Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Spacecraft Buzzes By Mercury

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the it's-time-to-buzz-the-planet dept.

Space 62

Riding with Robots writes "The robotic spacecraft MESSENGER is making its second fly-by of the first planet today, skimming just 200 kilometers above the surface. The fly-by will reveal portions of the planet that have never been seen before, but the main purpose of the maneuver is to prepare for an orbital insertion in 2011. The mission site offers extensive information, along with the first pictures that are already arriving on Earth, with many more expected in the coming hours and days."

cancel ×

62 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Buzzed by my anus (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25272025)

oooooooo, raw!

Re:Buzzed by my anus (4, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#25272099)

Are you prepared for insertion?

Re:Buzzed by my anus (5, Funny)

RemoWilliams84 (1348761) | more than 5 years ago | (#25272163)

Typical slashdotters long dream of insertion, but are never actually ready.

Re:Buzzed by my anus (1)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 5 years ago | (#25272541)

Well at least we finally got to insert it before the world ends...

Re:Buzzed by my anus (2, Funny)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 5 years ago | (#25272689)

I thought Virgin Galactic said "No" to space porn.

Re:Buzzed by my anus (4, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#25272925)

That's because they didn't want to have to rename the company to "Whores Galactic".

Re:Buzzed by my anus (1)

ITJC68 (1370229) | more than 5 years ago | (#25276553)

Better would be nonvirgin galactic. Or change the V meaning to special place on a woman. :)

Re:Buzzed by my anus (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277015)

How about Mirgin Galactic, if you use a font where the M looks like the special place on a woman + her legs? :)

Re:Buzzed by my anus (1)

glittalogik (837604) | more than 5 years ago | (#25279139)

No, that's because no one deserves to be a Zero-G Jizz-Mopper.

The coldest place (5, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 5 years ago | (#25272043)

Larry Niven's first published short story was titled "The Coldest Place" (collected in 3 Books of Known Space [amazon.com] ), based on the idea that the regions of Mercury not hit by the sun would be the coldest place in the solar system. The story was infamous out of date by the time it hit print, as some studies of Mercury had shown that it never got that cold. Nonetheless, reading the story as a child awoke a certain interest of that planet which never gets as much attention as the sexier Mars or Venus or the gas giants. I look forward to following this mission.

Re:The coldest place (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25272237)

Some areas in the polar regions of Mercury (deep crater floors) may be permanently shadowed and hence very cold. Similarly to some areas on the Moon poles. This is due to the very low obliquity of the planet. This was discovered by radar studies done from Arecibo, which had anomalously high signal return in some restricted polar regions. This will answered most definitely by MESSENGER itself when it gets into orbit in a few years.

Re:The coldest place (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25272609)

So... this place makes a perfect location for my new video card? Passive mercury cooling sounds kinda cool.

Re:The coldest place (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#25273297)

Some areas in the polar regions of Mercury (deep crater floors) may be permanently shadowed and hence very cold.

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Okay, the not being in the sunlight hence cold makes sense, but wouldn't heat be conducted through the planet? That would make it warmer than just being out of the sun, say at Mercury's L2 (assuming that that's in the umbra).

Re:The coldest place (2, Insightful)

CheshireCatCO (185193) | more than 5 years ago | (#25273915)

Sure there will be some conduction, but rock doesn't conduct heat terribly well. So while I'd expect Mercury's polar craters to be warmer than the Moon's polar craters, I would expect them to still be really cold. (Not necessarily the coldest place in the solar system, though. In fact, you can guess that it may be a polar region of a Jovian moon since Jupiter's obliquity is only 3 degrees. Or a Neptunian moon; tilt is a lot higher, but 1/r^2 comes in big time there as does the high albedo of the bodies.)

L2 wouldn't necessarily be that cold for Mercury, by the way. The planet is still a warm surface radiating toward L2.

Re:The coldest place (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274201)

L2 wouldn't necessarily be that cold for Mercury, by the way. The planet is still a warm surface radiating toward L2.

Good point. I hadn't considered that. The same would probably hold true for the gas giants. Although for Coldest-Place-In-The-Solar-System(tm), I'd still be looking more toward Pluto and Sedna, than anywhere inward of the asteroid belt.

Re:The coldest place (1)

CheshireCatCO (185193) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274357)

Actually, Pluto (at least on the average) is warmer than Triton. Albedo wins in that case. For actual coldest place, the rapidly expanding frontier is making that a moving target, I'm sure.

Re:The coldest place (1)

dougmc (70836) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274207)

Rock does conduct heat very well. Well, some do. Others not so well, but none of them are what we would call good insulators.

But hundreds or thousands of miles of *anything* will make a very effective insulator. :)

Re:The coldest place (1)

CheshireCatCO (185193) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274403)

It's not a good conductor compared to, say, metals, which is my point. Coupled with the point I didn't make explicit, but you did (thanks!), that LOTS of rock is just not a good conductor.

Re:The coldest place (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274663)

"ERROR 589: Your argument is out of relation."

A huge sun right in front of you for billions of years makes a *very* effective heating device too. :)

Re:The coldest place (1)

dougmc (70836) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274951)

Well, which is going to win? Billions of years of sun, or hundreds or thousands of miles of rock?

I suspect the sun will. The core of the Earth is hot too, but the surface isn't. But if you go down just a few miles, the temperature increases so much that humans can't survive without special cooling. The Earth has had a few billion years to find an equilibrium too.

In any event, my only point was that rock isn't a particularly good insulator, that it only seems that way because there's so much of it.

Re:The coldest place (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25278081)

Billions of years? Dont you mean 6000?

Re:The coldest place (1)

dougmc (70836) | more than 5 years ago | (#25294595)

No, I don't.
(And yes, I know what you're referring to.)

Re:The coldest place (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25281739)

What does the obliquity of the planet have to do with the planet's moons having cold craters? The moon would have to have a low obliquity AND it's orbit around it's parent would also have to have a low tilt relative to the propagation of solar radiation. (ie: both the moon's spin and orbit must keep it's polar craters out of the sun's light)

Re:The coldest place (1)

CheshireCatCO (185193) | more than 5 years ago | (#25286887)

Because almost all regular satellites orbit pretty much in their planets' equatorial planes. Saturn's moons are therefore bad candidates, for example, since Saturn has a high obliquity (26 degrees).

Obligatory (-1, Redundant)

MaxwellEdison (1368785) | more than 5 years ago | (#25272573)

At least you said gas giants instead of:

The sexier planets like Uranus

Or Urectum, whichever you prefer.

Re:Obligatory (0, Redundant)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#25272939)

FRY: This is a great, as long as you don't make me smell Uranus. Heh heh.
LEELA: I don't get it.
PROFESSOR FARNSWORTH: I'm sorry, Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all.
FRY: Oh. What's it called now?
PROFESSOR FARNSWORTH: Urectum.

Re:The coldest place (2, Interesting)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 5 years ago | (#25275683)

Mercury doesn't get as much interest as Venus because it is very, very hard to get to and has an extremely hostile orbital environment once you get there. Venus gets less attention than Mars because it very hard to get there, has a hostile orbital environment and very difficult to learn anything once you do because of the cloud cover.
 
Mars, by comparison, is merely hard to get to, has a relatively benign orbital environment, and has a transparent atmosphere.

buzz (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25272075)

The word buzz always makes me think of a dildo. Especially when a girl is like "hey, give me a buzz later".

Re:buzz (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25272101)

The word insertion always makes me think of a dildo. Especially when a girl is like "hey, give me an insertion later".

Buzzes? (-1, Offtopic)

rossdee (243626) | more than 5 years ago | (#25272079)

In space, no-ine cabhear you Buzz.

Oblig. (-1, Offtopic)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 5 years ago | (#25272225)

The data returned by the craft seems to consist mostly of photos of a skinny guy with a moustache singing about champions and radios.

Re:Oblig. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25272263)

Oddly enough, fat bottomed girls are nowhere to be found.

Orbital Insertion? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25272311)

... but the main purpose of the maneuver is to prepare for an orbital insertion in 2011

I thought this kinda thing wasn't happening when I read the No Space Porn [slashdot.org] article?

corepirate nazis looking for a place to hide (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25272335)

which makes sense as they have no intentions to stop wrecking this planet. truth is though, it's not going to happen, as there's no where left to hide. we are all our own reward. we also have poor memories, & keep doing the same behaviors & expecting different results, one of the criteria for mental illness diagnosis. of course, it's not all our fault, as we are constantly being distracted/bushwhacked by man made foibles.

greed, fear & ego are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of yOUR dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children, not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_re_us/tent_cities;_ylt=A0wNcyS6yNJIZBoBSxKs0NUE
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17contractor.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03kurdistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080708/cheney_climate.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080805/pl_politico/12308;_ylt=A0wNcxTPdJhILAYAVQms0NUE
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/18/voting.problems/index.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080903/ts_nm/environment_arctic_dc;_ylt=A0wNcwhhcb5It3EBoy2s0NUE
(talk about cowardlly race fixing/bad theater/fiction?) http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/19/news/economy/sec_short_selling/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/opinion/04sat1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
(the teaching of hate as a way of 'life' synonymous with failed dictatorships) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081004/ap_on_re_us/newspapers_islam_dvd;_ylt=A0wNcwWdfudITHkACAus0NUE

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation&btnG=Search
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

'The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

Re:corepirate nazis looking for a place to hide (2, Funny)

yahwotqa (817672) | more than 5 years ago | (#25272533)

At least be thorough - you forgot to mention the chips in our heads.

Misleading Headline (2)

sunami88 (1074925) | more than 5 years ago | (#25272493)

Anybody read the headline and get really excited for a second? Must be because I'm reading through Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (again).

Re:Misleading Headline (1)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 5 years ago | (#25273565)

No, but as soon as I read it, I thought I was going to be reading about some new, mercury-based propulsion system - or about a spacecraft that had suffered a mercury containment failure and this had caused some weird kind of resonance/electrical short.

Too much Star Trek, I guess.

Y&uo faXil it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25272501)

argused 3y Eric

Question on why so long a time to establish orbit? (2, Interesting)

blahbooboo (839709) | more than 5 years ago | (#25272661)

Could someone please explain why according to the web site the orbit insertion is going to take another pass and another 3 years. Does it really take that long to slow the spacecraft down?

Re:Question on why so long a time to establish orb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25272707)

I'm no expert on orbital mechanics or anything, but it seems to be due to the massive change in velocity or "delta-v" (or call it vector). No way to carry enough fuel to effect that much speed change without using various orbits and the gravity of the planets around which they swing to change that vector enough that the amount of fuel on the craft can then make the smaller corrections required for orbit.

Re:Question on why so long a time to establish orb (5, Informative)

mbone (558574) | more than 5 years ago | (#25272793)

Because it is energetically tough to get to Mercury they are trying to get into with as little fuel expenditure as possible, to send as much payload as possible. Since there is no atmosphere, aerobraking is not possible, and thus they are using gravity assists to help reduce the orbital insertion delta-v to a manageable number. Each flyby speeds up the spacecraft a little, to better match Mercury's orbital velocity, and they decided on 3 of these to get the performance they wanted. There is a synodic period (the orbital beat period) between each such opportunity, so it takes a while to complete three flyby gravity assists.

The mission FAQ [jhuapl.edu] has more information on this.

Re:Question on why so long a time to establish orb (3, Informative)

mbone (558574) | more than 5 years ago | (#25272827)

sorry - "speeds up" should be "slows down," above.

oh no! (1)

tatman (1076111) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274705)

that means they gave linear velocity to Mercury. It's going faster. The whole space time continuum has now been altered. We're doomed!

Speeds up is correct, mod parent down. (1)

oneTheory (1194569) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277679)

Ok apparently the rest of the mods are sleeping on the job today. Reading TFA Your first assertion was correct. It's not about slowing down the thing needs to speed up in order to match mercury's orbital velocity of 47.9 km/s which is quite a bit faster than earth's measly 29.8 km/s:

Info on gravity assists for the MESSENGER mission [jhuapl.edu] .

There will actually be 6 total flybys (3 of mercury, 2 of venus, 1 of earth) during which the spacecraft will accelerate in order to decrease its orbital period from 365 days (that of earth) to 88 (that of mercury).

Re:Speeds up is correct, mod parent down. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25278829)

Slow down is more accurate, in my opinion. Although the orbtial speed at 1 AU is lower than at Mercury, the total energy is higher. When the orbit is adjusted to elliptical to dip near Mercury, the speed varies in opposition to distance. It's moving faster than Mercury as it passes by, but much slower at the periapsis of the orbit. The link you provided gives only calculated speeds based on a hypothetical, average orbit.

The Earth and Venus flybys have been completed. There is one more Mercury flyby, followed by orbital insertion, but the mission has already yielded a great deal of useful information.

Re:Question on why so long a time to establish orb (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25272843)

The flybys and the ridiculously indirect route are not to speed up the craft, its actually to slow it down. Mercury is a very small planet, a little bigger than our moon, so the flybys are meant to slow down the craft enough so that it can be "caught" in the very low energy level orbit of Mercury.

Re:Question on why so long a time to establish orb (1)

Xetrov (267777) | more than 5 years ago | (#25278371)

Well as another poster in the above [slashdot.org] thread pointed out, that's incorrect.

To be "caught", you'd want low relative velocity to Mercury, surely.

And just because you missed it, I'll repost oneTheory's link: http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/the_mission/gravity.html [jhuapl.edu]

Re:Question on why so long a time to establish orb (0, Redundant)

blahbooboo (839709) | more than 5 years ago | (#25272903)

Because it is energetically tough to get to Mercury they are trying to get into with as little fuel expenditure as possible, to send as much payload as possible. Since there is no atmosphere, aerobraking is not possible, and thus they are using gravity assists to help reduce the orbital insertion delta-v to a manageable number. Each flyby speeds up the spacecraft a little, to better match Mercury's orbital velocity, and they decided on 3 of these to get the performance they wanted. There is a synodic period (the orbital beat period) between each such opportunity, so it takes a while to complete three flyby gravity assists.

The mission FAQ [jhuapl.edu] has more information on this.

Ah, thanks! Very interesting.

Re:delta-v (5, Informative)

Migraineman (632203) | more than 5 years ago | (#25273375)

Moving around in space is all about changing your velocity. There are a number of ways to effect that change - gravitational slingshot, aerobraking, big sails, thrusters ... Each has advantages and disadvantages. For example, direct thrust may provide the most direct path to your objective, but the fuel requirement may be impractical. The mission designers have chosen a method of getting MESSENGER (about 1000kg of payload) to it's objective with enough fuel on-board to perform it's mission. Many variables have been considered - launch vehicle requirements, time to arrival, duration of mission, required consumables, etc. It's a horribly complex optimization.

The most efficient time/location to make orbital adjustments is apogee or perigee. If you enter into a highly eliptical orbit and wish to circularize at a much lower altitude using only a fractional-Newton thruster, yeah, it'll take a while. MESSENGER has a 650N main thruster, but only about 600kg of propellant. That equates to "not a lot" of thruster time. The main engine has a Specific Impulse (Isp) [wikipedia.org] of 318 seconds. [spaceref.com] On Earth, you'd get about 318 seconds (5+ minutes) of operation. That gravitational element doesn't really apply out in space, so the available thrust-time will be longer. The NASA PDF [nasa.gov] indicates that the final orbital insertion burn will consume 30% of the propellant, and will last about 14 minutes. Extrapolating, that indicates that MESSENGER has about 42 minutes of propellant on board.

There's also a nice explanation of the orbital maneuvers on the JHUAPL website, [jhuapl.edu] and also a nice PDF showing the orbital insertion cost plots. [nasa.gov]

Re:delta-v (4, Informative)

p3d0 (42270) | more than 5 years ago | (#25275561)

The main engine has a Specific Impulse (Isp) of 318 seconds. [spaceref.com] On Earth, you'd get about 318 seconds (5+ minutes) of operation.

No. Specific impulse, despite being measured in seconds, has nothing to do with how long the rocket can fire. That obviously depends on how much propellant you carry.

Take another look at that Wikipedia article you linked on specific impulse [wikipedia.org] .

Re:delta-v (2, Informative)

Migraineman (632203) | more than 5 years ago | (#25278753)

Crap ... typing too fast ... not enough sleep ...

Fthrust = Isp * (mass flow rate) * (gravity on Earth), which allows us to solve for the mass flow rate:
650N = 318s * MFR * 9.8m/s^2
MFR = 0.209 kg/s

With 600kg of propellant on board, you'd be able to fire the engine for 600kg / 0.209kg/s = 2871 seconds on the Earth's surface ... a little over 47 minutes. At least that's consistent with the other derived number. Sorry about that, Chief.

Re:delta-v (1)

p3d0 (42270) | more than 5 years ago | (#25284493)

With 600kg of propellant on board, you'd be able to fire the engine for 600kg / 0.209kg/s = 2871 seconds on the Earth's surface ... a little over 47 minutes.

True, though your calculation has nothing to do with Earth's surface. (When Isp is measured in seconds, they multiply by the gravity on Earth's surface just for fun.)

Re:Question on why so long a time to establish orb (1)

Convector (897502) | more than 5 years ago | (#25275177)

If it was easy, they would have done it before now. We managed flybys of Merc 30 years ago, but those are much easier since you don't have to slow down.

and... (1)

Ryogo (1303193) | more than 5 years ago | (#25272789)

but, venus is hotter, lets do that next.

Mercury is boring (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25273101)

It's so much like the Moon that it's quite boring to me.

Yeah, the core is slightly different and all but really, come on, it's just like our Moon in almost every way.

we should be doing more of this (2, Interesting)

jagdish (981925) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274395)

This is what we should be doing, instead of quibbling over small things like creationism and Paris Hilton. We should launch several satellites orbiting each planet and few satellites for some of the more interesting moons(Europa, io etc)

Re:we should be doing more of this (2, Insightful)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274637)

AFAIK, neither creationism nor Paris Hilton has had any appreciable effect on Space exploration.

In any event, most Intelligent Design folks don't deny the usefulness of space science, they just believe that someone started created the Universe. The position that God (or some imaginary man with a long white beard) created the universe does not preclude one from exploring said created universe.

The actual cause is that too few people are interested in a project which will only become economically significant on a very long timescale. That opinion can be held by "progressives" as much as by "conservatives". This tends to be voiced as:

"We could (feed|clothe|educate|liberate) X millions of starving [insert nationality/economic class/themselves] with that money".

Re:we should be doing more of this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25277085)

First, the GP was talking about creationist, versus IDers, and while they're closely related, they are not identical.

In any event, most Intelligent Design folks don't deny the usefulness of space science, they just believe that someone started created the Universe. The position that God (or some imaginary man with a long white beard) created the universe does not preclude one from exploring said created universe.

That's not my experience. My experience has been that creationists and ID'ers don't support scientific research much at all. They just want it to support their preconceived ideas and that's good enough for them. They don't see a benefit, either short or long term, to understanding the universe.

Re:we should be doing more of this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25279079)

AFAIK, neither creationism nor Paris Hilton has had any appreciable effect on Space exploration.

FWIW, Paris Hilton has had lots of orbital insertions.

We need to be solving practical problems. (4, Funny)

mbstone (457308) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274821)

When they eventually build a hotel on Mercury, I want an ice machine that works and doesn't keep running out of ice. So how big would such an ice machine have to be on Mercury? Would they have to charge $3 for a soda? I hate those tacky signs that say "No Filling Ice Chests."

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>