NASA Stardust Returns to Earth 119
quadsoft writes "The Globe and Mail reports "Dugway Proving Ground, Utah -- A space capsule ferrying the first comet dust samples to Earth parachuted onto a remote stretch of desert before dawn Sunday, drawing cheers from elated scientists.
The touchdown capped a seven-year journey by NASA's Stardust spacecraft, which zipped past a comet in 2004 to capture minute dust particles and store them in the capsule.""
Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:1)
Re:Wow (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Wow (Score:2)
NASA 'trimming' of standards and budgets for lean cost savings doomed the launched in 2001 genesis mission and the older 1999 launched more expensive stardust succeeded.
Re:Wow (Score:2)
Re:..a truly impressive mission-but unnecessary (Score:2)
Re:..a truly impressive mission-but unnecessary (Score:2)
How can the results not matter? How can anyone not wish to find out their origins or their place in the universe?
When you have a kid with an earache and you can't get medical insurance because your job only pays $11 an hour and your local community health clinic shut down because the federal funds went to the trillion dollar
Re:..a truly impressive mission-but unnecessary (Score:1)
"The money spend on these things is nothing compared to the money spend on the Iraq war, or on defense in general"
According to NASA, the total cost of the original failed Genesis was $264 million. This one they claim was cheaper at $212 million. Even though it's only slightly less than $1.65 for every person in the US, it's still not an insignificant sum. The money would have been better spent on stem cell research. Oh wait we can't do that because the ignorant Religious Nazis think stem cell researc
Re:..a truly impressive mission-but unnecessary (Score:2)
I would have thought that that is very good definition of an insignificant sum, especially when compared to defense spending.
Re:..a truly impressive mission-but unnecessary (Score:2)
Re:..a truly impressive mission-but unnecessary (Score:2)
In unrelated news..., (Score:5, Funny)
Not opened yet... (Score:2)
Then again, they didn't open the capsule - and who knows what happens when they bring it to the doctor and he doesn't run a lunar lab...
(btw thanks for copying my comment [slashdot.org]
Re:Not opened yet... (Score:1)
Re:In unrelated news..., (Score:2)
Re:In unrelated news..., (Score:1)
Re:In unrelated news..., (Score:1)
Anyway, (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Anyway, (Score:3, Informative)
Stardust Mission May Continue (Score:5, Insightful)
So, even after this successful capsule recovery, this might not be the end.
Actually you can get some of it here (Score:2)
Typo, I hope (Score:5, Funny)
From the article:
Early Sunday, that capsule nose-dived through Earth's atmosphere at a record 29,000 mph, the fastest return for a man-man probe.
No comment required...
Man-Man (Score:3, Funny)
No comment required...
Not that there's anything wrong with that!
Re:Typo, I hope (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Typo, I hope (Score:1)
I guess someone noticed it & had someone fix it. I love the fact that you can fix a problem like this on the Internet while it is another story fixing an already printed story.
Stardust@home (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Stardust@home (Score:1)
Some things are best left undefined... (Score:3, Funny)
I am not sure I want to know what a man-man probe is...
d.
Re:Some things are best left undefined... (Score:3, Informative)
Yay for science! (Score:4, Insightful)
We did it this time. The previous mission [wikipedia.org] didn't work right, but this one nailed it. The political naysayers and critics who want to redefine science should pay attention.
We did it this time, but even with our previous failure, how could we attain such a level of precision with our measuring and then engineering of the laws of physics and chemistry to achieve such a specific goal, to send out a space probe that mindlessly orbits around the solar system for years and comes back to us like a cosmic boomerang, and yet be drastically and unanimously incorrect when it comes to measuring the rate of radioactive decay of various elements in the extensive global collection of terrestrial geological samples and also the synthetic elements we've created during the twentieth century atomic age?
Have all the scientists in all the nations of the world simply got it exactly, equally wrong?
The scientific framework of ideas is well-established and the theories are interdependent. This is why we can readily reject challenges like "Intelligent Design".
Because they just don't fit in.
Hey Smarty.... (Score:1)
Maybe they'll teach you what a "Run-On Sentence" is.
And why must every scientific acheivement be used against ID? (I'm not for it or against it by the way)
Can you imagine Wilbur Wright saying "Well Orville, now that we know how to fly, I guess we can tell everyone to stop going to church"
Re:Hey Smarty.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Take an English class yourself, and maybe they'll talk about poetry.
I like run-on sentences. I'm just trying to communicate. Don't like it? Bite me, foe
Re:Hey Smarty.... (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW, if you're not against ID, you ar
Re:Hey Smarty.... (Score:2)
Full disclosure: I am a Christian in the USA.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but just (re)iterating that there are those people out there that can reconcile science and religion. Religion and science (for me) are both ways to find out more of the world around me. Not all people that subscribe to a religion take Creationism as law; I would venture th
Re:Hey Smarty.... (Score:2)
I'm afraid only a very tiny minority of the religious folks out there share your views. As the matter of fact, you are the second person that I come to know to have this view and still call himself religious. The first person with that attitude that I have met is now my wife[1].
The great unwashed masses, including all official christian churches, would disagree with you vehemently.
[1]: no, NOT for that reason!
Re:Hey Smarty.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hey Smarty.... (Score:2)
Au Contraire!
Can you imagine the Church saying "The Bible doesn't say ANYTHING about the Orville's flying a plane. There is no prophecy for such an occurrence. Therefore, flying is just a theory, NOT a fact."
No, that would be pretty ridiculous, right? So, why, despite the fact that we live in an age of genetic engineering, continuously evolving diseases, libraries of
Re:Yay for science! (Score:1)
"Another" example? You've only counted one.
Re:Yay for science! (Score:2)
The Martha Stewart of scince fanboys (Score:2)
It is one thing to measure exactly how things behave now, to send a cosmic boomerang off and have it return with absolutle precision - that is our domain, our expertise if you will. It is in the now.
It is quite another to look back over millions of years and accurately say exactly how something came to be without the ability to be there and observe. Untiil a day comes that we can send an Hourglass mission winging back throu
Re:Yay for science! (Score:4, Insightful)
The scientific framework of ideas is well-established and the theories are interdependent. This is why we can readily reject challenges like "Intelligent Design".
I'm not a proponent of ID, but if you want to argue against something it's best to understand it--and your argument has nothing to do with ID. While ID my be embraced by some literalist creationists as a way to slip in the side door, ID itself has no contradiction with things like the fossil record or carbon-dating results. At the core, evolution says "we evolved over time, through a combination of pure random chance and natural selection", whereas ID says "maybe it wasn't all random chance".
The more crackpot end is where people try to prove ID, when it clearly isn't provable scientifically. But keep in mind that we also can't prove that what is attributable to random chance is truly random, and isn't actually at least sometimes influenced by some outside force with motivations that we don't understand.
In short, it's perfectly possible to believe in a higher power guiding the development of life at some level without the slightest contraction with accepted scientififc observations. Lots of religious people do; you just don't hear about them because they aren't raising a big stink or proposing crackpot 'science' to try to make others accept that view.
Re:Yay for science! (Score:1)
Essentially ID is pure superstition, and has no scientific validity!
Re:Yay for science! (Score:2)
> The most crucial flaw in the notion of Intelligent Design (ID) - is that the justification "life is so complicated and perfect that it must be designed" is that it raises the question "who designed this designer!".
Your understanding of Theism seems to have halted somewhere around Sunday School level. Try reading Bertrand Russell on the subject: either God OR the Universe must be eternal and uncreated. Those are the options. He thought it was the universe ("Since at least I know the universe exists"
Re:Yay for science! (Score:1)
We can't prove it because it's not a testable hypothesis, which as you pointed out is the reason for the whole argument over ID. It's just not science!
Re:Yay for science! (Score:1)
Re:Yay for science! (Score:2)
We are talking about possible changes in C over 10 billion years ago. This would have an insignificant impact on radioactive dating.
You just can't stop science! (Score:2)
Re:Yay for science! (Score:2)
Obligatory historical reference (Score:1)
--
"Hoagy Carmichael (November 22, 1899 - December 27, 1981)
He is best known for writing "Stardust" (1927), which has
been called the most-recorded American song ever written"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stardust_(song) [wikipedia.org]
Went better than the last one, it seems. (Score:2, Insightful)
Seems NASA actually did something RIGHT for once. Three cheers for NASA!
Re:Went better than the last one, it seems. (Score:2, Informative)
Stardust@Home (Score:4, Informative)
-
Re:Stardust@Home (Score:2, Funny)
Get us to hunt for collection panel dust particles? The ultimate laziness scam.
I am gonna start WriteMyCode@Home and get people to program for me for free. After that would come TrollSlashdot@Home, ScratchMyItchyBalls@Home, ModMeUp@Home, and ModMeOutOfNegativeOne@Home. (Let's hope this message will not require the last one.)
Wow. (Score:1)
I guess the accelerometers weren't installed uposide dowm.
The chips are down! (Score:2, Funny)
re: http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/overview/microchip/f
Re:The chips are down! (Score:1)
Sorry, but your name was on this one [www.nos.nl].
Obligatory Simpsons reference... (Score:1)
Some serious rocket science (Score:5, Interesting)
From NASA press release [nasa.gov]:
"I have been waiting for this day since the early 1980s when Deputy Principal Investigator Dr. Peter Tsou of JPL and I designed a mission to collect comet dust," said Dr. Don Brownlee, Stardust principal investigator from the University of Washington, Seattle. "To see the capsule safely back on its home planet is a thrilling accomplishment."
NASA has posted a few pictures and press releases. [nasa.gov]
Congratulations to all involved.
Re:Some serious rocket science (Score:1)
There is no other thing that is taking money away from worthy projects, science is the waste. Science is pointless. I guess it's a good thing that money isn't being wasted elsewhere, to the tune of 8 million a day or anything... I can't imagine where else money is being tossed down the drain.
Finally someone has the guts to point out what a waste science is. Who needs it?
Ass.
Re:Some serious rocket science (Score:1)
Show some respect, AC Troll. Space exploration or not, disease, war, poverty, and economic forces will always exist.
Most people understand that research for the sake of increasing knowledge will inadvertently lead to the researcher learning something that he "didn't know he didn't know." This results in new approaches to problem solving, new ways to cure disease, new reasons to have wars, etc. Cruise this site [nasa.gov] to see some of the items that resulted from NASA research. You might l
Re:Some serious rocket science (Score:2)
Have you any idea how little this costs compared to defense expenditure? If you want to attack spending, attack that.
Welcome back, Ziggy! (Score:1)
Gotta love the press (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Gotta love the press (Score:1)
Re:Gotta love the press (Score:2)
How many years before results are out? (Score:2, Funny)
And now the dead walk! (Score:1)
Too nice Again! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Too nice Again! (Score:2)
I'm not sure what you're smoking, but I think it's forbidden by the majority of the human population too.
Any zombies yet ? (Score:1)
Mission not necessarily over (Score:1)
Re:Mission not necessarily over (Score:1)
Re:Mission not necessarily over (Score:1)
I suspect that the probe is not really designed to operate long close to the sun, and it's camera resolution is not that great such that it would not contribute a whole lot. An asteroid or comet would be a better choice IMO.
Re:Mission not necessarily over (Score:2)
Of course! That's no moon, it's a space station. [nasa.gov] Its defenses are designed around a direct large-scale assault. A small unmanned probe should be able to penetrate the outer defense.
The view in Calif* (Score:3, Interesting)
Reporter Falls Ill (Score:1)
During the NASA briefing revealing the first samples from the Stardust mission, Clark Kent, Science Reporter for "The Daily Planet" fell violently ill.
To the reporters further emabarrasment, the Fire Department EMT's reported that "..he's wearly these funky red tights under this suit.." Mr. Kent recoverd quickly and refused treatment at nearby Columbia Medical Center.
During all the confusion, there were initial reports that one of the green samples were stolen. A NASA spokesman, Lex Luthor labled
NASA's stunning performance (Score:1)
Re:At last! (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:At last! (Score:1, Funny)
pardon my spelling and lack of knowledge you geeks
Re:At last! (Score:2)
Make that early Michael Crichton fan. Crichton has in recent years become something of a joke with his views on a "widespread scientific conspiracy" that's foisting the "myth" of Global Warming upon an unsuspecting public. Crichton even went so far as to testify in the United States Congress as a so-called authority on the subject. Hello, ladies and gentleman: Crichton is a writer of fiction, not a climatologist.
But I digress, so I'll
Re:At last! (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it would be the alien organism in peril not us...
Earth organisms have had billions of years to evolve with billions of other organisms competing against them... Lining up an organism that has been floating round space with one from earth is most likely going to be like putting a featherweight up against a super heavy weight.
The story of a killer organism from outer space is only slightly less ridiculous than the story of superman.
Re:Crap Missions (Score:1)
Lets hope they don't bring back space dust that will melt our eyeballs from their sockets. Because no one can afford health insurance!
Who gives a shit where the dust came from? Who gives a shit if water existed on Mars?
I know *I* don't. But someone more important then me does! The project got financed.
"Do you really believe that America landed on the moon"
Well,..It looked fake to me! Especially
Dumb joke? Yes. Offtopic? Not... really.... (Score:2)