw him out. I just hope he doesn't break our heads with his open source cd.

    The students pick up the large block of ice with OOG in it and stuff it in the vast, vast, vast backseat of their ridiculously oversized SUV. They head back on a long road trip to Harvard, which they both attend. When they arrive, they head to their dorm, where they leave OOG to thaw out in the bathtub, and then go out to eat. OOG wakes up, but because he is still incredibly high, has no idea what he is doing. He stumbles out, wanders around the Harvard campus, inadvertently attending several advanced law classes and learning much about law in the process. Dizzy and still stoned, OOG finally staggers into a large computer lab, where he passes out on the floor.

    to be continued...
  • And what then: proteins? sugars? Maybe even primitive living cells? The only way to discover how far along the road to life this chemistry has gone is to sample these oases on Titan.
    Why do we need space missions to do this? It sounds like we could do this and better down at the local Wendy's salad bar!

  • !!!WARNING!!! (Score:3)

    by theNAM666 ( 179776 ) on Thursday July 13, 2000 @05:44PM (#935255)
    ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS.
    EXCEPT ONE.
    TITAN.
    ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE.

    Keep yer whirly-butt gizmo off Europa, too.

    (Mods: if ya don't get the ref, maybe spare my karma, mmkay?)
  • 7) Can operate a telephone Call you? Are you one of these rare organisms??



    Just kidding, you make good points.
  • Well, a helicopter would need to be able to remain stable on it's own because of the huge controling delay. That's take major processing power assuming it may have to combat high winds and such. Another problem is to remain stable on its own, but I'm sure NASA could work that out somehow. Also, what happens if it tips over... It's screwed! It would be very difficult to right a helicopter. I think what they should base the flying device upon is the remote controlled submersables. granted, you'd need a lot more power than a submersable, but it'd bee a lot better than a helicopter.

    I dunno... maybe I'm just another fool on the hill.

    -Derick
  • Interesting point you bring up about world peace and feeding the masses.

    You can thank the space programs of the fifties and sixties for most of the technology today. Space programs stimulate technology which benifits everyone. Even if the mission is to put a stupid flag on the moon or play golf there, the technology that came about has more impact that anything else.

    So which is it? More technology or more welfare?

  • Are you absolutely nuts? (Score:3)

    by swf ( 129638 ) on Thursday July 13, 2000 @05:55PM (#935259)
    This isn't a web browser. It's a spacecraft being sent millions of kilometers into space to a moon of a different planet after several years of travel.
    It is a critical system. Do you really want a "Mozilla style effort" on your car's ABS brakes? How about a bazaar development model for a aircraft's fly-by-wire system.
    Try looking at the space shuttles programs. They aren't written in C. This spacecraft would have it's own programming language, and knowing NASA it will have 5-6 code audits for each line of code in the system. Why bother making it open source when most hackers are not interested in the code proofs and hardcore language semantics that would be required to even be able to talk to the software team on this project.
  • Ever heard of the Oklo reactor [ymp.gov]? I didn't think so.

    Yes, boys and girls, a naturally occuring nuuuuuu-clear reactor. Produced all sorts of fun stuff including plutonium.

    Also, WTF do you think happens when a star goes bang? Supernova -can get some fairly heavy stuff - they found radioactive iron-60, and expect plutonium [newscientist.com] to be found on earth in supernova debris (bottom of referenced page).

    Not that it would go anywhere fast on Titan. Liquid hydrocarbons are rather poor solvents for metals and other ionic species. The material would decay where it landed, long before long it got anywhere. Too bad your greenpeace membership didn't include a science education.

    Darren
  • Titans atmosphere is 4 times denser than earths, and titan has 1/7 of the gravity. Helicopters will be far more effective on titan than on earth.
  • Excuse me but as far as I understand a hovercraft could do the same job at a much cheaper cost.
  • How sure can you be that Microsoft won't sue over that name? :P
  • I find the chances of an AI controlled aircraft successfully navigating Titan highly unlikely to succeed. Even if a smaller "scout" were shot forward in descent to guage initial control settings, this type of craft is far too high of a risk.
    That said, I believe that one or more "pogostick" balls would be better able to spread around the surface(at 1/7 gravity they'd go far for the energy) and randomly sample the terrain.
    A small scout dropped on a first orbit could determine suface definitions and thus, determine drop coordinates for the probes.
    Sensors on each probe, combined with a minimum of six "pogos" per probe, would allow rudementary navigation as well as allowing transmission of current positions for scientists to examine and determine next hops without wasting anything more than minimal energy.

    Then again, we could drop Ethane powered Jet-Skis into the Ethane lakes and show those damn Aminos what partyin's all about!!

    effer

    I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal loboto...Hey, what's in this bottle?
  • With topic subjects like

    "Giant Rotors"
    and
    "Sterility"
    I can only wonder at the pr0n titles that await us should the "Titanic Organic Exploder" become reality!

  • (If you subscribe to the concept of Gaia)

    We are the fruiting mechanism of Gaia, in that, like a fruit tree, Gaia is making sacrifices for us, in order that Gaia may reproduce.

    You could say it is our duty to insert some terrestial micro-organisms.

    Now where did OOG leave that weed ?

  • Thanks for the reactor link. Very interesting and no, I had not read about that before. However, bear in mind...

    1) 1.7 billion years ago there was little appreciable life on this planet and the nasty stuff was way underground. Titan is small and the nasty helicopter would likely spatter all over the ground.
    2) Ok, supernovas and the like produce this stuff. But I don't think we are talking about sending plutonium powered toys to moons orbiting supernovas.

    You better check your radiation badge before your next shift at the plant. I think your head is getting a little too hot.
  • I know... I was just attemping to be funny :)

    -- Phenym
  • Remember the Apache? We've had a hard time getting those to stay in the air, even with a pilot and on Earth.

    Da Vinci is sure to be turning in his grave.
  • are the voyager probes outside the solar system yet? they haven't passed the heliopause yet. which i thought was the boundary between interstellar space and the solar system. ....or is the boundary simply the radius to the aphelion of pluto?
  • I spent a few weeks at the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology 3 or 4 summers ago, and there was a team there working on smart helicopters for a competition between colleges (I'm sure some /. reader has actually worked on one of these projects).

    The helicoper was able to recognize several symbols (nuclear hazard, biohazard, and one other that I forget) on a disk-shaped thing, pick it up, and put it somewhere else. All by itself. Imagine where that technology could be in 10 or 20 years, when something like this might actually get off the ground...

    Don't sell our own talents short. =)

    - Tony
  • No, Titan is perfectly cool to dink with. We just can't play with Europa!
  • IMO its worse than that, the craft will have to be more than sterile it will have to be clean to keep even dead earth life forms from contaminating the sample.
  • And don't forget that the RTG that was onboard Aquarius (the Apollo 13 lunar lander turned into a lifeboat is now sitting in the ocean near Australia. It's not leaking radiation.

    I hope my karma doesn't take a beating for this, but when I heard that people were actually protesting the Cassini launch, I wanted to fricking slap those ignorant people.

    Sorry. I feel better now.

  • I see a lot of posters here talking about how this proposal isnt practical, that its beyond current technology, or that NASA is too incompentent to land a probe on its own rear. The thing is though, none of the elements necessary flat out -cant- be done. The technology may not be there today, but the precursors definitely are. It's not a matter of if its possible, but when, and whether people are going to step up to the challenge, or sit around making excuses, cutting budgets, and watching ourselves die from overpopulation. If a mission like this one does not happen in our lifetimes (making the broad generalization that all /.ers are 15-30 here), it will not be because the technology isnt up to snuff, but because of doubt and shortsightedness.
  • Harvard, eh?

    I think I see what you're getting at "pal", and I'm not so sure I like it. Just leave her [yhbt.org] out of it, ok?
  • Are you afraid that if the radioactive helecopter crashed on Titan that you would need a protective suit to survive there?

    Well there's something you ought to know.....

  • I......I'm......you.......

    No, it's not worth it.

    You, my friend, are simply an idiot.

    And as a matter of fact I would love to live on the moon. It has one hell of a view.


    -supruzr
  • One misgiving i have about that whole proposal.. There's no problem with using plutonium to power a probe out in the middle of space, but on a potentially life-harboring planet? If we dont think the technology's safe to use on Earth, why would we use it on what could be an alien ecosystem we supposedly dont want to contaminate. This thing better be pretty damn well shielded. even if there's no life, can't radiation cause alterations in organic molecules, which would screw up the data? And what if it crashes? and what's the probe supposed to do when it's done? land, and sit there for eternity on the hope that no plutonium ever leaks out?

    If you're feeling compelled to reply to this because u think im giving into uninformed hysteria, please do so, but with -facts- not counterpropaganda. i do admit that my knowledge of this technology and its possible risks is not very deep.

  • How can the second post be redundant, particularly when the first post just said "First Post"?

    ObOnTopic: Colonies on Titan would be a bad idea. It's way too cold there and the amount of light reaching there is far too small to build a sustainable colony for earth-borne life.

    --Joe
    --
  • I see some folks saying this outright can't be done and I just disagree.

    There are many examples of computers (and not even fast ones by today's standards) controlling aircraft that were once thought impossible to control. Look at the F-16 and the fly-by-wire system... even better, look at the B-2 bomber and it's flying wing design. I remember reading somewhere that the B-2 just simply wouldn't be able to fly in a stable, controlled manner without the assistance of computers.

    Now translate this into a completely foreign environment such as Titan. We have to assume we will know nothing about the atmosphere except for an approximation of density and maybe a reasonable idea of temperatures. We also don't have the benefit of GPS or any other method to know for certain where we are precisely on the surface.

    Systems based on interia and gyroscopes have been in use on commercial aircraft from the very beginning. There were computers dumber than your TI calculator flying 707's way back in the day.

    Titan has gravity, and inertia is constant, so that's really all we need. We of course won't know exactly where we are at any given point, but we could certainly make a reasonable guess.

    As for winds and obstacles and so on, doppler radar could determine movement relative to the ground with a high level of precision, as well as altitude and flight-path obstacles.

    Someone brought up the point that if the thing dropped on it's side, it would be screwed. This isn't really true because you could build struts that would right the craft if it ever tipped over. You could also provide a detection mechanism to identify when a landing is being attempted on uneven terrain and jump back into the air for another try.

    I can't vouch for the fact this will all fit into 1000Kg, though! It sure would be a cool project even here on Earth. Maybe we could even stick some Penguin-love in it.

    Any takers? :)
    --
  • and what's the probe supposed to do when it's done? land, and sit there for eternity on the hope that no plutonium ever leaks out?

    Wow... good point. What the heck would you do about that? What if you found the whole place was just freakin' stuffed full of life and then the heli-probe just nuked everything. Whoops.
    --

  • I think I first read about Oklo in a Scientific American in the early 80's. It is fascinating, as the conditions had to be almost perfect for a sustainable chain reaction to occur.

    I would like to draw your attention to this [ieer.org] link. The following facts are taken from that page.

    "The oxidation of plutonium represents a health hazard since the resulting stable compound, plutonium dioxide is in particulate form that can be easily inhaled. It tends to stay in the lungs for long periods, and is also transported to other parts of the body. Ingestion of plutonium is considerably less dangerous since very little is absorbed while the rest passes through the digestive system." Two points - firstly, it is rather unlikely that the plutonium will be oxidized on Titan, and secondly, the main problem with plutonium is when it is inhaled. There are not many humans or other complex organisms with lungs on Titan.

    Reactivity of plutonium (remember, earth is a very reactive environment, with high temperatures and many oxidizing materials, especially when compared to Titan)
    "Non-divided metal at room temperature (corrodes)-relatively inert, slowly oxidizes". Not even remotely close to happening on Titan. If free hydrocarbons are present, there are not going to be many decent oxidizing agents left floating around.

    Radioactive activity of plutonium is mainly alpha particles - Alpha particles are merely high speed helium ions, and will not make it far. They make it far enough to make a mess of your lungs [ccnr.org] when you inhale a bunch of finely divided plutonium particles, but alpha particles are easily stopped by a piece of paper.

    Given that nuclear engineers are paid to be paranoid, expect the reactor core to be designed to remain intact after an impact. The density of plutonium is high enough that it would remain unmoved by a hurricane after it reaches the surface (twice as dense as lead, slightly denser than gold - basically, 5kg of metallic plutonium would take up about as much volume as 1 cup (250mL) of water). The total environmental impact of any crash would be limited to an exceedingly small area.

    Supernova debris is present all over the universe. If they are finding it on earth (bother to read the second link?) you can bet that some is present on Titan. Also, just about everything in the universe is contaminated with radiactive material at some concentration (produced by those shiny things up in the sky called stars!!), not to mention the background radiation of the universe. Ever heard of cosmic rays? Titan should get some too. Just because it is concentrated or produced by man does not make plutonium extra special or more dangerous in any way than plenty of stuff that occurs naturally.

    Darren
  • The use of a helicopter in such an environment is a wonderfully original concept. Leonardo Da Vinci's invention sure has come a long way :)

  • what does "potentatial" means?

  • airship to jupiter someday? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    we don't even know for sure if Jupiter is a gasball or some surface lurks somewhere under ridiculous pressures. iirc any craft we could possibly build today would crumple like a ping pong ball at the bottom of the ocean long before getting halfway down. Even lowering some type of 'anchor' to the bottom (if there is one) is right out, given the distances involved and weight considerations for your anchor and line..

    *But* with a craft in the sky, we could use sonar to map the interior. Granted, you'd have to generate one heck of a bang to map any sizeable portion of the body of Jupiter, but maybe we could encourage an asteroid into the far side of Jupiter from our airship-probe or something.

    Woo woo, Titan might have some simple amino acids. It's too bad the only things going interplanetary are public interest gimmicks. F*ck one more probe to somewhere we'll never go. Get a f'ing base on the moon for manufacturing ships and landing tools. Then we can realistically study many of the places our local universe has to offer.

    [The following locations will experience meteors:]
    [Alaska * 3:12am]
    [Brazil * 4:48am]
    [Australia * 7:33am]
    [E. Russia 7:58am]
    [Mongolia * 8:25am]
    [Mid East * 11:02am]
    [W. Russia * 12:31pm]
    [N. Africa * 1:00pm]
    [S. Africa * 1:11pm]
    [Atlantic @ 2:50pm]
    [US/Canada * 3:40pm]

    * extinction level event
    @ planetsplitter

  • And the rotors spring into action!

    Unfortunately, The engineers specified their length in inches. The manufacturer built them in centimeters. They just didn't produce enough lift.....

  • I seem to recall that even though Titan is the only natural satellite with a substantial atmosphere, that atmosphere is still very rarefied compared to earth...

    You remember wrong. As others have pointed out, Titan's atmosphere is 4x as dense as Earth's (probably due to its low temperatures). Combine that with its low gravity (1/7th Earth's), and you'll find that helicopters can be quite effective, so long as the winds aren't too strong.

    --Joe
    --

  • This is nice, but when will they drop a camera... (Score:3)

    by TheDullBlade ( 28998 ) on Thursday July 13, 2000 @07:37PM (#935289)
    ...into Saturn or Jupiter?

    Putting a balloon with a good video camera on it in a gas giant's atmosphere would be the coolest thing since Viking.

    I think NASA's first priority should be getting people interested in space, which means a steady stream of cool pictures of alien worlds. Forget about getting maximum scientific bang for the buck, if they can raise interest to the point it was when they started the Apollo project, they'll have lots of money to do science.

    All I can say about this project is that they'd better send home some good pictures, instead of just using the images for the on-board computer.
  • Actually, it's not original at all. Da Vinci, the genius that he was, had the idea of "celestial travel" in mind when he worked out the original designs for the proto-helicopter. Granted, the renaissance view of space was very different from what we know now, but you get the point.

    The "space age" indeed! A few centuries too late.

  • How about... (Score:3)

    by TheDullBlade ( 28998 ) on Thursday July 13, 2000 @07:45PM (#935291)
    ...the bacteria that live in rocks in the Antarctic?

    We really don't know all that much about the extremely hostile environment organisms, because they're hard to culture. When we rub something on agar and don't get a culture, we tend to assume nothing's there (obviously, I'm oversimplifying, but our test methods generally look for stuff that likes "good" conditions).

    You make good points, but I still wouldn't be too surprised if there are a few really tough spores floating around each cubic meter or air that will survive for a thousand years in practically any conditions and are just waiting for properly miserable conditions, like you describe, to wake up.

  • Not so (Score:1)

    by dschl ( 57168 )
    1) A reactor will not give you a nuclear explosion under virtually any conditions.
    2) Titan is big. Radius of 2575km (earth is approx 6370km). 5kg of plutonium sitting in one place would hardly be noticed.
    3)You both should look at other posts before repeating stuff that has already been commented upon (look at comment #37 [slashdot.org]and the replies)
  • metric/imperial unit confusion
  • Can you imaging if some extraterrestrials sent a probe to earth, and it was a fucking helecopter? I mean, we'd be expecting antigravity drives and warp engines and all that stuff. It'd be a major disappointment. Just imagine if there was intelligent life there - we'd be the joke of the universe...
  • But I doubt 5-6 code audits per line applies in the cheaper/faster/better NASA of today.

  • Patient probes preserve power? (Score:3)

    by re-geeked ( 113937 ) on Thursday July 13, 2000 @08:32PM (#935296)
    It seems that the main argument for the helicopter is speed. Now this is probably nuts, but given the decades between our likely launches to Titan, couldn't we deploy snakebots on the surface and wait patiently for the data to trickle in?

    Perhaps we could have an orbiting surveyor that drops a bot when it sees something interesting, or when the data from a previous drop indicate to the mission scientists back on Earth what an interesting site might look like.

    If made small enough, the power consumption should be low enough to allow years of power or even local regeneration/refueling.

    I know what you're going to say: Titan is too big to explore with snakes. But given the smaller size, complexity, and power of the snakes, you could have hundreds of them in the same weight/cost as one helicopter.

    I see no reason why a once-a-decade mission can't take a decade to complete its data-gathering.

  • You can thank the space programs of the fifties and sixties for most of the technology today.

    Space programs? Don't forget good old-fashioned kill-em-dead warfare, which is also responsible for a good number of technological advances...

  • Re:How about... (Score:4)

    by dschl ( 57168 ) on Thursday July 13, 2000 @08:35PM (#935298) Homepage
    The bacteria discovered in antarctic ice would either die on Titan or be totaly unable to reproduce. They were found near a freshwater lake under the ice. Lake = liquid water = 0 celsius (ignoring pressure effects). No reproduction = no world domination.

    We are talking fundamentally different atmospheric and environmental conditions. Sure, there are organisms still around on earth which can survive a reducing atmosphere. However, they depend upon certain environmental conditions of temperature, pressure, food sources, and so on which are not going to be present on Titan. While earth bacteria may "survive" through dormancy, the risk is miniscule. Remember, the basic building blocks of life as we know it are not even going to be present, except at (unlikely) extremely low concentrations. There may be a mix of amino acids, but they will not be the right ones. Different stereochemistry and functional groups from what earthlife requires. Not "likes" but requires . There may be sugars, but they will not be the right ones. Without a biochemical pathway (specific enzymes) to deal with these compounds, earth life cannot sustain or reproduce itself.

    Also, without liquid water (Titan has a surface temperature of -178 degrees [astro.it]) earth life has a rough time of it. I challenge you to name a single organism on this planet that grows or reproduces without any liquid water and the basic (specific to earth) chemical building blocks present. It may survive freezing, but survival is not a threat to any potential life on Titan.

    Sure, NASA will be careful if this probe ever gets built, and it is worth taking all conceivable precautions, but the odds of finding anything other than a few interesting molecules on Titan are remote. You had better hope that Huygens (probe already on it's way to Titan's atmosphere) was cleaned to your specifications, as it may already be too late :)

    Darren
  • ...and really, if something that tough does live on Earth, it's probably already been thrown all around the solar system by volcanoes and such.

    You're right, I can't imagine this being a concern.

  • Re:Sterility a big issue (Score:3)

    by mindstrm ( 20013 ) on Thursday July 13, 2000 @08:43PM (#935300)
    No.. space is no guarantee.
    And space is not cold per-se.. it's also not hot. The lack of matter means there is also nothing to conduct heat away from you...

    As for sterility.. Ibelieve that NASA has extremely strict procedures it follows in order to not contaminate the planet. Not just regarding life forms, but regarding rocket fuel, etc...
  • potentatial: being like, or having the qualities of, a potentate (a powerful person, like a king or emperor)

    Titan has mighty, mighty organic make-up. The beautiful Titanian women who wear it are treated with great respect and deference, but even they are but slaves to the gunk on their face.
  • Too true. At a fraction of the cost of most national welfare or medical programs, we find out more about how the universe works, and get awesome technological spin-offs. And if eye-candy can help provide that, all the better. Scientists traditionally are weak on promoting the benefits of technology, but we should be able to provide lowest-common-denominator type material for the masses.

    As for the benefits, let's see [psu.edu]: satellites (communication, weather forecasting, environmental work, GPS), and quartz watches to name a few. For an economists persepctive [nasa.gov], try a 43% rate of return on investments in Nasa up to 1975 (not sure if they mean cumulative, annual, or compounded annual. At 43%, who really cares).

    It would be nice to generate excitement in science, and help drive more young people into a science-based career (as well as having more science jobs out there). Exploring the limits of our solar system and reaching into space are a great way of doing this.

    Darren
  • I dunno. The thousands of eyes thing is really more of an ad and a slogan than the truth for any complicated project. As an example, see how many people really understand the Perl 5 core enough to fix bugs / add significant improvements.

    Not I, that's for sure, and certainly not a decent number of people on p5p.

  • Maybe, maybe not... (Score:3)

    by Murphy(c) ( 41125 ) on Thursday July 13, 2000 @09:06PM (#935304)
    Look at the F-16 and the fly-by-wire system...

    Let's not forget that befor the *official* "Falcon" nickname, test pilotes refered to it as "lawn-dart" (100% true).

    Systems based on interia and gyroscopes have been in use on commercial aircraft from the very beginning.

    True, yet their calibration must be done in an extremly precise way. Their has been numerous reports of inertial aviation computer going of course, just because some ground crew were refulling the plane when the system was calibrated. That is also why inertail navigation is constantly rechecked against onboard star mapers.
    My point beeing that, trying to calibrate such a thing on earth is already quite a problem, now just try and do the same on a planet we know very little about, a couple of million of miles away.

    I'm really the first to say that we should put more funding into space exploration and Fundamental research. I'm sure, we can all imagine the 'commercial' spinoffs making an AI that can fly a chopper on some planet that's got a LAG of over an hour.

    But I think that there is one thing that was not mentioned in the article, and that is the amount (or actually the lack) of data we have on Titan.
    Look at the huge amount of trial and error testing that had to be done to get to valid helicopter design here no earth, where we can measure almost every variable that compose the complex notion of flying a rotating wing design. Even the prototype helicopter from Carnegie Mellon, uses technology that has been designed from, and for earth specs. BTW if you want to check out Carnegie Mellon's helicopter project, here is a link [cmu.edu]

    If you want to have a look at a complex AI piloting an acutal spaceship, you can go and checkout the DeepSpace 1 [nasa.gov] prob. Which among other things is a real test bed for a lot of NASA's technology.

    Murphy(c).
  • Ever read Larry Niven? Flatlander it is.

    Darren
  • According to this article [nasa.gov], Jupiter has wind speeds of 192 mph at eight miles above the cloud tops. As you go deeper, wind speed increases - 232 mph at the cloud tops, 313 mph at 10 miles down and by 28 miles down, the wind speed is 391 mph.

    Temperature is also an issue - in the range I just mentioned, temperature ranged from -230F at the top to 306F at the bottom.

    Pressure is also an issue for balloons - and the pressure ranged from .5 bar at the top, to 21 bar at the bottom. That's 21 times Earth atmospheric pressure.

    Not being a balloonist, I don't know if you can construct a balloon that would be functional in these circumstances, but the environment would certainly be extreme.
    --

  • I think wind wouldn't really matter, since without ground features to mess it up, you don't get a lot of gusting and shearing.

    I wouldn't expect a balloon to plumb the depths of Jupiter, floating around up in the sunlight is the way to do it.

    (actually, pressure on Jupiter would range from 0 bar at the top to hydrogen-is-a-metal at the bottom ;) )

    People who make interplanetary probes are bright enough to deal with trivial details like these.
  • I'm sorry, you have to be out of your tree.

    Let's open up the control software for space systems? Insane. This kind of work is all about accountablity and making sure the system is mission critical. (Not nearly the same as programming a Gnome widget ;)

    Did you not see the recent article "Space Shuttle Software: Not For Hacks" [slashdot.org]? It mentioned an oldish article about how methodical these people need to be, to ensure that everything is accounted for, thoroughly tested and all the code is signed off before it is used in the shuttle. [fastcompany.com]

    Sure, for systems used by a lot of people open source makes sense, but for space shuttles? I don't have a big enough garden...

    wrighty.
    "Sorry, nothing to see here"

  • After reading the article, there was a certian quote at the end that stuck me as odd- "but just imagine what might be waiting for us on Titan."

    Why not send some sort of flying saucer? I mean, we've always expected "Extraterestials" to come down to us in flying saucers, green skin, bug eyes and all... I propose we send a Flying Saucer to Titan, just to stick it to those lowly aliens and say "Ha! We beat you to it!, now where's your leader?"

    And put some plush green alien dolls in there (flying saucer) while you're at it.

  • It's funny this article should just pop because I just finished reading The Game Players of Titan by Phillip K. Dick. It might be called one of Phil's lesser works, but everything I've read by him is pretty damn good, so I can't complain.

    Everybody grab your vug-stick and start whacking!

  • I think some people have underestimated the state of the art in autonomous heli's today. The article mentioned CMU's autonomous helicopter. There are several other schools with experience in this area, such as MIT (Draper Lab), Stanford, Georgia Tech, etc. I work on the autonomous heli project (http://www-robotics.usc.edu/~avatar) [usc.edu] at USC. I'll try to give a summary of capabilities that our current and past heli's have had. These heli's are of the small RC variety. Our current model weighs about 25 kg. It can fly autonomously at low speeds (under 5 m/s). It can do point to point navigation using GPS. It can follow a moving object on the ground, such as a human or ground robot. We've had take-off and landing capabilities on previous heli's and expect to demonstrate the same on this heli sometime in the next two weeks. We've done all this on processors no more powerful than a 486, and on small research grants. One thing that CMU's heli can do that ours can't is to follow an arbitrary quintic spline trajectory in space. There are still flight profiles that have yet to be demonstrated AFAIK. These include inverted and fast forward flight. The latter is difficult because the dynamics of the system change at high speed, and you need a lot of space, more than we have on our small urban campus. I'm just trying to make the point that a reasonable research effort by NASA, building on existing technology, can produce a very capable vehicle for exploring planetary bodies.
  • Helicopters in space is not really anything new.
    A company called Rotary Rocket Company (http://www.rotaryrocket.com) is already working on a privately funded rocket that lands using rotating helicopter-like blades that are powered by rocket engines in the tips of the blades. On the site, you can see some footage from the test flights. So far, I don't think they have done any rocket-engine powered flights - just basic translational flights with the blade system. Personally I'm not so sure they will ever make it to space, but it's still interesting.. They have some original ideas there..
  • I hope moderators will obliterate the ecofreaks whining about a plutonium power source

    One does not need to be an 'ecofreak' to see the need for responsible and cautious exploration of possible emergent life. Where might we be today, had someone accidentally crash landed a few hundred kg of plutonium into the earth when life here was beginning? It is essential that we do our best not to disrupt the proccess of the formation of life(!) in our clumsy attempts to observe and understand it.

  • As to the cold of space killing any microorganisms on the spacecraft, in fact it has been discovered that microorganisms _can_ survive in space (I don't have a reference handy), hence NASAs decision to crash the Galileo probe into Jupiter, to ensure it doesn't accidentally crash into, and contaminate, Europa.

    Don't forget about radiation. Once outside of Earth's Van Allen belts, the spacecraft is bombarded by ionizing radiation. This would rip any exposed cell membranes to shreds. There are hardened areas in the spacecraft that are shielded from radiation, but I still doubt that an organism could withstand the temperature extremes, radiation, and lack of nutrition for several years. We have trouble even making the spacecraft work in that environement.

    As for the comment about NASA crashing Galeleo onto Jupiter to avoid contaminating the other moons, I believe their concern was for the plutonium in the craft's reactor. Remember the big stink everyone generated when that thing was lanuched?



  • People justify space travel and exploration in many ways. It breeds better technology that trickles down to the consumer market, it answers fundamental questions about life, the universe, and everything, and it works toward setting up a colony on another planet, which is nice in case of a catastrophe on Earth. Another reason, which is seldom talked about, is the one illustrated by this part of the article:
    We should be in for a treat--this world has some bizarre sights. Large raindrops of methane, almost a centimetre across, drift slowly from the red haze. Geysers spout pale plumes of ethane high into the sky. Careful planning could even land the craft at a cliff edge from which it could watch giant waves breaking on the shores of an ethane lake, in the slow motion mandated by Titan's low gravity.
    Now, that's something I want to see. Even if there were no practical reasons to explore Titan, this would still be a valid one. Our lives are richer, our existence more interesting, because we can see new and beautiful things in space that we can't even imagine here on Earth. If we hadn't explored space, we wouldn't even know what we're missing.
    --
  • How did you plan on powering your snakes? Refueling them how, exactly? The local gas station? And how did you plan on getting them to the surface? You can't just "drop a bot" and expect it to survive the impact.

    How about communication? How did you plan on getting data from the snakes? IANA RF engineer, but I would think you cant use a directional antenna because have no way of knowing where to point it. An omni might not even work, considering the composition of the atmosphere.

    And here's a reason you can't take 10 years to get your data: funding. How did you plan on funding 10 years of operations of the orbiter? Here's another reason: What makes you think your orbiter will last 10 years?
  • The RTG's are designed to withstand a such a failure. A lot of work has gone into the design and testing of the iridium container that holds the RTG. Risk analysis studies performed for the Casini mission have shown little risk to the public.
  • To partly answer your challenge, there are a few organisms on earth that can survive without water: the only one I can think of offhand is a type of desert mouse (can't quite recall the name at the moment).

    It survives primarily off of the H2O it gets from cellular respiration. Of course, this would require a good supply of oxygen, but it does get one thinking.
  • As opposed to the plutonium naturally forming [isu.edu]?
  • . Life is about risk, and as soon as we turn away from exploring and understanding this universe, we have given up our birthright.

    That statement almost made me cry. No, I am not joking. This is _NOT_ flambait or sarcasm. Think about it. Humans are about curiosity and courage, adventure and exploration. The inner solar system beckons our arrival... why are we wasting our time with McDonalds/CocaCola etc? Wouldnt these energies (collective resources wasted on mass consumerism) be better devoted to worthwhile and grand projects like exploring the Solar System we are surrounded by? I wonder what has led us astray...
    How can there be any question what the priorities of Planet Earth's People should be? Why are we not vigorously pursing this kind of knowledge?
  • Pu-238 has been used in RTG's for over 30 years and has been proved to be reliable. Despite recent protests by ill-informed green activists, the use of Pu-238 remains a safe, reliable, and effective means to power space craft (see The RTG Debate [seds.org] and Risks of the Casini Mission [nasa.gov]). Unfortunately, our means of producing this valuable isotope has ended with the cold war. Pu-238 was previously produced in significant quantities in the production reactors in South Carolina, which were shutdown in the late 1980's. Alas, we currently have no means to produce Pu-238.

    In the interim we have managed to scrape together enough Pu-238 to meet NASA's needs by using the remaining stock from the cold war days and by purchasing it from Russia. Improvements in the efficiency of the RTG's have reduced the requirements for Pu-238. The recent Casini mission, however, required nearly 35 kg.

    There are proposals on the table to produce Pu-238 in Department of Energy research and test reactors [gpo.gov]. Analysis has shown that they can produce up to 5 kg per year which NASA states is sufficient for future mission. Another alternative that is currently being considered it the restart of the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF [fftf.org]) for isotope production, including Pu-238. DOE is expected to make a decision on FFTF in the near future. It's also possible to produce Pu-238 in commercial power reactors, but there is little support for this.

    I sincerely hope that problems in procuring Pu-238 do not impact future NASA missions.

  • 87.7 Years. Assuming we are talking about Pu238 [bnl.gov]... I think that is what they use.

    w

  • A helicopter ? Come on. If you need a hopper -- which is the mission this guy is trying to come up with -- you design a rocket system that uses in situ propellant generation.

    It's fairly simple: design a hyrbid rocket to use oxygen as the oxidizer (seems funny, but that's rarely the oxidizer in rockets). Design a drilling system to grab you a core sample of ice.

    Melt and electrolyze the water; dump the hydrogen in a tank to give you partial fuel for a fuel cell, and divert part of the oxygen to the rocket system, the rest to the rocket system. Carry fuel grains on-board.

    Using in situ propellants cuts your launch weight, landing weight, and ergo cost by a lot. Sure, there's some increase in complexity to design an in situ system, but it sure would be a remotely-controlled, fold-out helicopter . . .

    All this, and there are on-the-board designs for Mars.


    --
    <><
  • We have to wait till 2003 for them to lose this one?
  • I would tend to think that in at least some ways, flying the helicopter would be less difficult than controlling the rover. As long as you are able to maintain attitude and altitude control, you aren't going to run into anything. Ditches, boulders, sand slopes, etc cease to be an issue.
  • People predicted that by 2000, we'd all be living on Mars or the Moon. But we aren't. Why not? Because there's no demand for those kind of ideas.
    Demand, from whom? Governments have pretty much set themselves up as the only market for manned spaceflight, directly and indirectly (look at all the politics around the Space Shuttle to keep it and its highly profitable service and refit business going, and then think about what the suppression of cheaper routes to orbit means for privately-funded manned missions). Governments don't see any reason to go to the Moon, or Mars.

    Many individuals and some groups see things differently (look at the other replies above, or check out the Mars Society). They'd spend their own money to go, if they could get access. But the governmental-sponsored monopolies lock out the competition to the established players.
    --

  • Although any of your objections may well remain obstacles, here are some possible answers:

    Power them the same way that the helicopter intends to be powered (plutonium heat to charge batteries), only smaller, or perhaps with a fuel cell that doesn't require an oxidizing reaction, but does rely on common local compounds.

    Get them to the surface the same way as the helicopter: retros or parachutes or whatever. Remember that the helicopter will be much more delicate, with gyros and rotors and all.

    Communicating with an omni RF antenna shouldn't be a problem. If FM can go through your living room wall, I'm sure it can get through ethane fog. As for composition, there's plenty of bandwidth to choose from.

    The funding could be an issue, as there are some elements of operation that won't burn money any slower, but the data gathering and data processing would burn money more slowly.

    I don't see why the orbiter should be incapable of lasting 10 years; as the Voyagers demonstrated, plutonium-powered probes can have exceedingly long lives. There is however the matter that it takes more power to sustain orbit than to just maintain telemetry and make a manuever every few years.

  • Nice concept. What if it gets there and all you get is an unchanging yellow blur in front of the camera? Think of the view through your windshield driving in think fog. Or in heavy snow.

    However... I suppose that we know enough about the chemical composition of the gas giant atmospheres to determine some wavelengths of electomagnetic radiation for which most of the fog would be transparent. If the camera was sensitive to those frequencies, maybe there would be something to see.

    But I bet it would just be thick, pea-soup fog. And probably dark, more than a few KM down. Are there any planetary scientists reading that could provide some facts?

    I like the idea of a balloon floating around Jupiter with instruments. It sounds like a pretty fool-proof probe design.


    Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
  • Combine the two ideas.

    Launch a probe that has a base station and lots of miniature 'needle probes', little devices shape like a hypodermic needle with a rotor on top battery in the middle and a sharp needle on the bottom.

    The base station lands, and periodically launches the needle probes. The probes start their rotors and run them to stay aloft until the battery is nearly drained. It then falls from the sky and sticks into the ground from the momentum. 'Detectors-on-a-chip' go to work analysing whatever is on the end of the needle and radioing the results back to the base station which relays it to Earth. The rotors double as solar panels (yeah, it'll take forever-and-a-day to recharge, but other probes are busy at the same time). Once the battery has sufficient charge, it fires up the rotors and let the wind carry it someplace else.

    Position indicators (ie, the rotor is at 267.3 degrees) on the rotors/solar-panel/directional attenae, combined with a networking infrastructure will allow the needle probes to roughly triangulate their position with the base station would give a good idea of where the analized samples came from. Combine that with arial pictures from the orbiter and you map the data fairly well. The radio telemetry could also be used by the base station to direct a laser at the needle probes to recharge their batteries (the base station being equipped with an excellent nuclear power source 8*)

    The spots tested would be completely at random, but who cares. When you're new to an area and completely lost, any direction is as good as any other.

    OK, time to quit dreaming and get back to work.

Slashdot Top Deals

Kiss your keyboard goodbye!

Close