Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
NASA Space Science

Stardust to Return January 15 144

Posted by CowboyNeal from the welcome-home dept.
accessdeniednsp writes "Seven years ago, the Stardust probe was sent to intercept Comet Wild 2, gather dust particles, and return to Earth. Stardust is scheduled to touch down in a Utah desert on January 15. From the article: 'Our mission is called Stardust, in part because we believe some of the particles in the comet will, in fact, be older than the sun,' said Don Brownlee of the University of Washington, the principal investigator of the mission."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Stardust to Return January 15 More

Stardust to Return January 15

Comments Filter:

  • Wow! (Score:1)

    by xx01dk ( 191137 )
    I totally forgot about this one. Hope it doesn't pancake.
  • But if there was SOMEWAY for something to be alive in the dust, couldn't it put people in danger? Like, a new life thats sorta like a virus, or bacteria but can live in space. Couldn't bringing all this stuff back to Earth be a tad bit dangerous?

    • Re:I know this is silly... (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The only way this could be a tad bit dangerous is if you happen to be a member of the Kansas educational board.

    • Re:I know this is silly... (Score:5, Funny)

      by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) on Friday December 23, 2005 @12:55AM (#14324744) Homepage
      The radiation from this capsule will transform anything near it..to..oh god, they're already here! SPACE ROBOTS!

      "GO STAND BY SOME STAIRS"

    • Re:I know this is silly... (Score:5, Informative)

      by heli0 ( 659560 ) on Friday December 23, 2005 @01:17AM (#14324829)
      Probably not any more dangerous than the multiple tons of extraterrestrial debris that rains down on us every day.

      http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?numb er=470 [cornell.edu]

      A study done in 1996 (looking at the number of meteorites found in deserts over time) calculated that for objects in the 10 gram to 1 kilogram size range, 2900-7300 kilograms per year hit Earth.

      They also estimate between 36 and 166 meteorites larger than 10 grams fall to Earth per million square kilometers per year. Over the whole surface area of Earth, that translates to 18,000 to 84,000 meteorites bigger than 10 grams per year.

    • Re:I know this is silly... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Friday December 23, 2005 @01:19AM (#14324834)
      Stuff rains down on us from space all the time, including comets (at least where "all the time" is in geological terms). If there was something that could be alive on a comet that could harm us, something like it would have come down and killed us all by now.
      • But there's the possibility that life in meteorites was just burned away traveling through the atmosphere at high speeds. I would assume that Stardust would have been designed to keep things from getting TOO hot, so those lifeforms that were previously burned away might possibly have more of a chance to make it to the surface unharmed.

        • Re:I know this is silly... (Score:4, Funny)

          by alc6379 ( 832389 ) on Friday December 23, 2005 @03:52AM (#14325253)
          But there's the possibility that life in meteorites was just burned away traveling through the atmosphere at high speeds. I would assume that Stardust would have been designed to keep things from getting TOO hot, so those lifeforms that were previously burned away might possibly have more of a chance to make it to the surface unharmed.

          That's true-- and come to think of it, I'm not going to be anywhere near those lifeforms once they're taken off of the probe. Once they find out our atmosphere has been burning up their relatives, they're going to be PISSED.

        • IANARS (I am not a rocket scientist), but I suppose that debris entering the atmosphere will only burn if they have enough size/initial speed.

          Space dust falling on Earth should get in unharmed (if being bombarded by the Sun's UV and all sorts of radiation before getting under the atmosphere blanket can be called unharmed).

        • " But there's the possibility that life in meteorites was just burned away traveling through the atmosphere at high speeds."

          If enough of a meteorite made it thorugh to his the surface (especially those that cuase impact craters), why wouldn't something inside of it also survive?
        • ...then the plasma discharges probably will. Shuttles come in relatively slowly, yet at least one of them [sfgate.com] has been photographed with something that looks suspiciously like a "Blue" Jet [alaska.edu] (they aren't all blue) striking it, immediately before it blew up.

          Interestingly, one of the analyses [hawaii.edu] used to back statements that there was no lightning involved provides a fairly sound reason for it: there was no warning, no change in the Shuttle's acoustics right up to the point when it all came apart. A strike that high, c

    • Re:I know this is silly... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Nyeerrmm ( 940927 ) on Friday December 23, 2005 @02:03AM (#14324982)
      NASA/JPL requirements for an earth entry vehicle thats returning any kind of sample are very strict. They require that there be less than a 10^-6 chance of a particle larger than 2 nanometers entering the earth atmosphere.

      Those NASA administrators read Crichton too.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • 1) Site your source or as far as I am concerned, that is a bullshit number pulled out of your ass.
        2) Anyone who makes policy based off of Sci-Fi can go smoke a fag.
      • It sez in the TFA that NASA will "carefully land (their helicopters) upwind of the capsule", presumably so they don't get contaminated by anything that might be on or leaking from the capsule. Of course, in the process they will blow salty crap all over the capsule and hopelessly contaminate it. They should land crosswind from it, so they don't contaminate it, and they also won't catch anything that might be leaking from the capsule...

    • Re:I know this is silly... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Temporal ( 96070 ) on Friday December 23, 2005 @03:01AM (#14325138) Journal
      You're absolutely right. Your suggestion is silly.

      A life form which evolved to survive on the surface of a comet has zero chance of being successful inside the human body. In order for a life form to evolve to be effective in an environment, it must have exposure to that environment. The viruses which already plague us here on Earth have spent billions of years evolving specifically to attack the other life forms already present on Earth.

      Of course, this argument is strongly rooted in evolution. As some other posters have pointed out, if you believe in intelligent design, you might disagree. But then, real-life observations and evidence are overwhelmingly consistent with evolution, not intelligent design, so I think we're safe.
      • You're absolutely right. Your suggestion is silly.

        Perhaps, but I think this is a normal, reasonable kind of fear, and we shouldn't try to make people feel stupid for asking questions. This is the biggest problem science faces in getting the public on our side. We need to be less quick in attacking people for not knowing things, and instead show a little empathy and help them learn. There's no sin in not knowing things--the only crime is refusing to accept facts when they are demonstrated.

        I want the public t
        • The problem comes when you try to actually address those fears. The general public doesn't really want our answers, scientifically sound or not.

          The vast majority of people still seem to think airplanes fall out of the sky on a regular basis, and that a car is far safer to be in. They think that terrorism is an actual, credible threat to their lives. They think that stoned babysitters actually do put babies into the oven. They think that mysterious men are out there offering "free perfume samples" which are
          • The problem comes when you try to actually address those fears. The general public doesn't really want our answers, scientifically sound or not.

            Come on - I agree scientific illiteracy is a huge problem, but I don't think this broad a statement is justifiable. I've found most lay people are truly interested and at least partly open to learning. Fundamentalist idiots aren't the majority. There are too many of them, though. (I know you didn't say fundamentalist.)

            People simply do not like to learn that what the
      • "A life form which evolved to survive on the surface of a comet has zero chance of being successful inside the human body. In order for a life form to evolve to be effective in an environment, it must have exposure to that environment. The viruses which already plague us here on Earth have spent billions of years evolving specifically to attack the other life forms already present on Earth."

        This is pretty much totally correct regardless of your religious or scientific leanings. "random chance" is just as li
        • Intelligent Design would be far more likely to produce bacteria/viruses harmful to us originating from a comet. An intelligent designer can design such things however they like, and could thus think "I'm going do design a life form which could live on a comet but which could also be dangerous to humans!".

          You don't know anything about intelligent design beyond reading those that hate/strongly dislike it.

          I have read arguments for it as presented by the Discovery Institute and others. Invariably, their suppo
    • Alright, so it's fiction, but it's really good fiction, in my opinion. All about a sat. that returns to the Earth with unknown organisms aboard that create a series of crisises.

      Michael Crichton wrote 'Andromeda Strain' back in the 70's, which is a pretty good book [barnesandnoble.com]. (Barnes & Noble link, no referral ID).

      It was later turned into a movie [imdb.com], although the movie was so-so, in my opinion.

      Crichton is probably best known for Jurassic Park, but he raises some interesting issues in Andromeda Strain, if you're at all
    • They already made a movie about this back in 1971. The Andromedia Strain http://imdb.com/title/tt0066769/ [imdb.com]
    • I just hope someone has had the sense to 'dust' off the old script from the movie 'The Andromeda Strain.' Just in case.

  • Here's hoping this one doesn't...... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DoraLives ( 622001 ) on Friday December 23, 2005 @12:51AM (#14324722)
    land like the last one [space.com].
    • Would a generally spherical object free falling from space actually only reach 100mph before it hit the ground? And would there really be no creator from said object falling from space?
      • It all depends on the size of the object. 100mph and not much of a crater seems about right for it, (although I would have expected it to be more around 200mph). The real question is whether it would slow to 100mph before hitting the ground. Large meteorites leave craters and go faster because they are more massive and thus have more momentum.

        • Re:Is that accurate? (Score:4, Informative)

          by cyclone96 ( 129449 ) on Friday December 23, 2005 @02:17AM (#14325027)
          Another variable is the entry angle. Genesis was *targeted* such that it would hit the edge of the earth's atmosphere and utilize it to bleed off almost all of its kinetic energy through friction. The parachutes were only designed to take care of braking it that last 200 mph or so.

          Of course, they never deployed, so it essentially hit the ground at terminal velocity - basically the same as if you had just rolled it out of an aircraft at 50,000 feet.

      • Re:Is that accurate? (Score:3, Informative)

        by Baddas ( 243852 )
        It depends greatly on a couple factors:
        Coefficient of drag, surface area, mass of the object, and the density of the air it's falling in.

        If you assume that the object can survive the freefall from space, then the air changes density enough that it would slow to the terminal velocity of the object at approximately sea level regardless of how fast it was going (within a reasonable orbital velocity)

        So to summarize a bit, it'd be easily possible to design a rough-surfaced sphere that could slow to well under 10

        • Re:Is that accurate? (Score:2, Informative)

          by Baddas ( 243852 )
          Also, to add more, spheres show a very interesting behavior in different fluid flows: They're almost self-parachuting.

          "The drag coefficient for a sphere is given with a range of values because the drag on a sphere is highly dependent on Reynolds number. Flow past a sphere, or cylinder, goes through a number of transitions with velocity. At very low velocity, a stable pair of vortices are formed on the downwind side. As velocity increases, the vortices become unstable and are alternately shed downstream. As
      • Another article I read about the genesis probe said it hit the ground at around 400 mph, which sounds a lot more likely for a multi-hundred pound spacecraft the size of a small go-kart.

        -Jesse

    • Re:Here's hoping this one doesn't...... (Score:5, Informative)

      by cyclone96 ( 129449 ) on Friday December 23, 2005 @01:17AM (#14324827)
      No kidding...especially since they were built by the same contractor (Lockheed Martin Denver).

      The failure of Genesis was tied to a badly designed placement of deceleration sensors, a design flaw which Stardust is apparently free from (but I'm sure there will still be some serious hand-wringing on the 15th).

      More details here. [planetary.org]

      • Re:Here's hoping this one doesn't...... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Bad D.N.A. ( 753582 ) <baddna@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Friday December 23, 2005 @02:08AM (#14325003)
        "The failure of Genesis was tied to a badly designed placement of deceleration sensors, a design flaw which Stardust is apparently free from"

        While it's premature to call Genesis a "failure" it certainly did not meet specs. There was a very interesting session at the AGU in SF from the Genesis team

        http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm05& part=SH32A&maxhits=400/ [agu.org]

        on what science they are doing and where they are going with their future research. No doubt everyone would have enjoyed a successful capture but even with the Utah desert impact there seems to be significant samples available for scientific study.
        • Thanks, that's a well appreciated clarification.

          Interesting, I guess I called it a "failure" because I'm looking at it from the engineering side (I'm a NASA engineer - looking through my paradigm "success" means the spacecraft itself worked as designed).

          But overall, the engineering is just a tool to complete the mission, which is science (and clearly there is a lot of good science coming out of Genesis). Sometimes we need to be reminded....

        • The Genesis rocket reminded me of that short lived TV series "Master Blasters". I don't believe they ever had a successful recovery of any of the rockets they launched. And to paraphrase one of the particpants of that show "A successful launch and recovery is cool, a failed launch and/or recovery is spectacular."

          Here's hoping they have a successful mission.
      • According to the article, the problem was caused by parachute release servos, not sensors:

        "An investigation concluded that small servos that controlled parachute release had been installed backward, years before when Genesis was assembled."

    • I see they are taking another shot at SCO HQ...

  • NASA announces (Score:3, Funny)

    by metamatic ( 202216 ) on Friday December 23, 2005 @12:55AM (#14324742) Homepage Journal
    This article to return to the front page of Slashdot in a day or two.

  • Cool! (Score:1, Redundant)

    by PhrostyMcByte ( 589271 )
    Other than the cool factor, the article doesn't touch on what good it will do us to study particles older than the sun. Anyone in the know care to elaborate?

    • Re:Cool! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by node 3 ( 115640 )
      Other than the cool factor, the article doesn't touch on what good it will do us to study particles older than the sun. Anyone in the know care to elaborate?

      Two answers, depending on if you mean, "why are we spending money on this?" or "science is cool, teach me more!"

      The answer to the first question is two-fold. One is you never know where the next crucial clue or insight is going to come from, but even if you discount a scientific endeavor altogether as impractical, it's the same reason we play sports, wa
    • "Other than the cool factor, the article doesn't touch on what good it will do us to study particles older than the sun. Anyone in the know care to elaborate? "

      Well, it's like Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) hit us all of the time, (thought to be) accelerated by super nova shocks many (suns ago) it does make sense to try to understand their acceleration mechanisms, the spectra, and their (if possible) temporal evolution (doubtful, but a "wet" dream of mine).

    • Other than the cool factor, the article doesn't touch on what good it will do us to study particles older than the sun. Anyone in the know care to elaborate?

      Well, I'm not an astronomer, but I can make guesses as to what interstellar dust and comet particles would be usefull for. For one thing by studying the chemical and isotope makeup of the particles you could determine where they came from. That would likely tell you something about comet origins (do they come from our solar system, or from outside it)

  • Ralph Yarro's ship comes in! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Maybe it will touch down here:

    http://maps.google.com/maps?oi=map&q=355+South+520 +West,+Lindon,+UT [google.com]
    • I don't suppose that the probe could have picked up some anti-matter along the way? (Then again, that would be too quick for them. [sco.com])
      • Uh...no...if it picked up any sizable amounts of a antimatter, it would've been vaporized before hand. Unless it has some high power electromagnetic shield to trap antimatter. Somehow, someway it does come across the path of any antimatter, then the exterior particles that comprise the probe will come in contact and go *poof* (in laymen's terms), but because antimatter isn't exactly found around here, I'd be surprised if even one antiparticle made it to the probe, at that amount, the integrity of the probe
  • The test monkey succumbing to the virus (or whatever it was) in about 20 seconds flat is one of the creepiest scenes in SF filmdom.
    • I've seen real films of lab animals exposed to nerve agents. It can kill them in less than a minute. A chemical can get in your body and screw up your nervous system very quickly. A biological agent takes more time. There were reported cases of the Spanish Flu that killed people within hours, although it's unknown how long the virus was present and multiplying before symptoms were noticed.

  • Utah? (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by Ranger ( 1783 )
    My God! It's full of Mormons!
  • ...ground control to Major Tom.

    Oh, not Ziggy Stardust? I guess my awesome rendition of China Girl is out.

  • Very Important For Our Future (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cyberjessy ( 444290 ) <jeswinpk@agilehead.com> on Friday December 23, 2005 @01:49AM (#14324937) Homepage
    Comets Crashing into our small planet is one of our biggest long term threats. The samples will go a long way in being able to identify their composition and look at means to destroy them in future.

    Although the likelyhood of asteroids hitting the earth are higher, comets are special in that they give very little warning before they hit. Maybe a few years, while asteroids can be predicted much earlier. A large comet hitting the earth, will likely be an ELE (Extinction Level Event), destroying most life and all humans.

    To me, this is something that we doing for sustaining human life. I don't care about the money spent, or the small chance of bringing in viruses, which they may have already considered.
    • Arn't deadly near miss asteroids sometimes spotted after the fact? or days before the near miss?
    • Composition of cometary objects isn't as important as their mass, in terms of protecting Earth from impacts.

      Really, the sheer kinetic energy inherent in hyperbolic objects is so large as to make the thought of deflecting them silly.

      For example, a cometary object 1km square would weigh a billion metric tons, and carry ~48 quadrillion Btus (or 1.41117626 * 10^13 kilowatt hours, a number so large it's silly), which would power the entire US for around six months if converted to electricity.

      Basically, all we ca
      • Addendum to that math: Not the entire US electricity budget, but the entire US energy budget, including direct usage like gasoline, natural gas, and heating oil.
      • For example, a cometary object 1km square would weigh a billion metric tons, and carry ~48 quadrillion Btus (or 1.41117626 * 10^13 kilowatt hours, a number so large it's silly), which would power the entire US for around six months if converted to electricity.

        Umm, the idea isn't to stop the comet; it's to nudge it off course by a few thousand miles. To do that, all you have to do is change it's velocity by say 1 m/s a few months before impact. That would only take 5e11 joules or 140,000 KWh for your come

        • The amount of energy it takes to get a gasoline tanker worth of energy to a comet a few months before impact is very, very large.

          Also, you're assuming that 140,000 KWh is translated into productive thrust, which again is not precisely accurate. In space you'd need the oxidizer, which for gasoline would mean approximately 8 tanker trucks of liquid O2 needed to oxidize.

          Even if you're using a higher Isp engine like an ion drive, you'd need to apply at least 140 kilowatts for a month.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
            Comment removed based on user account deletion
            • Remember the recent NASA probe that rammed a comet to see what is inside? The used a solid copper impactor, cause the kinetic energy was greater than the energy of that much explosive.

              Just send up a dozen or so ion engine powered impactors, and aim for the same side, with each impact a week apart.

              • Same problem with impactors as with explosive, really, although I suppose you can just sort of float them up there, since the relative velocity would be effective. You'd need ten metric tons of impediment (I'm assuming for practicality that it would be "at rest" relative to the comet's velocity)

                I see the problem as being not so much stopping the comet, as the fast reaction time needed to put the projectile up. It takes months and months to find a good launch window for geosynch sats, let alone things like t
                • I do not mean to use the ion engines to accelerate the projectiles - just to move them into the comet's path. The comet's speed is what we will use. I think this is what you meant then you said " I suppose you can just sort of float them up there, since the relative velocity would be effective."

                  To your other objection, well, it looks like we need to launch them into some parking orbit (likely well above geo-sync) long before we see the comet comming. (ie, let's get in gear and defend our planet already!)

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
                Comment removed based on user account deletion
                • "Carry up something big and heavy and cheap"

                  When it comes to launching things into space, these terms are mutually exclusive.

                • If a comet were to approach the planet when this current administration is in power, judging by their previous actions when the country is threatened, they'd send the space shuttle up with a dozen astronauts carrying brooms to attempt to swat the comet in a different direction while at the same time firing an arsenal of nuclear missles at the moon, destroying it completely, while citing its gravitational pull as evidence of complicity with the comet, then awarding an enormous no-bid contract to a defense co
          • The amount of energy it takes to get a gasoline tanker worth of energy to a comet a few months before impact is very, very large.

            So what? You originally claimed that it would take more energy than the USA uses in months to do the job, which makes it totally infeasible. I showed that the number is actually 8 orders of magnitude less.

            At any rate, you wouldn't even have to bring the energy in the form of chemical fuel. For example, the Soviets launched dozens of small nuclear reactors into space on satelli

    • Actually I think an even bigger threat (and maybe more likely, but I'm not actually sure) is if our volcanic activity ceases. This is more likely than you may think, and it is a situation worth preparing for. If the volcanoes go out, we lose all of our ocean currents, and therefore the weather will change DRASTICALLY.
    • Comets Crashing into our small planet is one of our biggest long term threats. The samples will go a long way in being able to identify their composition and look at means to destroy them in future.

      Yes, let us all start to prepare for The War on Comets, those Cosmic Weapons of Mass Destruction. Haliburton should be awarded a contract to develop a weapon against them. Everything is fear and destroy nowadays.

      Should a comet ever threaten this planet, it won't be its composition that prevents us from defl

    • Does a stirring orchestral soundtrack narrate your life as you go about your daily business?

      I mean goddamn. This is one of the most pretentious posts I've ever read on /. and that's saying something.

  • There's always room for Aerogello (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AndroidCat ( 229562 ) on Friday December 23, 2005 @01:57AM (#14324959) Homepage
    This probe used Aerogel [nasa.gov] for catching comet dust. It looks like bad-assed Blueberry Jello [nasa.gov] with a Cherenkov glow!

    I can't believe I didn't get on either of the name list microchips [nasa.gov] on this probe. Poot!

    • Here's the description of "aerogel" from NASA:

      Crayons on Aerogel over a flame Aerogel is not like conventional foams, but is a special porous material with extreme microporosity on a micron scale. It is composed of individual features only a few nanometers in size. These are linked in a highly porous dendritic-like structure. This exotic substance has many unusual properties, such as low thermal conductivity, refractive index and sound speed - in addition to its exceptional ability to capture fast mov

  • Except... (Score:2, Funny)

    by thesnarky1 ( 846799 )
    They forgot we use meters on Earth, and not Quantum Light Years... my guess? Big smash, nice crater, Nothing to see here folks, please move along.

  • stardust? (Score:3, Funny)

    by pintomp3 ( 882811 ) on Friday December 23, 2005 @02:43AM (#14325099)
    damn, i got all excited reading the headline. i thought my fav stripclub was going to reopen. oh well. btw, no need to mark your calender, you will be reminded here in a couple days.

  • Brownlee Rocks! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ChuckleBug ( 5201 ) * on Friday December 23, 2005 @03:25AM (#14325194) Journal
    I was student of Don Brownlee at the University of Washington, and I think he's about the most decent and caring professor I've ever had. Even when I was an undergrad, I could go to his office and he'd just talk about his work for what seemed like hours, even to a lowly undergrad. I'm not saying this to name-drop -- I want people to know what a cool person he is. If anyone deserves success, it's Dr. Brownlee. Truly one of the good guys in science. He's one of those rare professors who managed to make himself famous (the guy has an asteroid named after him) while remaining humble and committed to helping his students learn. We need more scientists like him.

  • Particle age (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Atario ( 673917 ) on Friday December 23, 2005 @08:05AM (#14325802) Homepage
    we believe some of the particles in the comet will, in fact, be older than the sun
    All particles are the same age -- about 13 billion years, when the universe cooled enough for them to form.

    Oh, you mean superatomic particles. Never mind.

  • Dubious Reentry (Score:3, Interesting)

    by applemasker ( 694059 ) on Friday December 23, 2005 @09:01AM (#14325914)
    As pointed out here [space.com] , Stardust uses the same re-entry method and was built by the same contractor (LockMart) as the Genesis probe which cratered into the Utah desert [planetary.org] in 2004 (Sarcastic photo caption: "Thud!"). An investigation revealed that the gravity switches (sensors which are to detect the probe's deceleration in the atmosphere and trigger parachute deployment) were the most likely installed in the "incorrect orientation," which sounds like bureacraticese for "backwards."
  • Anyone who has ever seen an episode in the Gundam series would be a little worried about "Operation Stardust"...
  • plowing into the ground and 14 times the speed of sound...

  • Reruns... (Score:2, Redundant)

    by ddmckay ( 56023 )
    Is it time to dust off the reruns of the "Andromeda Strain"? :-)

    (see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066769/ [imdb.com])
  • And here was me giving the article a quick glance and thinking this meant meant that Alvin Stardust was making a comback...

    Buggeration, I'd already got my elephant gun cleaned & oiled before I realised I'd misread it.

    Yo ho hum.
  • Instead of waiting to see if this probe will crash and burn into Earth like a previous one, couldn't we come up with another method of retrieving this thing? How about a rendezvous with a shuttle? IANARS but it seems like there will be little control over how this thing lands.
  • In case anybody is interested... Wild is pronounced "Vild" or "Vilt" after the Swiss astronomer who discovered it.

    Bill
  • sent to intercept Comet Wild 2 Hmm, I must have missed "Comets Gone Wild 1: Shake That Tail!"
  • They said it would be visible from Calif as a streak of fire but not where to look for it in the sky.

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close