Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
NASA Space Sun Microsystems Science

NASA Successfully Launches Parker Solar Probe (engadget.com) 63

Posted by BeauHD from the smooth-sailing dept.
NASA's Sun-chasing Parker Solar Probe successfully launched this morning at 3:31AM. A couple hours later, NASA confirmed that the vessel was healthy.

The probe still has a ways to go before it's conducting scientific studies. "It'll spend its first week in space deploying its high-gain antenna, the first part of its electric field antennas and its magnetometer," reports Engadget. "In early September, the probe will start a roughly four-week instrument shakedown to be sure it's ready for science gathering." From the report: The trip to the Sun will take a while. NASA's probe will pass by Venus a total of seven times (starting in early October) as it uses the planet's gravity to whip itself ever closer to the star. The spacecraft will make its first close approach in early November, when it will travel 15 million miles from the Sun -- inside the Sun's corona (aka the solar atmosphere). Its closest approach will put it at just 3.8 million miles from the Sun, at which point it should be the fastest-ever human-made object with a speed of 430,000MPH. The first science data should return sometime in December. The New York Times has a neat video explaining how the Parker Solar Probe will touch the Sun. Meanwhile, Fox News has a dialogue-free clip of the actual launch.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA Successfully Launches Parker Solar Probe More

NASA Successfully Launches Parker Solar Probe

Comments Filter:

  • Bias? (Score:3)

    by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Sunday August 12, 2018 @03:35PM (#57112912)

    If this had been a SpaceX launch, that fact would likely be front-and-center to this submission - NASA would probably be a footnote at best. Shouldn’t we give the same love to ULA?

    • Re:Bias? usual military-industrial complex ! (Score:5, Informative)

      by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Sunday August 12, 2018 @03:49PM (#57112978)

      ULA is a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Boeing, the usual normal "defense" contractors. Before ULA took over the Delta IV Heavy was developed by McDonald Douglas...

      If we have World War III that ends civilization, it'll be first and foremost their products, the missiles, dishing out the nuclear hell.

      so hardly comparable to SpaceX.

      • "it'll be first and foremost their products, the missiles, dishing out the nuclear hell."
         
        As if SpaceX wouldn't take a bite if the government offered them a bit of the ballistic missile pie.

        • Re:Bias? usual military-industrial complex ! (Score:5, Funny)

          by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Sunday August 12, 2018 @04:10PM (#57113054)

          As if SpaceX wouldn't take a bite if the government offered them a bit of the ballistic missile pie.

          I heard that the government is looking into this.

          After internal reviews, they've realized that it's wasteful to deploy hundreds of disposable ICBMs, when they could instead do the job with just a handful of missiles that can be reloaded time and again.

        • As if SpaceX wouldn't take a bite if the government offered them a bit of the ballistic missile pie.

          They wouldn't because they're not interested in solid rockets.

      • ummm so it's safe to say you would rather be run over by a Tesla than a Humvee? Or did I miss the point of your statement?

        • it's not as impressive when a company that has beem building rockets for decades builds yet another rocket.

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by Brett Buck ( 811747 )

        That would be the military-industrial complex that *has kept you and your parents alive, despite unprecedented threats, for the last 70 years or so", to you, son.

           

        • oh, I thought we spent the last 70 years attacking people that didn't attack us. in other words, warmongering.

      • Re:Bias? usual military-industrial complex ! (Score:4, Interesting)

        by TigerPlish ( 174064 ) on Sunday August 12, 2018 @04:21PM (#57113098)

        If we have World War III that ends civilization, it'll be first and foremost their products, the missiles, dishing out the nuclear hell.

        Cuts both ways, that old saw of yours. Those Boeings that take vacationers, businesspeople and haul all that freight were born out of jets of war. The B-47 and 52 gave them the experience to make the 707 and its military cousin the KC-135.

        Besides.. so what? I fail to see the point of your point. That missile and aircraft makers also make tools of war besides tools of exploration and commerce? The line between the two is so wispy it may not even be there at all.

        • they've been making rockets for decades, not as impressive, that's the point.

          • they've been making rockets for decades, not as impressive, that's the point.

            Then why didn't you say it, instead of going off on that nuclear hell tangent?

            As for not impressive, I beg to differ. The "legacy" rocket guys got us the Saturn V.

            Call me when Space X does that. And... keep in mind Saturn and its engines were pretty-much hand-crafted, hand-fitted, designed with slipsticks and paper and pencil. Now, which one seems more impressive?

            • As for not impressive, I beg to differ. The "legacy" rocket guys got us the Saturn V.

              Not to diminish the Saturn V as a technical accomplishment but you are comparing apples to oranges. The Saturn V was a one-time only crash program with an effectively unlimited budget (by comparison) to make a handful of rockets that would never be (and should never be) repeated. From an economic standpoint the Saturn V was hugely wasteful, unrepeatable, and we don't use it or any direct successor in any rocket today for that fact alone. We learned a lot from the Saturn V but let's not pretend that compa

            • Your mind is the thing that went off on the tangent.

              Yes yes, two those companies along with NAA got us the Saturn V.

              But that's just one more thing on the list that makes the Delta IV not impressive, since they already did bigger rockets decades before. That's my point, it's not as impressive when those old war er defense contractors do something.

              SpaceX is different

      • If WW3 breaks out, Elon will figure out a way to turn a Falcon 9 into an ICBM faster than you can say 'fanboys tend to ignore facts'.

    • Exactly. Rei would have given you a rundown of the mix of propellants used down to their cost per ingredient. Then he would have explained why launching satellites in LEO is the greatest accomplishment of this century. We all know that SpaceX is on the cutting edge.

    • Shouldn’t we give the same love to ULA?

      They already get plenty of love from the tax payers, in the form of countless millions of dollars premium per launch over the competition.

    • Re:Bias? (Score:5, Informative)

      by SpaceDave ( 4139061 ) on Sunday August 12, 2018 @04:22PM (#57113102)

      To be newsworthy it has to have some novelty factor. In the early days of SpaceX, any of their launches were novel. Likewise, early ULA launches were novel and deserved coverage.

      Falcon 9 launches are no longer novel so they don't get as much coverage. The next half dozen Falcon Heavy launches will have novelty so they'll probably get a lot of coverage but eventually they'll be like the Falcon 9 and ULA's Delta IV Heavy. The reason the Delta IV isn't "font-and-center" is that it's an established launch vehicle with a pretty solid record, it's expected to succeed and, frankly, it's not particularly newsworthy.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by guygo ( 894298 )
        There is some aspects of this mission that are extremely unique, the main one being that it is all down, all in retro. It just falls in to the gravity well of the Sun, using the well of Venus to slow it down a few times (as opposed to slingshotting off out of the Solar System). All down, all down. Very unique mission.

        • Re:Bias? (Score:4, Informative)

          by Memnos ( 937795 ) on Sunday August 12, 2018 @05:54PM (#57113386) Journal

          It just falls in to the gravity well of the Sun.

          I agree that it a very unique mission. But as for "just fall[ing] into the gravity well of the Sun", it requires many times more energy to accomplish that "fall" than it takes to put a similar mass in orbit around Mars. In terms of delta-V, it's a launch from Earth followed by a very costly, highly gravity-assisted, highly choreographed, de-orbit burn.

        • I was addressing the question of the launch, not the mission. I don't know who designed the probe's trajectory but it seems likely that it was the probe's engineering team rather than ULA. Perhaps someone can clarify but my understanding is that the probe simply needed a high-energy launch (nothing unique about that) and then the probe itself, with various gravity assists, will determine its final flight path.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Memnos ( 937795 )

            From what I've read it seems that the launch was pretty much as you described, not exactly novel, but requiring a lot of energy to achieve the required trajectory. (The Falcon Heavy actually produces about twice as much oomph, in the sense that it can lift about twice as much payload to geostationary orbit, were that the objective. But the Delta IV Heavy obviously can do the job required though, and it's currently far more proven.)

            I'm guessing that folks from NASA, Johns Hopkins APL, and pretty much everyon

            • ...But the Delta IV Heavy obviously can do the job required though, and it's currently far more proven.)

              Plus, Falcon Heavy plan was only unveiled in 2011 (although the concept was mooted several years earlier), two years after the PSP project was announced. The biggest advantage of using Falcon Heavy (had it been around, and mature enough) would probably have been the ability to add more fuel to increase the longevity and breadth of the mission, and add a few sensors.

        • actually the other replier didn't even get scale of energy right, it takes more energy to get near the Sun from earth than it does to leave the solar system. That energy is being taken from Venus's motion.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )

      If this had been a SpaceX launch, that fact would likely be front-and-center to this submission - NASA would probably be a footnote at best. Shouldn't we give the same love to ULA?

      Well this is one of few satellite launches with a significant scientific payload. These are the SpaceX launches in 2018:

      Zuma - classified
      GovSat-1 / SES-16 - telecom
      Musk's Tesla - showoff
      Paz - spy satellite
      Hispasat 30W-6 - telecom
      Iridium NEXT-5 - telecom
      CRS-14 - ISS resupply
      Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite - science
      Bangabandhu-1 - telecom
      Iridium NEXT-6 - telecom
      SES-12 - telecom
      CRS-15 - ISS resupply
      Telstar 19V - telecom
      Iridium NEXT-7 - telecom
      Merah Putih - telecom

      What was the /. headline for TESS?
      NASA P [slashdot.org]

    • IShouldn’t we give the same love to ULA?

      SpaceX the launch cost would be $90 million. A ULA Delta IV launch is $400 million. Both get the payload where it's going.

      So, no, we don't owe ULA the same love.

  • Are more clearly explained here [wikipedia.org]

    The five main goals are listed with acronyms one of which is rather comical in as much that it is headed and labeled as ISIS.

    Integrated Science Investigation of the Sun (ISIS)— This investigation will measure energetic electrons, protons and heavy ions. The instrument suite is composed of two independent instruments, EPI-Hi and EPI-Lo. The Principal investigator is David McComas, at the Princeton University.

    Rather ironic because Isis was the bringer of the the god Osiris and today has been twisted into other much more sinister context. Must give some of the religious right in Washington the willies looking at what Nasa is doing with this probe. Lets just hope that the probe doesn't pull a budgetary Icarus on Nasa before all the really important data is in

  • How will the people of 1986 comprehend why a strange probe of unknown origin crashes into the San Francisco bay?

  • They launched it at night. Cue Polish/Italian/$downtrodden joke here.

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close