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!

NASA TESS Observatory Will Hunt For Alien Life On "Super-Earth" Exoplanets

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the hello-neighbor dept.

Space 112

An anonymous reader writes "Kepler may be down, but now NASA has another planet-hunting tool in mind. The space agency is preparing the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) observatory in order to follow in Kepler's footsteps. NASA has been searching for alien planets for several years now. Learning about strange exoplanets such as enormous, hot 'Jupiters' and 'rogue planets' that actually cruise through space without a parent star certainly adds to the body of research concerning our universe. Yet what scientists are really interested in are the Earth-like planets that may hold the potential for life."

cancel ×

112 comments

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

Why waste so much money? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829591)

If you want to find alien life, go look in your momma's crotch. Even her STDs have STDs. And the poor donkey's dick looks like a cauliflower.

Dear slashdot mods (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829667)

As a regular reader I ask you kindly, please do something about the vulgar AC that first post trolls this site. If you can't IP ban the troll then at least delete their posts. This is not reddit, please disrespect the "free speech" of vulgar trolls that add nothing to the conversation.

Re:Dear slashdot mods (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829699)

Adjust your settings to hide comments moderated under +2, and you shouldn't see many trolls. I agree, this should not be like reddit.

Re:Dear slashdot mods (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829741)

Adjust your settings to hide comments moderated under +2, and you shouldn't see many trolls. I agree, this should not be like reddit.

The problem with your approach is that he never would have seen his post, let alone your response, if he was browsing at +2. Now that your post is at +2 he could see it, but he wouldn't know it was in response to his post be he is still at +1.

BTW, you won't see this post either if you're browsing at +2.

Re:Dear slashdot mods (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829813)

+1 works with 0 collapsed its really hard to notice trolls unless you actually click them open and focus.

reddit actually has probably stricter moderation then slashdot

If you want brainwashedness good luck I do not know the "Elitists only" news aggregate. Slashdot is still better then youtube which censors both good and bad posts and manages to fail at making a UI with a discussion.

Try a forum about your favorite topics.

Re:Dear slashdot mods (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43830621)

+1 works with 0 collapsed its really hard to notice trolls unless you actually click them open and focus.

Actually, it doesn't.
Unless mods read the post first, there are a lot of posts the start at 0, yours for instance.

Starting with 0, means you see the trolls but only if you get there first before the merciless moders send them to oblivion.

Re:Dear slashdot mods (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829971)

Browse at 0 or +1

Re:Dear slashdot mods (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43830619)

Adjust your settings to hide comments moderated under +2, and you shouldn't see many trolls. I agree, this should not be like reddit.

It would be wonderful if SlashDot had some settings that actually worked on Mobile Devices.

I can't get that stupid slider to work on anything but a desktop browser. Radio buttons would be nice.
A control panel that actually worked would be nice.

Here's an Idea, All Slashdot editors and admins are relegated to using Off the Shelf tables next month.
For the whole month.

Re:Dear slashdot mods (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43831289)

It would be wonderful if SlashDot had some settings that actually worked on Mobile Devices.

I can't get that stupid slider to work on anything but a desktop browser. Radio buttons would be nice.

I second this...the idea that the slashdot mobile site is so bad is really a disgrace to anything even pretending to be a tech site.

The only worse example i know of a crap mobile site is http://m.trademe.co.nz .... absolute rubbish to put it kindly.

Won't somebody think of the users?

Re:Dear slashdot mods (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43832473)

It is amusing that both that post and the one before it are from ACs...

Re:Dear slashdot mods (3, Interesting)

Nyder (754090) | about a year ago | (#43829893)

As a regular reader I ask you kindly, please do something about the vulgar AC that first post trolls this site. If you can't IP ban the troll then at least delete their posts. This is not reddit, please disrespect the "free speech" of vulgar trolls that add nothing to the conversation.

They could just make people have to log into post. Because the problem is Anonymous Cowards act like anonymous cowards.

Re: Dear slashdot mods (2)

Threni (635302) | about a year ago | (#43831757)

Or just alter your weightings to give ACs negative scores and set your filter level to 1. That's all it takes.

Re:Dear slashdot mods (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829903)

Quit your bitching and adjust your comment threshold or else I'm going to tell your whore mother about it. Also, stop putting quotes around "free speech" as if it is some strange ideal that just always gets in the way of the world being awesome. People who accept free speech understand the value of open discussion, while those who accept "free speech" are always looking for an excuse to censor others.

Re:Dear slashdot mods (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830339)

Quit your bitching...

Also, stop putting quotes around "free speech" as if it is some strange ideal...

Don't you censor me!

Re:Dear slashdot mods (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#43830085)

"As a regular person I ask you kindly, please do something about the vulgar citizens that live in the world. If you can't arrest the fool then at least remove their vocal cords. This is not the USA, please destroy the "free speech" of individuals that I dislike, they add nothing to my conversation."

Re:Dear slashdot mods (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830437)

Precisely, send them to the meat grinder and turn them into something useful! "Free speech" is only meaningful when it speaking "truth to power". Off topic vulgarity purely for the entertainment of the vulgaree is not and never has been considered protected speech.

I see no problem with detecting and 1-day IP banning internet trolls, it's not like anyone is gassing or burning them, just forcing them to either wait a day or until they have a new IP from which to troll. Let the trollocaust commence.

To correct you, this is not the USA, please stop pretending individuals here should have "free speech" to begin with. "Free speech" is a myth that assumes all parties opinions and statements are equally valid. This simply is not true. Some speech is worth more than other speech and some posts should just be autodeleted for being nothing but berating insults completely tangential to the conversation at hand. When you buy into the myth of free speech you come off to the common man as weak. The reason for the rise of creationism in the US and around the world is because the enlightened among us are stuck on the moronic belief that everyone should have a right to say their opinions. Absolutely not. If your opinions are demonstrated to be detrimental to both yourself and society at large then you should be punished for such absurd beliefs.

Maybe in the next election America will wake up and vote Republican, or at least Libertarian. Once a single party is in power nation wide at all levels of government we'll see some real progress, and the Right already holds the majority of state and local governments.

Re:Dear slashdot mods (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year ago | (#43832051)

I see no problem with detecting and 1-day IP banning internet trolls

I do, because I'm smart enough to know that 1 IP != 1 user.

Re:Dear slashdot mods (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830843)

If that's all it takes to get your panties in a knot, you really need to get out more, you precious hothouse flower you.

Re:Dear slashdot mods (1)

symbolset (646467) | about a year ago | (#43838097)

I've put a million words here: more work than most famous authors. Some that I regret. I would like to have many of those words back. And still I say: "no."

The uncensored nature of /. is its special offer, unique in all the world. If /. censors it loses what makes it special.

Dear Slashdort Administratores: (-1, Offtopic)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about a year ago | (#43829683)

It has come to my attention that women might be porsting on your web-site, yet you have not taken any measures to protect women from blasphimmy on your web-site, which makes God and Billy upset, and also makes FRED the minion of SATAN jappy, and you shoud stop and carefully consider the horrible effects of your actions!

Really ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829691)

Well. For the record, N.A.S.A. cannot, using their present 'fleet' of satellite sensors and 'super' computers and 'Expert, i.e. Genus Scientists,' determine that 'life' has ever existed nor exists at present on planet Earth !

Hardy har har. Want to bet on a Dead Horse ? Bet N.A.S,A. !

Wow ! I want N.A.S.A. health care and a very padded N.A.S.A. $500K with compounded interest retirement insured by DoTreasury.

Even if N.A.S.A. become gray smoke in the atmosphere, the retirement program will live on for many decades. Yee Haaa. !

No star? (1)

Exitar (809068) | about a year ago | (#43829705)

Are they're looking for life on planets not warmed by a star?
Or just hoping to find an alien Moonbase Alpha?

Re:No star? (2)

hutsell (1228828) | about a year ago | (#43829817)

Are they're looking for life on planets not warmed by a star? Or just hoping to find an alien Moonbase Alpha?

From what I understand, the geothermal core is essential for our survival; without it, the heat derived from the Sun isn't capable of being able to appropriately compensate in recreating the conditions for our type of life forms. However, there is speculation those conditions may work for the reverse. (Otoh, an alien Moonbase or Death Star would be an interesting bonus.)

Re:No star? (4, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43830657)

From what I understand, the geothermal core is essential for our survival; without it, the heat derived from the Sun isn't capable of being able to appropriately compensate in recreating the conditions for our type of life forms.

Perhaps on THIS planet the core's heat is necessary, but that certainly wouldn't hold for a planet somewhat closer to the sun.
There must be some proximity where the star's warmth is just goldilocks right.

There are far too many hard and fast rules for habitability imposed by people who do nothing but speculate, with very little imagination.

We need a moon,
We need a magnetic field.
We need a molten core.

The list goes on.

Look, its no surprise that earth is the perfect planet for humans, but that doesn't mean everything else has to be
exactly the same. We don't all live on the African savanna, even though Groog probably insisted to Ooook that
people could never live anywhere but within sight of one specific banyan tree.

Re:No star? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#43833881)

Perhaps on THIS planet the core's heat is necessary, but that certainly wouldn't hold for a planet somewhat closer to the sun. There must be some proximity where the star's warmth is just goldilocks right.

You wouldn't be alive if this planet were significantly closer to the Sun. I believe we're sort of dangerously close to the inner border of the habitable zone. There's hardly any more CO2 for the crust to absorb to compensate for the rising solar radiation.

Re:No star? (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43833921)

But we have a molten core, and a very active one.
The topic under discussion in this subthread concerns planets that might not have a molten core or a much smaller core.

core heat flow thousanth of solar (1)

peter303 (12292) | about a year ago | (#43832153)

1400 watts solar per square meter compared to about a half fwatt rom internal heat flow. However the core heat flow causes the magnetic dynamo and plate tectonics. Large planets like Jupiter the interal flow rivals the solar radiance Jupiter is still creating heat from grivitational shrinkage, but too small for fusion.

Re:No star? (4, Informative)

Nyder (754090) | about a year ago | (#43829899)

Are they're looking for life on planets not warmed by a star?
Or just hoping to find an alien Moonbase Alpha?

They just mentioned those no star planets as an example of how cool it is out in space, but they will be looking for earth like planets in the habitable zone, which means a planet that orbits a star/sun.

Re:No star? (1)

Longjmp (632577) | about a year ago | (#43830039)

Interesting idea.
I'm wondering if a planet like Earth would be capable of developing and sustaining life without a sun, let's say 200 meters or so below the surface.
Earth does have a pretty powerful "generator" in its core, I just don't know if that would be enough.

To say it more sloppy: If (against all known physics) our sun would decide to collapse silently, would we be able to survive if we all grab shovels and dig really fast?

Re:No star? (2)

the gnat (153162) | about a year ago | (#43830099)

I'm wondering if a planet like Earth would be capable of developing and sustaining life without a sun, let's say 200 meters or so below the surface.

There is actually a huge amount of biomass beneath the seabed - all anaerobic prokaryotic microbes, as far I know. Deep sea volcanic vents are another major ecosystem. So it may be theoretically possible to develop terrestrial life without a sun (and certainly possible without direct light), but liquid water is still an absolute requirement, and geothermal heating is probably very important too.

Re:No star? (1)

Longjmp (632577) | about a year ago | (#43830143)

I guess I should have been more specific.
Of course there is life in the deep sea (and caves). However, without the sun, temperature on Earth's surface (including the sea) would be around 3 Kelvin.
Not much happening there (anymore) concerning life.
Questions is, would geothermal energy alone be enough to provide enough heat for life? Or would a planet cool down entirely, despite of the reactor burning down below, bringing it to a halt.

Re:No star? (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43830679)

Questions is, would geothermal energy alone be enough to provide enough heat for life? Or would a planet cool down entirely, despite of the reactor burning down below, bringing it to a halt.

I think its not inconceivable that there could be some optimum sized planet with an optimally sized core that might survive long enough to have developed life. But it would be a massive heat radiator which should be visible in the infra-red.

Re:No star? (2)

dryeo (100693) | about a year ago | (#43830911)

The interior of the Earth would still be warm without the sun. I'd guess a couple of miles down on average, closer where there is volcanic activity including warm spots at the bottom of the ocean where geothermal energy is escaping from the interior. Those hot spots are likely to move around so probably not much of an ecosystem would be present as life would have a hard time moving from oasis to oasis.
Life would be pretty simple and whether life could spontaneously form under those conditions is pretty questionable but if the Earth had its orbit perturbed enough by say a passing star to head into outer space there'd be life for quite a few billion years until the core cooled down. At that life would likely survive longer then if the Earth remains where it is as the Sun is heating up and in a billion or so years the oceans will boil, perhaps creating Venusian conditions which would make it very hard for life to continue.

Re:No star? (1)

symbolset (646467) | about a year ago | (#43830159)

In addition to geothermal heating, Natural fission reactors [wikipedia.org] are known to occur.

Never a serious activity (4, Funny)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | about a year ago | (#43829707)

Extra-terrestrial life has been visiting the earth for 10's if not 100's of thousands of years. What do you think the ancient Hindu scrolls talk about?

In the fifties, there were thousands of reliable documented UFO sightings covered up by the US government with such ridiculous explanations as 'moonlight reflecting off of swamp gas'. Google up project blue book. We all know about the Roswell stories and there and hundreds of similar reliable situations throughout the last 50 years. Given that we know that extra-terrestrial life is and has been visiting the earth, what is with NASA still launching vessels into orbit to 'search' for extra-terrestrial beings?

It's a thinly veiled ruse to fool an unsuspecting public into believing that the US government's mis-information campaign is the truth.

Let's turn the tide and start a terrible wave of truth here. I've seen extra-terrestrial craft in the skies, how about you?

Take the red pill.

Re:Never a serious activity (5, Insightful)

the gnat (153162) | about a year ago | (#43829757)

there were thousands of reliable documented UFO sightings covered up by the US government with such ridiculous explanations as 'moonlight reflecting off of swamp gas'

Put yourself in their shoes for a moment. You're testing supersonic spy planes in an era where our largest adversary had successfully stolen nuclear weapons research from us, and you're trying to stop the local yokels from asking too many questions about the unimaginably fast, jet-black craft that keep whooshing overhead. What do you tell them that will shut them up, without saying "we're testing top-secret spy planes that will overfly the Soviet Union"?

If extraterrestrials really did visit Earth as often (and for as long) as you claim, btw, there would be actual hard evidence. There is none. The simplest explanation is that a) people freak out when confronted with rapid technological change, and b) the human brain is a superb pattern-finding machine - so good that it often finds patterns where none exist. And if we're going to treat ancient Hindu scrolls as reliable documentary evidence, why not just take the Book of Genesis at face value too, and have the government stop funding evolution research? (Or medical research, for that matter - clearly divine intervention can cure disease more effectively than modern medicine.)

Re:Never a serious activity (1)

bejiitas_wrath (825021) | about a year ago | (#43829807)

I am sure the government has tested flying saucers in one form or another. The anti-gravity experiments they carried out surely had some successes.

Re:Never a serious activity (1)

sribe (304414) | about a year ago | (#43832539)

I am sure the government has tested flying saucers in one form or another.

Why yes, they have. It's a sure thing, because the documents have bee de-classified and those involved in the work have talked about it. Hell, pictures from very early flight tests have been published.

The anti-gravity experiments they carried out surely had some successes.

Well now. That's not quite such a certain thing ;-)

Re:Never a serious activity (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year ago | (#43829957)

there were thousands of reliable documented UFO sightings covered up by the US government with such ridiculous explanations as 'moonlight reflecting off of swamp gas'

Put yourself in their shoes for a moment. You're testing supersonic spy planes in an era where our largest adversary had successfully stolen nuclear weapons research from us, and you're trying to stop the local yokels from asking too many questions about the unimaginably fast, jet-black craft that keep whooshing overhead. What do you tell them that will shut them up, without saying "we're testing top-secret spy planes that will overfly the Soviet Union"?

If extraterrestrials really did visit Earth as often (and for as long) as you claim, btw, there would be actual hard evidence. There is none. The simplest explanation is that a) people freak out when confronted with rapid technological change, and b) the human brain is a superb pattern-finding machine - so good that it often finds patterns where none exist. And if we're going to treat ancient Hindu scrolls as reliable documentary evidence, why not just take the Book of Genesis at face value too, and have the government stop funding evolution research? (Or medical research, for that matter - clearly divine intervention can cure disease more effectively than modern medicine.)

Only problem is, that when stuff crash from the sky, usually the Government is there to collect it. Then we never know. Now I'm not saying UFO's are real, it's just if they are, and the government knows, they have been cleaning up after them.

As for your taking Genesis & the Hindu scrolls at face value, no, that would be stupid, but it doesn't mean that there isn't some truth in those. I haven't read the Hindu scrolls (would like to though), so I am not that familiar with what they say, but based on Ancient Aliens, they claim they describe modern type of weapons pretty good.

But lets be real here. I can accept aliens a lot easier then I can accept any religion. At least aliens make sense. Unless you believe we are the only life in the universe, there most likely is other life out there. The question is, are they able to figure out ways of traveling the vast distances between solar systems?

Re:Never a serious activity (1)

dcw3 (649211) | about a year ago | (#43831629)

As for the government cleaning up, efforts like what you claim would have had taken many people over many years. Nobody can keep secrets that big for that long. And what about all the evidence left from before recent history? Who cleaned up back in the 14-1600s? Did native Indians tribes hide the evidence?

As for your premise that " there most likely is other life out there", until there's real evidence, the odds are just as likely that religion is real.

Re:Never a serious activity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43831679)

>Nobody can keep secrets that big for that long

As a side note. A guy, I think his surname was Hitler, managed to cover up killing millions of people about 70 years ago. Today there are still people believing he didn't do any such thing.

Re:Never a serious activity (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#43832047)

As for your premise that " there most likely is other life out there", until there's real evidence, the odds are just as likely that religion is real.

I'd say the existence of aliens is more likely since life is known to be possible within the physical realities of the universe, while deities are not.

Re:Never a serious activity (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#43831921)

Only problem is, that when stuff crash from the sky, usually the Government is there to collect it. Then we never know.

The government's very best cleanup efforts still aren't perfect. When an A12 (SR71 prototype) being tested from Area 51 crashed, it got the full MIB-style coverup. They spread the story that a bomber carrying a nuke crashed to keep the locals away, and then tried to clean up every single piece so that nobody would find out that it was built from exotic smuggled Russian metals.

And if you can find the crash site today and look hard you can still find pieces of that metal.

Re:Never a serious activity (1)

kermidge (2221646) | about a year ago | (#43834833)

"that it was built from exotic smuggled Russian metals."

Say what? Just what 'exotic smuggled Russian [sic] metals' were used to build the A-12? Are you saying Lockheed and its contractors didn't make their own stuff?

Re:Never a serious activity (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year ago | (#43829961)

The USSR did not steal nuclear weapon technology from the USA.

Re:Never a serious activity (2)

the gnat (153162) | about a year ago | (#43829989)

The USSR did not steal nuclear weapon technology from the USA.

Oh, really? [wikipedia.org] (And that's hardly the only example.)

Re:Never a serious activity (3, Informative)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year ago | (#43830909)

You own link clearly says that the soviets independently developed their weapons and that no useful information was transmitted from this guy to soviet scientists.

Re:Never a serious activity (1)

Kinthelt (96845) | about a year ago | (#43832033)

The Soviets independently developed their weapons, *and* Klaus Fuchs passed classified nuclear weapons research to the Soviets.

Re:Never a serious activity (1)

thrich81 (1357561) | about a year ago | (#43830263)

The first Soviet A-bomb was practically a copy of the US 'Fat Man' design. From the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDS-1) about it:
" At Lavrenty Beria's insistence, the RDS-1 bomb was designed as an implosion weapon similar to the Fat Man bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan; RDS-1 also had a solid plutonium core. The bomb designers had developed a more sophisticated design (tested later as RDS-2), but rejected it due to the known reliability of the Fat Man type design; the USSR having received extensive intelligence on the design of the "Fat Man" bomb during World War II."
"Dark Sun, The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb", by Richard Rhodes, includes a good account of the USSR development of their first A-bomb as part of the book's H-bomb story. After this first one, Soviet nuclear technology developed rapidly independently from that of the USA, but at the very beginning they got a lot by spying.

Re:Never a serious activity (1)

ks*nut (985334) | about a year ago | (#43830019)

In reference to the government of the United States turninng a blind eye to science, I think you would be astounded at some of the bullshit coming out of the beltway: if it doesn't have economic or defense benefits it won't be funded. We're allowing a misinformed few (Congress) to stifle pure research just when we're discovering some really interesting things about the universe and the prospect for life having evolved on other planets.

Re:Never a serious activity (1)

dcw3 (649211) | about a year ago | (#43831655)

Disclaimer: I'm all for research, this included.

It's a matter of priorities. Have you seen the debt lately? Have you seen unemployment lately? Have you seen the crumbling infrastructure lately?

I'm not in favor of funding science projects when we can't afford to fund basic human needs such as healthcare.

Re:Never a serious activity (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about a year ago | (#43830839)

> If extraterrestrials really did visit Earth as often (and for as long) as you claim, btw, there would be actual hard evidence.

That is an assumption and a fallacy.

In about 10 years we'll finally be able to meet our "neighbors" and you will be able to find out WHY mass-contact was not _allowed_.

top secret flying saucer airplane (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829761)

The US military was working on a top secret airplane that was shaped like a flying saucer in the 1950s. Of course the military tried to cover that up.

I still like Stalin's fake 1947 UFO theory.

Re:top secret flying saucer airplane (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43830791)

Yeah, right, but the Avrocar wasn't all THAT secret, literally thousands of people knew about it.
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/137505-us-air-forces-1950s-supersonic-flying-saucer-declassified [extremetech.com]

It was never all that tightly classified, because it never worked, was built in Canada, and it never got more than three feet off the ground or flew faster than 35mph.

Ultimately, though, the fact that we use fixed-wing aircraft today is a good indicator that flying saucers, while cool, just aren’t that functional. If flying saucers were somehow faster or more efficient or capable of lifting heavier loads, we would almost certainly see them in a commercial (to say nothing about combat) setting.

Its been 60 years since the 1950's, yet the government and washington can't keep a secret for a New York Minute.
Everything about our space launches is public knowledge. Everything about our nuclear arsenal is public knowledge.
The Chinese and Russians stole our plans right from under our noses and replicated everything from the B29 to the Space Shuttle.

Yet there are idiots like you that believe that Administration after Administration, in country after country has kept a secret for 60 years because the poor public couldn't handle the truth if it were found out there were Aliens visiting the earth, but would have no problem handling the truth that their own governments built Mutually Assured Destruction arsenals and had the world living in fear of nuclear war for 30 years.

60 years, and not one honest man has surfaced with the goods in hand?

Re:top secret flying saucer airplane (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year ago | (#43832877)

They didn't replicate the B-29 from stolen plans. They reverse engineered one that made an emergency landing in Russia, as legend has it including a hole that was there by mistake.

Re:Never a serious activity (2)

ThePeices (635180) | about a year ago | (#43829795)

Since you seem to have put some effort into your Trollpost, Ill put some effort in judging how well you did.

After some deliberation, I have awarded you a 4/10.

You scored points for the effort required to type out your Trollpost, as well as doing some research on the current bunk believed by serious UFO nutcases. I also awarded you points for your attention to spelling and grammar. ( many Troll attempts fail at even simple primary school level English )

Unfortunately, I marked you down due to the obvious nature of your Troll attempt, and the lack of anything controversial thats required to elicit an acceptable response to a proper Troll.
Nothing you have posted is even slightly believable to even the uneducated, so is not likely to succeed as a viable Troll post.

In all, not a bad attempt, I surely have seen worse on Slashdot, but with some more effort and research, you should be able to pull off a good Troll in the future.

Re:Never a serious activity (1)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | about a year ago | (#43829933)

Nothing you have posted is even slightly believable to even the uneducated

You better warn wikipedia [wikipedia.org] because they've got some trash up there. Also, you might want to let the US Air Force [af.mil] know that project blue book never existed. Sheesh, the quality of information available from the government is certainly going downhill!

But I'll give you a 6/10 for your debunking post. It contains no facts but really elicits the disbelief of the reader. It does an excellent job of maintaining the socially acceptable position of UFO debunking whilst also tying in subtle insult by association very efficiently. Unfortunately the clear close mindedness of the debunk leads the educated to recognise it's nature as pure propaganda.

But it does seem doubtful that this quality of socially engineered debunk will see you lose your job. And always remember, if you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it.

Re:Never a serious activity (3, Insightful)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year ago | (#43829841)

The truth is out there. But not many will ever find it. And many forget it's a constant quest to keep it up to date and patched.

Americans don't want to believe that their lifestyle choices are dictated by media and personal misjudgment. As opposed to being dictated by circumstance and technology. Because of this people are particularly resistant to the idea that there might be more advanced societies interacting with certain humans or that our power elite might actively be perusing those "aliens".

Or that our religions are heavily influenced ala, late Star Trek opener. The planet was Niburo and the Enterprise totally became an icon of those primitives. This is a not so subtle comment by your betters in Hollywood. I of course think that such influences are passing fads for a few generations like many things in human culture. But become more subtly embedded over time through repetition or interaction with other influences.

Either way religions need to be looked at objectively. And we need to assume we are being watched to take the next steps as a society. This doesn't invalidate spirituality. Or modern science. It is in addition to those things we cannot explain. Simply saying "there's nothing over the ocean" is far worse then saying aliens did it. Or "We must go find out whether aliens did it!". One creates stagnation in society. While the other mentality seeks the truth.

People who are investigating this process on their own are much further a long the path of truth then those who just repeat wrote memorized lessons from official sources of information provided by your exalted overlords.

Re:Never a serious activity (1)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | about a year ago | (#43829947)

People who are investigating this process on their own are much further a long the path of truth then those who just repeat wrote memorized lessons from official sources of information provided by your exalted overlords

Damn but I wish I could mod you up. I'm guessing you weren't edumacated in a western civilisation?

Re:Never a serious activity (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year ago | (#43830501)

No, American. No obvious Asian heritage.

Re:Never a serious activity (2)

LesFerg (452838) | about a year ago | (#43830005)

People who are investigating this process on their own are much further a long the path of truth then those who just repeat wrote memorized lessons from official sources of information provided by your exalted overlords.

If he wrote the meaning of the word rote enough times, maybe he would remember how to spell it.

Re:Never a serious activity (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year ago | (#43832893)

Your wright their!

Re:Never a serious activity (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year ago | (#43836079)

I was avoiding infringement on the English language ;p

Re:Never a serious activity (1)

sribe (304414) | about a year ago | (#43832557)

We all know about the Roswell stories and there and hundreds of similar reliable situations throughout the last 50 years. Given that we know that extra-terrestrial life is and has been visiting the earth...

Wow. The leap from unidentified flying objects to "they must be aliens" leaves a gap in logic wider and deeper than the Grand Canyon!

I hate these threads (3, Insightful)

the gnat (153162) | about a year ago | (#43829735)

Every time Slashdot posts a story about the search for extraterrestrial life, at least a half-dozen scientifically illiterate people complain (often quite stridently) that NASA (or whoever) is too narrow-minded because they're only looking at signs of terrestrial-like (carbon-based, oxygen-metabolizing) life. And every comment of this sort gets at least another half-dozen replies, from people who actually know at least a little bit of science, explaining, very patiently, that we have no idea what other forms of life might look like, chemically speaking, no way of knowing if such life forms exist, and thus no way of detecting their presence. It's so predictable, and so inane. This is one of the most fascinating open questions in modern science, but these threads simply get clogged up by idiots upset that NASA hasn't considered their ill-informed speculation.

Re:I hate these threads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829771)

Though you are spot on with your observation someone has to tell you this so it might as well be me: this is only Slashdot. It is not a NASA (or some other space agency) forum. It is not a gathering place for the great minds of science, of the internet or even of basement dwellers.

Re:I hate these threads (2)

the gnat (153162) | about a year ago | (#43829783)

this is only Slashdot. It is not a NASA (or some other space agency) forum. It is not a gathering place for the great minds of science, of the internet or even of basement dwellers.

Oh, I know that, it's just that I love a good intense scientific discussion, and there are a reasonable number of people who read Slashdot who have actually thought seriously about the subject, even if only for their own amusement. So it's still a little depressing to see so much cluelessness on display. After all, some of these people surely vote...

Re:I hate these threads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829801)

Schaker... this is nasaspaceflight.com. We do not "In Soviet Russia, YOU get turned up to eleven!" Uh, no.

Re:I hate these threads (1)

ThePeices (635180) | about a year ago | (#43829809)

The only acceptable response to those people is a good old fashioned Trolling.

Remember, they are just a (vocal) minority, most of us here at Slashdot do actually have a modicum of intelligence, and can see the true merit behind such scientific endeavours.

Re:I hate these threads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830423)

Yes, mayhap you think I surely jest, but methinks great things can come from The Elder Survey Satellite.

Re:I hate these threads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829827)

Dude, you think threads like these are bad? You wait until you see a story with *anything* to do with lasers, and people start bringing up the 10 year old shark jokes.

No, im actually serious, I am not kidding you.

Re:I hate these threads (2)

LesFerg (452838) | about a year ago | (#43830013)

Hey did he mention frickin lasers on a ... oh wait, I see what you did there

Re:I hate these threads (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year ago | (#43829923)

They why did you start off by posting a totally off topic thread? If you do not like their opinions. Provide yours in counterpoint. An effectively non-trolly statement might sway some in your favor.

Otherwise ignore them. Or start your own thread with your own qualifications.

Or you know, admit that very few people know much about space. Including the ones that think they do. Considering how vast space is and how small and political Nasa could be...

Re:I hate these threads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830115)

I saw a flying saucer in Wisconsin, I had polarized sunglasses on, and could see the outline moving across the field. I said "I see you" and slowed down my car. It took off at an incredible speed, and then later when I was at home on the couch, I just felt that something was watching me. It was like I could hear it, but even with my ears plugged.

Soon after I began plugging my ears, they began to communicate with me, 4 of them spoke to me total, sometimes all 4 at the same time, and I could understand them all at once. It was a very odd experience! They wanted to know how I could see them, and I explained about having polarized sunglasses on, and being able to see distortion along the edges of their ship, and could not see them without the sunglasses, they understood, and corrected the problem instantly.

I asked them to see their ship, but they explained it was not something meant for humans, and I would not be able to survive inside it, or get "close enough" to it to see anything of value.

In case you are wondering about power, they said the ship consumed vast amounts of energy, traveled faster than the speed of light, and was coated with cadmium sulfide, something else used in solar cells, and something used in doping for MOSFETs (chemicals I did not know so they further explained), and one more insulating substance I forget. All common substances we have on Earth though.

It traveled at a high enough speed to glow very brightly, and it absorbed the heat and ran over the light it generated to repower itself and go faster. This coating also allowed them to cloak the ship by projecting what was behind the ship all the way around the ship when exploring.

When I asked about the performance of the ship, they made it move instantly from one side of my house to the other, and I am sure it went right through a part of the house no one was in. Unimaginable cornering ability!

Very Odd Day. The dog was freaked out for a week!

Re:I hate these threads (2)

Longjmp (632577) | about a year ago | (#43830187)

Very Odd Day. The dog was freaked out for a week!

If I was your dog, I'd freak out too :p

Re:I hate these threads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830229)

She just hid under the desk, and kept giving me that WTF was that look. Wouldn't go outside without me, and she normally loves to sit on the front step and watch everyone.

Re:I hate these threads (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#43830227)

They have medications for your condition.

Re:I hate these threads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830319)

Meds because my dog was scared?

She's over it.

Re:I hate these threads (1)

Legion303 (97901) | about a year ago | (#43831571)

Don't forget about the dumb fuck UFO conspiracy nuts who think a government that can't cover up blowjobs would be capable of preventing leaks about alien visitors for over 60 years.

Her name is Tess (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829759)

Anyone reminded of this scene [youtube.com] ?

Larger planet; more gravity. (1)

bejiitas_wrath (825021) | about a year ago | (#43829789)

What if we find a planet that is just like Earth; and has a thriving ecosystem; but has much more gravity than Earth? We would need exoskeleton suits to walk around until we got used to it. But I guess we will find Earth 2.0 eventually that is just right. But even a planet like Venus could have life in the upper atmosphere. And there are theories that even Neutron stars harbour life under the surface. Life will always find a way. Not all aliens are humanoid with funny things on their foreheads.

Re:Larger planet; more gravity. (3, Insightful)

Nyder (754090) | about a year ago | (#43829963)

What if we find a planet that is just like Earth; and has a thriving ecosystem; but has much more gravity than Earth? We would need exoskeleton suits to walk around until we got used to it. But I guess we will find Earth 2.0 eventually that is just right. But even a planet like Venus could have life in the upper atmosphere. And there are theories that even Neutron stars harbour life under the surface. Life will always find a way. Not all aliens are humanoid with funny things on their foreheads.

If we find a planet with life on it (ie. is habitable), our chances of getting there is slim to none. We don't need to worry about exoskeletons or genetic upgrades because we do NOT have the tech, not even close, to be able to travel to another solar system.

Re:Larger planet; more gravity. (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year ago | (#43834221)

We do have the tech, but not the will to spend the obscene amount of money it would take. There are fission powered craft designs that can do the trip. Such a ship would blow a product of a majority of the world's uranium reserves out its exhaust pipe.

Re:Larger planet; more gravity. (1)

strikethree (811449) | about a year ago | (#43838725)

We don't need to worry about exoskeletons or genetic upgrades because we do NOT have the tech, not even close, to be able to travel to another solar system.

Who is this WE that you keep talking about? My descendants will surely travel to another star system. Hopefully your descendants break free of the limitations of your thought so they can go too. There is even a (impossibly small) possibility that *I* might get a chance to travel to another star system.

If we do not consider these things now, how will we get there in the future? A journey of an octillion miles starts with one foot step.

Re:Larger planet; more gravity. (1)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | about a year ago | (#43830031)

What if we find a planet that is just like Earth; and has a thriving ecosystem; but has much more gravity than Earth?

The inhabitants will be so small that they won't stand a chance against us.

Re:Larger planet; more gravity. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830079)

More like we won't stand a chance against them. We can easily wipe out big animals like whales, but getting rid of tiny things like viruses and bacteria is much more complicated.
Still, we'd be so far away that caring who'd win is pointless.

Re:Larger planet; more gravity. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43831297)

More like we won't stand a chance against them.

I bet then the Obama administration would wish they'd responded differently to the Death Star petition. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/isnt-petition-response-youre-looking

Re:Larger planet; more gravity. (1)

dcw3 (649211) | about a year ago | (#43831681)

Wait, what??? You mean size matters??? I'm so screwed.

We need Terrestrial planet finder (2)

moozoo (1308855) | about a year ago | (#43830155)

TESS is a cheap substitute was what is really needed. Its not the real deal, earth like planet finder that is needed. It only looks at the same stars for 3 months. Which means it will only find "habitable zone" planets that orbit their stars 3 times in that 3 month period. i.e.. only red dwarf stars. The planets it finds will be tidally locked and subject to million of years of star flares (red dwarfs are typically flare stars). What we need is Nasa's dropped Terrestrial planet finder.

Re:We need Terrestrial planet finder (1)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | about a year ago | (#43830217)

What we need is Nasa's dropped Terrestrial planet finder

Butter fingers.

Re:We need Terrestrial planet finder (1)

a_hanso (1891616) | about a year ago | (#43830891)

I think this is the best we can get, given the budget situation. As I understand, it won't even be launched till 2017. On the plus side, unlike Kepler, it's an all-sky survey.

Re:Larger planet; more gravity. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830607)

No one can predict about how much planet and their behavior. It is nature and gods creation no one can change it.

http://www.msnadz.com

Across the gulf of space (2)

Jiggy (114468) | about a year ago | (#43831209)

"And yet, across the gulf of space, minds immeasurably superior to ours regarded this super-earth with envious eyes; and slowly, and surely, they drew their plans against us."

you insensitive clod! (1)

sribe (304414) | about a year ago | (#43832517)

The proper term is "undocumented" planet!

What's the actual reason? (1)

FilmedInNoir (1392323) | about a year ago | (#43832559)

Every time something points to life (ahem, bacteria life) on Mars, there's a group of scientists that start doing back flips to say it's natural crystal formations, complex chemical reactions, etc. So it's nice, but I figure even if they find a planet with obvious city lights and an atmosphere filled with methane and CFCs, it will just result in another wave of doubters saying it's caused by naturally occurring phenomenon.
So what's the reason for NASA even bothering? It's not just a way to raise public interest and funding? No, that's just cynical of me.

Re:What's the actual reason? (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year ago | (#43834189)

You think science should falsify information to fit your delusions? the reason science claims no life has been found to date on Mars is because there is no evidence whatsoever of it yet. Not one shred. Loosen your tinfoil hat.

Never once do my fingers leave my hand. (1)

slick7 (1703596) | about a year ago | (#43833491)

The misdirection of searching for alien life elsewhere precludes the assumption that alien life isn't here on planet Earth. And to close this circle of logic, if alien life exists elsewhere, why wouldn't it also exist here as well?

Re:Never once do my fingers leave my hand. (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year ago | (#43833633)

science thus far has not found any creature with extraterrestrial genetic makeup on this planet, only native born ones

Re:Never once do my fingers leave my hand. (0)

slick7 (1703596) | about a year ago | (#43835927)

science thus far has not found any creature with extraterrestrial genetic makeup on this planet, only native born ones

Science has also made millions if not billions on cancer research without getting any nearer to a cure, that is accepted by the pharmaceutical industry and their rubber stamp FDA. Therefore your argument is invalid.

Re:Never once do my fingers leave my hand. (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year ago | (#43837375)

You should study logic; you have none.

Load More 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>