Cassini Greets Jupiter 94
Dr. Zowie writes "The Cassini probe, despite
predictions of doom
on launch and on its
Earth flyby, appears to be working just fine as it wends its way outward toward Saturn. It's currently flying by Jupiter for an additional gravity assist.
Today, the imaging team released their first high ('better than Hubble') resolution color images of Jupiter. I can't wait to write a Jovian screensaver..."
Halfway down that last page is a sweet movie (GIF or QT) showing time-lapse clouds around the Great Red Spot on successive rotations of our largest planet.
99 Sites on the Web (Score:4)
99 sites on the web,
Slashdot one down,
into the ground,
98 sites of stuff on the web.
Re:Now let's worry about gravity conservation (Score:2)
HA HA. U R DUM.
Re:Better than Hubble (Score:2)
Re:Better than Hubble (Score:2)
Re:Better than Hubble (Score:1)
Re:Probably already well known (Score:1)
When I lived in colorado, we used to visit denver right after a big storm and look at all the wreckage produced by a tornado. A lot of times you find foundation where buildings are supposed to be.. cars upside over... etc etc.
Re:Now let's worry about gravity conservation (Score:2)
The joke would be funnier if it took into account that it's Earth's gravity that is reduced by the launch of Cassini (in direct proportion to the combined mass of probe, fuel expended, etc.), not that of any other extraterrestrial object. What Cassini is stealing from other objects is angular momentum. As it slingshots around various objects, the energy it derives is converted from planetary inertia to probe speed.
Hence, if we continue launching probes and using other planets to slingshot them up to escape speed, Venus (and other planets) will eventually spiral into Sol as Earth spirals outward toward Pluto.
Re:Great Pics! (Score:2)
What with Morton Thiocol rubber bands snapping and all that powdered magnesium on board for flash photography, that's the last time I'm talked out of using fulminate of mercury as the propellant!
--
Check out the Hubble Heritage images (Score:2)
Saturn (Score:1)
Is it profitable?
Just kidding
BTW, nice pictures!
Re:Cassini is the sweetest probe ever (Score:2)
Personally, I want to know the nature and origin of that large black monolith on the other hemisphere...
but the aliens! (Score:2)
Science Fiction in the Hearts of Protestors (Score:1)
The point about useless satellites in Earth orbit is far more sensible until the author suggests that advanced civilizations might use "miniature black holes" to clean them up. If you thought running an RTG close to the Earth was bad, imagine containing a black hole in the Earth's orbit (or rather, the Earth in orbit of the black hole!).
"high" resolution (Score:1)
--
Re:No one was hurt? still != it's all good (Score:1)
Lets put it this way: the only danger involved with Cassini was likely generated by the media, who heard "nuclear material" and "launched into space", saw a ratings-garunteed story, and ran with it. As has been pointed out before, the level of radioactives was really quite low - as was the danger. Radioactives are a natural part of nature... one that just happens to be dangerous to humans in large quantities.
-RickHunter
VMS/VAX webserver (Score:1)
S.A.L.T. (Score:1)
Re:VMS/VAX webserver (Score:1)
Re:Not too well known, apparently (Score:1)
It's a very unfortunate fact that now that everybody is anti-nukes, you can say anything and get away with it. I hate that, it undermines the efforts of knowledgeable anti-nuke and anti-war advocates. Cassini was never an issue, none of the three concerns you list were valid, as is very apparent if you sit down and do the math yourself.
Re:No one was hurt? still != it's all good (Score:1)
However, there is mounting evidence that the standard linear model is wrong, that small doses of radition isn't dangerous, and I would be surprised, very surprised if a reentry where the RTGs dissolved, which is the worst-case scenario, pretty much, caused any deaths at all.
Finally, you might want to read Carl Sagan's article about the launch of Galileo [dartmouth.edu]. It was the same issue back then, and as good as every point he made back then is valid for Cassini, and indeed similar future projects.
Re:nice pictures of "jupiter" (Score:1)
Come here George and let the nice man in the white coat give you your medication...
Hacker: A criminal who breaks into computer systems
Re:That damn storm... (Score:1)
Wasn't there this weirdo theory a while ago that the very inner core of jupiter might be a giant (earthsized) diamond?
Re:That damn storm... (Score:1)
mind you, is it a sharp edge between the storm and other areas or is there a slow transition between them?
Re:Science Fiction in the Hearts of Protestors (Score:1)
Re:but "telescopes" must be registered (Score:1)
Jesus.... Why would the gov make up something like this?? No purpose in doing so.... get a life....
Re:Chicken Little's Anti-Cassini website (Score:1)
All the Plutonium we play with is transmuted from Uranium in atomic reactors.
Re:That damn storm... (Score:1)
hahaha
Chicken Little's Anti-Cassini website (Score:3)
I checked out that anti-Cassini website under the predictions of doom link, and found that the author's primary complaint was that the 74 pounts of Plutonium might crash into the Earth. Maybe over Africa.
Let's see. Africa has 6,900,000 square miles or so. Seventy-four pounds of plutonium is about 34,000 grams. Assuming that Cassini broke up and only affected a third of Africa (2.3 million square miles), that's 0.014 grams of plutonium per square mile.
Frankly, I would think that the author of that website would be happy to have something that was dangerous and already here to be shipped out into eternity.
Some people just don't think.
Re:nice pictures of "jupiter" (Score:1)
Re:No one was hurt? still != it's all good (Score:1)
Apparently, you did not read your own source:
an accidental re-entry of the spacecraft into Earth's atmosphere
There was NO accidental re-entry, therefore there will be NO exposed populations for the cancer to appear in. Ergo, it is NOT an absurd assumption.
And to address your concern over the cancer risks should the probe have crashed, it may have caused no cancers at all as well. There is a whole branch of science devoted to communicating risk. It is by no means perfect. The major question is: How did Dr. Burden arrive at his numbers?
If Dr. Burden assumed the world population as the exposure group then: 3,480 / ~ 6,000,000,000 = 0.000058% chance that any one person will be afflicted. Also, if Dr. Burden assumed impact in a highly populated location (population > 5,000,000) then one needs to determine the odds of such an impact and adjust the end result as well. And there are other consideration.
I could go on, but I will begin to ramble. Dave
Re:Now let's worry about gravity conservation (Score:2)
Bingo Foo
---
Re:Should have said... (Score:1)
Actually, I almost read it that way. I laughed when I saw 'wend' on slashdot. Being its not something everyone would know, I posted it as "no score +1 bonus". Hmm, poll topic: While, Until, Loop, Wend, Goto .
Re:"high" resolution (Score:1)
I bet you're the same guy who .... (Score:1)
obligatory mirror (Score:2)
I've got all the jpg's and the .html page so far. The gifs are hard to get for some reason. I've edited a copy of the html page [dynodns.net] so that the img references point to my own mirror, but since all the inline images are the gifs, it doesn't look that good yet. If you click on the jpg links below the images, they are there. I'm not even gonna worry about the tiffs.
As always with my mirrors: This ain't my work. don't blame me for the problems with the content. I may have made slight changes to the html to make the images work on my machine. If you own or created this work, I'm just trying to do you a favor; if you don't want me to, just mail me. I usually pull these down within a while anyway.
Re:Science Fiction in the Hearts of Protestors (Score:1)
As far as this Space Debris Protest page, the author seems to underestimate the vastness of space. The situation is similar to you being the only person in the world and throwing the only bottle into the ocean. Realistically, without some way of tracking it, you have no chance of finding that bottle again. The difference in space is that the bottle is too large an example and the ocean is too small by something like 10 orders of magnitude. Eventually, someday, mankind will forget that the Pioneer and Voyager probes are there. And, realistically, no one will ever find them.
Re:The only thing a liberal can say about Rush (Score:2)
Re:Better than Hubble (Score:1)
Too Bright (Score:2)
Detector design is an art, and these imagers are not the ones you buy in cameras at Wal-Mart or even in the back of amateur astronomy magazines. They are hand made one at a time and only the best of the best individual samples go into space.
These detectors are easily ruined. Long before the CCD melts its high sensitivity can be ruined as excessive temperature and radiation scramble these carefully arranged structures. They will still function as CCD's, but the characteristics which were achieved at such great cost will be ruined. This happened to a relative of mine back in the 70's when he was on vacation, and a coworker let the liquid nitrogen run out on one of his gamma ray detectors. It still detected gamma rays after its day at room temperature, but the energy peaks were broad and flat instead of nice and sharp as their research required.
The Hubble could focus on the Earth and Moon if the controllers wanted to risk trying, say, aiming at the night side. But they do not want to risk the usefulness of their detectors for faint deep-space objects on trying to resolve Neil's footprints.
Hubble did photog a near-earth asteroid awhile back that was passing at Moon-like distance, but I believe the problem with the Earth and Moon is the sheer size of highly illuminated area. And imaging a near-new Moon wouldn't help because, of course, then the Moon is mostly dark because the Sun is behind it.
Re:S.A.L.T. (Score:1)
Re:That damn storm... (Score:1)
Terribly sorry - oops, accidental repost (Score:2)
This plutonium is glassified. Entrance into the atmosphere would likely create either single-molecular concentrations locally (remember, long way from space down to earth) or giant chunks. These giant chunks pose next to no hazard for three reasons: the radiation they generate can be stopped by a piece of paper, so if a kid doesn't eat them, you're fine. The US and other governments would be *very* interested to recover the core, as it is quite expensive and easily reusable (two known failures involving RTGs(correct term), and in one case, whole core reused, other case it broke into small pieces, but did not become dust). Three, the plutonium, after being glassified, is devilishly hard to turn into bomb-grade plutonium, as someone else has pointed out, that is a *higher* number isotope, so it can't be reduced, it must be augmented, and that is just as easy to do with Uranium-235, which is far more common. However, if one were to reduce part of this isotope to create an augmented amount, the augmented amount, assuming perfect efficiency, would still be no where near enough to create critical mass. If one were to attempt to reduce the plutonium to U-235 (I don't know if this can be done, just hypothetical), there still wouldn't be enough, because in nuclear bombs, there's no such thing as a small bomb. Even an extremely efficient multi-stage bomb uses considerably more uranium than that, not to mention the plutonium in the trigger and the deuterium and tritium needed.
The fact is that there isn't a single major risk factor associated with the use of this thing. These things have been investigated by every reputable environmental group and have been given a clean slate by all. However, future use is in doubt simply due to lobbying efforts by people who see nuke and go nuts. That's what's sad, because these things are incredibly cost-effective. The same amount of energy from a chemical source would be huge. One of these batteries can produce 500 watts for thirty years.
Nuclear-powered pacemakers (Score:2)
Those pacemakers use plutonium encased in tungsten inside stainless steel. Testing on those things was extensive. They will survive bullets at point-blank range and cremation.
Today, people are horrified by the concept of an implanted nuclear device, but the track record of these holdovers from the 1950s is pretty good.
Re:Not too well known, apparently (Score:2)
"As far as the other comment, that the Pu238 "can't" oxidize, well, I suppose that depends on a lot of factors. It isn't supposed to oxidize, just like launch vehicles aren't supposed to explode. Personally I think if they screwed up badly enough to hit the earth dead-on at 30K+km/h that it would be hard to imagine all the Pu remaining in solid form regardless of any attempts to protect it."
But you're utterly missing the point here. They're using plutonium dioxide. It's already oxidised, and it's not going to oxidise anymore. Period!
That damn storm... (Score:2)
Re:S.A.L.T. (Score:1)
Great Pics! (Score:2)
Meanwhile, my own efforts to launch a space probe meet with minor setbacks... [dragonswest.com]
--
Re:I just want to test a well-known saying (Score:1)
Mod this guy up!
.-.
Better than Hubble (Score:2)
Now let's worry about gravity conservation (Score:3)
Now let's tell those green folks about how gravity assist steals energy from Jupiter, and may cause Jupiter to fall into Earth's orbit!
I'm sure we can prove it with a few strategic Newtonian equations.
Mirrors! Quick (Score:1)
Cassini is the sweetest probe ever (Score:5)
Re:Better than Hubble (Score:1)
But your statement could be true. It's too bright, so the quality is really bad (seeing white?). Anything flying close by Jupiter should have better quality than from Earth. And how old is Hubble (last imaging upgrade)? Cassini? Are there any great enhancement between the two times?
---
Should have said... (Score:4)
appears to be working just fine as it wends its way outward toward Saturn
Should have said: appears to be working just fine while it basically wends its way outward toward Saturn" Otherwise, you'd get a Wend without While error.
there goes my karma (Score:2)
High res color eh? (Score:1)
Re:nice pictures of "jupiter" (Score:1)
But in this guy's mind, that telescope is probably made by NASA and is rigged to show a false image.
Clever people, those NASA spooks!
Re:Probably already well known (Score:2)
What's the danger of living in Denver compared to living anywhere else? Or is that just an arbitrary place you picked?
Mmmmm Magnometer-licious! (Score:1)
Don't forget the chilled Narrow Angle, Wide Angle and Plasma sensors for dessert! Mmmm now thats good eatin'
Capt. Ron
Re:Probably already well known (Score:2)
...phil
Re:Probably already well known (Score:2)
Re:The only thing a liberal can say about Rush (Score:1)
This is the biggest problem with Rush
Hint: Calling up some blowhard extremist whose outlandish views have relegated him to the obscurity of AM radio and shrieking "MEGADITTOS!" into the phone does not constitute thinking. It is lemming behavior, pure and simple. The vast majority of people have better things to do than listen to a hysterical, truculent, right-wing nut spew vitriol all afternoon.
Re:No one was hurt? still != it's all good (Score:3)
Um. None of the forcasted cancers are ever going to show up, since the uncontrolled reentry of Cassini into the earth's atmosphere was a prerequsite for the cancers to happen, and Cassini didn't reenter the atmosphere. Or weren't you paying attention?
...phil
Re:nice pictures of "jupiter" (Score:1)
Re:Probably already well known (Score:2)
Oh, yeah.. :-)
Actually, I know Jupiter has little to do with Earth's tectonic plates. And the danger from plutonium batteries is less than that of your favorite room being in the basement.
Re:how? was: Re:Better than Hubble (Score:2)
What has being organic got to do with anything? If you point the HST at the Sun (or any telescope w/o a proper filter for that matter) you will literally melt the CCD. (Think ants under a magnifying glass here). The HST contains a fail-safe program that automatically shuts the door if the telescope is pointing to within 20 degrees of the Sun to prevent damage to the cameras. Someone else mentioned that it is unable to image the Earth or Moon as well. This is true, I think, because they are too close - it can't focus on something that near.
We have to wait for Saturn (Score:1)
But originally, Discovery had been planned as a two-way Jupiter probe which was rerouted to become a one-way Saturn probe whose crew would go into hibernation after doing their duties and await rescue by the as-yet-unbuilt Discovery II. In this scenario it made more sense for HAL the computer to go crazy because it had to keep the secret from Bowman and Poole on the outgoing journey (though you'd have to think they might suspect something big was up with such a large change in mission plan).
So I'm still waiting to see the pix of Iapetus. You will notice that Iapetus is one of Cassini's particular targets...
Re:sweetest probe? (Score:1)
Re:your calculations (Score:2)
"....from a meteor strike than from a failed mission with a thermo-nuclear battery."
Whoa! thermonuclear battery! i didnt even know they were invented yet! did you mean nuclear thermoelectric battery?....maybe?
Re:Probably already well known (Score:1)
That's all? I heard that it would effect the Space-Time continuum and Biff would take over the world :)
Not too well known, apparently (Score:2)
1. It used the Plutonium isotope 239, rather than the more common 235. Pu239 is more reactive (has a much shorter half-life) than 235; this makes it better fuel for an RTG but makes it much more dangerous if you inhale a particle.
2. It used an especially large amount of this especially dangerous isotope of Plutonium.
3. In addition to the at launch risks (of course launch vehicles never blow up, right? The Challenger crew will back you up on that one) Cassini had to make not one but two near passes by Earth, using it as a gravity handle in order to get out to the outer Solar System. Of course NASA would never drive a spacecraft into a planet, just look at the job they did of inserting Mars Climate Orbiter into its current, um, location.
In any case like all risk calculations in matters nuclear the thing comes down to a multiplication of very large risks by very small probabilities, and in this case NASA didn't blow up the launch vehicle or drive the spacecraft into the planet. Had they done either there is a good chance the RTG would have survived re-entry intact; it is designed to do that, just as the spacecraft is designed not to blow up or drive into the planet, and usually those designs work.
However, there is a possibility that, in the unlikely event of a re-entry (particularly being driven into the planet during a gravity-handle exercise) the RTG would have breached. This would have been a very bad thing. Plutonium oxidizes readily into a very fine powder which can remain suspended in the air for amazing periods of time. Inhaling even one microscopic particle of this stuff (much worse than Pu235, which is bad enough) pretty much dooms you to lung cancer, at a minimum. You can argue with this if you feel like looking foolish but it's well known what happens when a particle of Pu gets embedded in lung tissue; every alpha particle passes through several hundred cells before it stops, and eventually one of them is going to do major mischief.
Now, if this happened it's likely that life would have gone on for most of us just as it has gone on after Chernobyl and Three Mile Island -- both accidents which have a long anecdotal and statistical history of ensuing mortality, which has been whitewashed, swept under the rug, or very occasionally outright covered up (ever try to get by-county infant mortality stats for Pennsylvania the year after TMI?). But it would indeed not be the End of the World (tm).
Is the smallish risk of that worth the pictures we're getting now? I am personally inclined to say yes. But then, it would probably be someone else who got lung cancer if the worst-case accident happened. The people who protested the mission have their point, which is that it's not my right to make that decision for them. I may not agree with them but that does not make them stupid or venal, and it's tiring to see the people I supposedly agree with taking the moral low road by making fun of them and refusing to get their point.
Re:nice pictures of "jupiter" (Score:1)
This is why we have to send spacecraft to all these planets, to spray them with UBIK. Otherwise we could wake up one day and find out they've turned into hair dryers or washed-up Presidential candidates floating in the sky.
(Phil Dick, who wrote UBIK (first), had some kind of epiphany in 1974 after which he came to believe that the entire world was an illusion and that we are really still reliving the years after Christ's death over and over, presumably until we get things right or see past the illusion. And the guy continued to write really good SF.)
Re:Not too well known, apparently (Score:1)
uhm, right, which is why they already oxidized it and melted the oxide into solid glassy chunks. it's not going to powderize any more easily than a coffee cup.
Re:Not too well known, apparently (Score:2)
Pu-235 has a 25.3 minute half-life. The one they use is Pu-238 with a half life of 87.7 years, so that the power provided during the first 10 years of the mission is more or less constant. Pu-239 has a half life of 24100 years. My data comes from 1996 edition of the Chart of the Nuclides (by Lockehhed Martin & GE Nuclear). I tend to trust it, which means that you are wrong. Also, Pu-235 is not common at all. As with any other isotope of Plutonium, it does not exist in nature. The most "common" in the sense of quantity available is Pu-239, which is used for weapons.
Blow up Jupiter (Score:1)
I remember an article that talked of the US wanting to blow up the moon... imagine igniting all that methane! How long would it burn for?
heh
Re:Better than Hubble (Score:2)
In fact, Hubble recorded some great pictures of Shoemaker-Levy's plunge into Jupiter several years ago. Here: Hubble Images of Jupiter and a Comet [stsci.edu]
Well, well, well... (Score:2)
Re:No one was hurt? still != it's all good (Score:1)
And as for the "Mercury capsule conflagration", that was Apollo 1, the astronauts were running a routine practice session. There were a number of mistakes that contributed to their deaths, not least of which was an inward opening hatch and a pure oxygen environment at 1 atmosphere.
jim
Anyone else see something strange in the photos? (Score:2)
Did anyone else see something strange in the Jupiter photos? A black object floating near Jupiter? Kinda like a long rectangle, black, no visible surface features. Looks like a large Hershey bar...
www.matthewmiller.net [matthewmiller.net]
Re:No one was hurt? still != it's all good (Score:3)
With all due respect, I wonder how even 120 people could contract fatal cancers. I guess, if someone used a linear, no-threshold model of radioactivity's effects and applied it to the entire population of the world. But realistically, the biggest danger from those RTGs was if one re-entered and hit you on the head. It wouldn't be pretty, but it wouldn't be cancer, either.
I remember how the media really pushed the controversy in the days leading up to Cassini's launch. CBS had footage of this one poor girl (she may have been around 14), crying in absolute terror as Cassini launched because she honestly believed all life on the planet was about to end. That was the product of the scare-mongering that people pushed. I wonder how many people worked themselves into genuine stress-induced problems because of the alarmist hand-wringing by the anti-nuke crowd.
Re:Well, well, well... (Score:1)
Re:nice pictures of "jupiter" (Score:1)
So when I take my telescope into my backyard and see that big non-twinkling globe with the four dots that seem to go around it when I look every night, or to a larger telescope at a local planetarium and actually see the cloud bands and the great red spot for myself, I'm looking at a governemtn conspiracy?
Oh right, it's the government chip implaneted in my brain to transmit govt approved images into my eye.
(why can't I just obey the sign "do not feed the trolls"...)
Great now the GIAJ will sue Earth! (Score:2)
NASA commented on it's use of "free" Jovian gravity claiming that "By allowing space probes to use gravity, more consumers would be exposed to it and therefore more interested in its use / application. We also give a venue for the discovery of new massive objects and help them advertise the fact that they too produce gravity...", NASA made no furthur comments...
Capt. Ron
Re:Should have said... (Score:1)
Too bad I posted earlier, or I'd mod you up +1 for funny.
Ahh, the memories of the good old days of GWBASIC and PCDOS
Re:Not too well known, apparently (Score:1)
My bad, what comes from posting after working all weekend instead of doing weekend stuff. I have been writing a story that involved the conversion of Pu239 to U235 for longer-term (100's of millions of years) use, and the number stuck in my head.
As far as the other comment, that the Pu238 "can't" oxidize, well, I suppose that depends on a lot of factors. It isn't supposed to oxidize, just like launch vehicles aren't supposed to explode. Personally I think if they screwed up badly enough to hit the earth dead-on at 30K+km/h that it would be hard to imagine all the Pu remaining in solid form regardless of any attempts to protect it. Other than the isotope goof I stand by the sentiment of my original post.
Re:That damn storm... (Score:1)
Well I wasn't referring to the people mind you.
Re:Not too well known, apparently (Score:1)
Not like that (Score:1)
Re:Not too well known, apparently (Score:1)
The "standard" Pu isotope used in bombs and reactors is Pu242, half life 50,000 years. Pu239 does have a half-life of 24,100 years, and Pu238 92 years. I'm sure it is Pu238 on Cassini. Of course all these isotopes are "rare" (=nonexistent) having gone to U238 in the aeons since the original supernova formed the cloud that birthed Sol. But in the cores of breeder reactors it's Pu242 that's common, and Pu238 the more energetic, unusual, and dangerous isotope that was isolated (no doubt at great expense) for use on Cassini.
And again, I would expect the RTG to retain its integrity if it re-entered from LEO; that's what it's designed to do. Surviving a head-on collision with the ground at escape velocity is an entirely different thing, which has never been tested.
Re:Not too well known, apparently (Score:1)
FYI, here is a list of the common fissile niclei:
U-233, U-235, Pu-239, Pu-241
Re:Better than Hubble (Score:1)
I can see it now. (Score:4)
Jupiter: Why, yes.
Cassini: Nice to meet you! I'm Cassini.
*sniff* You know, these probes make the solar system a kinder, gentler place to live... chokes ya up, don't it?
Re:Better than Hubble (Score:4)
Probably already well known (Score:5)
As a matter of fact, one is far more likely to die from a meteor strike than from a failed mission with a thermo-nuclear battery.