So, instead of metaphorically cupping our ears, we ought to metaphorically squint our eyes?

Why not do both?

-the other Doug

Well, hmm... depending on the age of the planetary system, any such moon of a Neptune-mass planet within the habitable belt of a star would have to share certain properties with Earth (enough mass to hold on to an atmosphere, liquid water on the surface, a magnetic field to protect the planet from both the solar wind and the primary's radiation belts, etc.) such that life could develop.

As long as all of those conditions exist, I don't see why life couldn't develop on such moons.

Of course, the star-wiggle technique will likely never be able to identify Earth-sized moons of hot Jupiters or hot Neptunes (or even temperate versions of similarly-massed planets). So we'll need SIM and TPF to get even the first clue as to how many of those there might be out there.

-the other Doug

Bob, I am simply ashamed of myself that I didn't think of bringing in "It's turtles all the way down" before you did. I must be getting senile...

-the other Doug

Yeah -- if Scott had slowly let Falcon down from probe contact to the surface and not shut the engine off until after footpad touchdown, the DPS could possibly have exploded. The engine bell was damaged because the LM landed with its rear and left (as you stand inside the cockpit) footpads down inside a smallish (3-meter) crater, and the engine bell itself straddled the crater rim.

Since Scott hit the engine cutoff switch the moment the contract probes touched, Falcon (the heaviest LM to that point, by a significant amount) fell from about two meters. At engine cutoff, the vehicle was descending at about 30 centimeters per second. They picked up enough speed in their fall that they impacted the surface at about two meters per second.

The real question is whether or not the engine bell would have been significantly obstructed had that final two-meter fall been slower. The front and right footpads hit first, and the whole vehicle rocked back and to the left as the other two footpads fell into the crater. With less momentum, the engine bell might not have been "walked" into the crater rim as it was, and might not have endured as much side-stress.

But yes, it is certain that the outer expansion nozzle of the engine bell was crinkled, with a noticeable crack running parallel to the end of the bell about a third of the way up from the end. Had that happened while the engine was running, even at the 15% to 30% thrust used during final descent, you could have seen an explosion serious enough to disable the LM and possibly kill the crew.

As it was, Scott had to report the occurrence, quite embarassed, to Jim McDivitt (via CapCom). As I recall, he said. "Tell the Program Manager I got his engine bell" as soon as he got outside and took a look. This was after McDivitt, at that point the Apollo Program Manager, had *strongly* emphasized to Scott that he needed to cut off the engine as soon as he got contact, because the increased weight of the LM made the potential for a bell-surface contact more likely (due to a greater chance of stroking the struts).

-the other Doug

I just have this awful, gnawing feeling that, as we approach, the Beacon is going to resolve out to this:



-the other Doug

Gee -- I remember when Apollo planners were *so* concerned about a LM landing with one or two footpads in a crater... and on 15, we found out what happens. You land with your paw in a crater, you sit at an angle for your lunar stay. No sweat.

-the other Doug

The President proposed the VSE and then made it clear he had no intention of funding it to the levels required to maintain his own stated schedule. I don't see any change in Bush's attitude here, at all. He never was willing to fund it properly. Congress either needs to stand up and face the funding issues (since the White House can't or won't), or yes -- we WILL see Griffin go crazy trying to get $25 billion worth of 'action' a year out of NASA on a $7 billion budget. The results of which will NOT be good for space science, or for ANY NASA program.

I disagree with you that NASA has been getting itself into this position for 30 years -- they've been planning (and funding) Shuttle follow-up vehicles for 20 of those 30 years. Talk about money that's gone down the drain! VentureStar (the most costly dead-end program), the CRV and the OSP -- all had money spent on them to one degree or another. (A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking real money...)

CEV/CLV are only the latest stab NASA has taken at coming up with a Shuttle replacement. So VSE isn't driving NASA's identified need for a Shuttle replacement -- that's been going on for nearly 20 years. VSE may have helped define an *approach* to their latest stab at a Shuttle follow-on, but CEV/CLV is simply the latest in a string of heretofore-failed projects designed to allow us to retire the Shuttle system when the time comes.

But don't lay the blame for needing to get the CEV/CLV up and running on VSE. That blame lies on those who have tried, and failed (spending several billion dollars along the way) to create a Shuttle follow-on for the past 20 years.

-the other Doug

Yes, that could have been a poor example. Actually, I was moved to post this train of thought when I read a post on how some people are planning on trying to chart Pluto's winds based on a momentary "flash" during the midst of a stellar occultation. It seemed to me that we're trying to pull WAY too much information out of such a transient phenomenon. That led me to other examples.

And, hey, just because something passes peer review doesn't mean the detectors themselves aren't designed to show what the PI wants to see... especially if the peers reviewing the work also want to see the same kind of result.

-the other Doug

Mr. Rutan is twenty *or more* years away from fielding an orbital vehicle -- if ever. I don't see that approach providing orbital services anytime soon.

-the other Doug

One concern I've been worrying, like a bone, over the last several years, is the very tiny bits of data, barely above the noise level, upon which so many new "discoveries" seem to be based.

We're characterizing planetary systems based on the wiggles of stars -- when in some cases those wiggles are so far down near the level of chaotic noise vs. solid, unambiguous data that there could be other reasons (including sensor-induced noise) to account for them.

And as we build fairy castles out of data gleaned just barely above the noise level, we base further conclusions upon "understandings" that themselves are based on far too many single-point data points pulled from nearly-unreadable noise.

I'm not arguing that all of these discoveries are bogus. I'm just wondering how far we ought to go in trying to pull information out of noise. And I'm wondering just how much some of these detectors are designed to display what the PI wants to see -- not what's really out there.

-the other Doug

Gee -- from a certified arachnophobe, I really have to thank y'all for plastering a HUGE picture of a spider into my favorite diversion...

Actually, one of the things that has always attracted me to the concept of living in space has been the idea of a place to live that is guaranteed free of spiders, mosquitoes, bees, hornets and wasps. Much less ants and fruit flies.

-the other Doug

One more time....

The issue is *not* whether to proceed with VSE or not. The issue is whether to allow the U.S. to withdraw entirely from manned spaceflight. The Shuttle cannot keep flying after about 2010. If we do not develop at *least* the CEV and the CLV, the U.S. cedes the entire realm of manned spaceflight to Russia and China.

Now, if money were being diverted from UMSF because of CaLV and LSAM development, I could agree with you, aPhil. But it's not. No significant money is being spent on either yet. Until and unless money starts flowing into CaLV and LSAM development, what Griffin is doing has nothing to do with funding VSE. It has to do with trying to ensure that, come early next decade, the U.S. has a manned spaceflight capability. Period.

-the other Doug

I think the hummocky terrain on the right side of the now-emerging "Victoria Complex" is a near-rim feature. In specific, I think it is the planview of one of the lobe-shaped overhang features we see in the orbital, overhead views of Victoria. It appears that some of these lobe-shaped features have topography of their own, and are not simply mass-wastage forms resulting from rim collapse and expansion. (That makes them a lot more interesting, in my book...)

As for the beacon, I must rely upon the analysis presented heretofore in this thread. It would seem that the beacon is a near-rim feature. But we're far too far away to have any other information about it.

Since we're able to pinpoint it as a near-rim feature from parallax information, can we use that information to at least constrain its location on the near rim? I have seen a few speculations here, but we're not even presenting images of Victoria in a standardized way -- some use the north-is-up convention, others try to place Oppy's current drive direction as the 'up' vector... I can't get a good handle on where on the near rim the beacon might be located.

-the other Doug

And while it doesn't fall into the category of "firsts," there was always the Florida mosquito that hitched a ride on the Apollo portion of ASTP...

-the other Doug

Still, this all brings up some intersting attitudes. For example, what's wrong with using *Christian* deities and icons for naming spacecraft? Why not name Mars Sample Return 'Lazarus,' for example -- trying to bring something back from the dead? Or why not name probes after the disciples? Or even Jesus himself?

Because a lot of Christians without senses of humor would get upset, that's why... and because some non-Christians would get upset that NASA was (in thier eyes) lining up behind one and only one religion.

Just for example, on Apollo 15, there was a string of four craters that served as an "arrow" to point Dave Scott to his landing point. He originally named these craters Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Under some pressure from NASA HQ, he re-named the final crater Index, just so the religious reference would be diluted and no one could complain.

I wouldn't bet that one of the Asian countries might not use the Christian pantheon for spacecraft names at some point, though. I had a friend who visited Japan several years ago, and aboard one of their commuter trains was a picture of Jesus Christ, holding an umbrella. My friend's guide told him the writing under the image said "The honorable Jesus Christ asks you all to take your umbrellas with you as you leave the train," to which another friend assigned a more colloquial translation -- "Jesus Christ, fellas, don't forget your umbrellas!" If the Tokyo city managers think that Jesus is a good symbol to use for reminding people about their umbrellas, it's not out of the question that the Japanese might, in the future, name a space probe Jesus... and can you imagine how bent out of shape some of the American fundamentalist Christians could get about *that*?

-the other Doug

So do I... we *are* talking about just sending them to Venus, right? Not worrying a wit about even *trying* to bring them back, right?



-the other Doug


Grrrooaannn...



-the other Doug

Is it just me, or are there a lot of small-scale circular features hinted at in both of these recent RADAR releases? Especially of Xanadu.

In fact, the more rugged brighter surface in Xanadu really looks (to me) like a heavily cratered terrain that has been smoothed over eons.

-the other Doug

OK -- just for the sake of completeness, the exchange began at four days, six hours, seven minutes and fifty-one seconds into the mission -- mid-day on Christmas Day, 1968. It went like this:

CapCom (Collins): Is this Bill (Anders)?

LMP (Anders): None other.

CapCom (Collins): I got a message for you while you were asleep. Valerie (Anders) said to tell you that she and the kids are leaving for church about 11:30 and eagerly awaiting your return. She said presents are magically starting to appear under the Christmas tree again so it looks like a double barrel Christmas. Over.

LMP (Anders): You can't beat a deal like that. How was Christmas at your house today?

CapCom (Collins): Early and busy as usual. I told Michael (Collins' young son) you guys are up there, and he said who's driving?

CMP (Lovell): (Laughing) That's a good question. I think Isaac Newton is doing most of the driving right now.

CapCom (Collins): Say again.

CMP (Lovell): I think Isaac Newton is doing most of the driving right now.

CapCom (Collins): Roger. We copy.

In my original post, the addition of the line "Was it his friend, Mr. Borman?" comes from Collins' account of the episode in his book, Carrying the Fire. My guess is that Collins' son included that in his original query, but that Collins didn't pass on that portion of the question to the crew, as evidenced by the mission transcript.

-the other Doug

The exchange in question happened during Apollo 8. Mike Collins was at the CapCom console, and called up to the vehicle with a question that had been put to him by his young son: Who was driving the spacecraft? Was it his friend, Mr. Borman? Lovell shot back, with a laugh, that no, he thought Isaac Newton was doing the driving right about then.

The exchange happened, as I recall, during trans-Earth coast, on the way home.

-the other Doug

Yes, as I understand it, the Luna sample return landers had to land in places where the ascent stage could simply thrust directly to zenith for a given amount of time, and it would not only return safely to Earth, it would land within the Soviet Union.

Obviously, this was done for a number of reasons, including maximizing the chances of a successful return and reducing the weight of the Earth return vehicle. But with a steerable vehicle, you expand your landing site selections enormously -- and many of the sites in the expanded area require little more total energy to return to Earth. They just require inertial guidance, three-axis stabilization and an ability to steer a rocket burn.

I guess it all comes down to your mass budget -- how much you can land on the lunar surface in the first place, and how much you can blast back towards the Earth. If you can afford the mass, you increase your exploration options *enormously* if you can fly a steered ascent.

-the other Doug

Well... not all countries *have* a Minister of Science. In the U.S., two ex-astronauts became Senators, and one became the NASA Administrator (though that was considered by most to have been a "failed" NASA administration).

-the other Doug

If it weren't for the fact that the namesakes are still alive, I would have considered "Neil" and "Buzz" for the MERs.

-the other Doug

Ah, but Bob -- suppose you had *two* cats? You gonna call them Cat 1 and Cat 2?

At least when JPL was flying Lunar Orbiters, they only had one in space at a time... and in fact, they *would* have had a hard time with more than one going at once, since they all used the same radio frequencies and command sets. Speaking to LO2 would cause a problem if LO1 was still intact, "awake" and listening. Both would have responded to the same commands.

They had the same problems with the Surveyors, and as I recall, they were actually considering postponing some Surveyor flights, waiting for one of the predecessors already on the Moon to finally die.

Also, I think that the first series of craft to do something can easily be named after the function it's supposed to perform -- like Lunar Orbiter. Try naming a spacecraft series Lunar Orbiter today, and there would be a flurry of issues. Or, try naming each of the craft orbiting Mars now "Mars Orbiter" -- it would get awfully confusing, awfully quickly...

-the other Doug

Not... as such, sir, no.

-the other Doug

Wow -- I sure can't top that in terms of origins of names, Emily! However, in my own small way...

My last name (the patronymic) is Van Dorn. My mother's maiden name was Vangundy. Two more Dutch names you couldn't find... and yet, I'm only a quarter dutch. My mother is half-English (mother's maiden name was Liming) and half Dutch. My father is one-quarter Dutch and three-quarters German -- his father was half-Dutch and half German, and his mother was completely German (she didn't even speak English until she was about 12 years old, even though she was born in Illinois).

In terms of surnames, at my grandparents' level, we have Van Dorn, Dues (there should be an umlaut over the 'e', it's pronounced DOO-ess), Vangundy and Liming.

Put that all together, and I figure I'm about half German, a quarter Dutch, and a quarter English. And yet, the Dutch nomenclature prevails. When I was young, I always thought I looked rather English, but as I get older, I think the Dutch genome is more prominent... so all that German blood seems to have little actual impact on my genome.

-the other Doug