Starship Asterisk*

neufer wrote:Dr. Ruth Adams: ... Neutron ... positive

apodman wrote:

neufer wrote:Dr. Ruth Adams: ... Neutron ... positive

That makes no more sense than building an interocitor.
I can't recall what MST3K had to say about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interocitor wrote:
Dr. Cal Meecham:
"Complete line of iterociter parts, incorporating greater advances than hitherto known in the field of electronics."
What exactly is an iterociter?

<<In the film _This Island Earth_, advanced physicist Cal Meacham first becomes aware of an interocitor when a book arrives at his lab entitled, Electronic Service, Unit #16. Inside is contained a bill of materials for the interocitor, describing it as, "incorporating greater advances than hitherto known in the field of electronics". From the specifications, Meacham opines, "There's no limit to what it could do. Laying a four lane highway at the rate of a mile a minute would be a cinch."

Of the 2486 components comprising an interocitor, only three are named:

* Bead condenser (model #: AB-619)
* Cathermin tube with inindium complex of +4
* Intensifier disk

The instructions accompanying the components also caution that no interocitor part can be replaced, and to bear this in mind while assembling.

Once assembled and powered, Meacham places the intensifier disk into the right-hand control and rotates it 18 degrees counter-clockwise. Upon doing so, the telecommunication function of the interocitor is activated, and Meacham establishes contact with Exeter, the party responsible for sending him the device.

During their conversation, Meacham's lab assistant, Joe Wilson attempts to photograph the device, but is informed by Exeter that "Your camera will pick up nothing but black fog. Images on the interocitor don't register on film."

Later, Meacham boards a light aircraft autopiloted by an interocitor to join Exeter at his research facility. Exeter is also seen using an interocitor to remotely surveil a private conversation between Meacham and two other scientists at the facility, Ruth Adams and Steve Carlson. Later, Exeter's assistant, Brack, uses the weapons capability of the device to thwart the attempted escape of Meacham, Adams, and Carlson from the facility.>>

timbelina wrote:Why didn't the capsule burn up like a meteorite would have?

Loco wrote:

timbelina wrote:Why didn't the capsule burn up like a meteorite would have?

Not all meterorites burn up, some crash land just like the capsule.
The capsule would have been shielded, possibly even have had rockets firing to slow it down.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/genesis/spacecraft/faq-2.html wrote:
<<The sample return capsule, still attached to the main Genesis spacecraft, will be aligned to its proper entry orientation about six hours before entry. At that time it will be spun to 15 revolutions per minute, adding stability for its descent into Earth's atmosphere. The capsule will be released two hours later.>>

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/genesis/media/Genesis_findings.html wrote:
Genesis Findings Solve Apollo Lunar Soil Mystery

<<Ever since astronauts returned from another world, scientists have been mystified by some of the moon rocks they brought back. Now one of the mysteries has been solved.

"We learned a great deal about the sun by going to the moon," said Don Burnett, Genesis principal investigator at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif. "Now, with our Genesis data, we are turning the tables, using the solar wind to better understand lunar processes."

Ansgar Grimberg from ETH Institute of Astronomy in Zurich and coworkers analyzed the composition of neon in a metallic glass exposed on NASA's Genesis mission. The team's findings are reported in a paper published in the Nov. 17 issue of the journal Science. Burnett is a co-author of the paper.

One of the stated goals of the Apollo missions was to understand the history of the sun in time. With no atmosphere or magnetic field to interfere, particles from the sun hit and imbedded themselves into the lunar surface for almost four billion years. This goal was not fully met due to the complexity of lunar materials and processes and to the limited duration of the Apollo field operations.

Many of the lunar sample studies were of the relative amounts of the isotopes of different solar gas elements. Many elements have atoms of different mass. For example, neon has a light isotope (Ne20) and a heavy isotope (Ne22).

One of the major surprises from study of the record of neon from the sun in lunar soil samples was evidence for two solar gas components with distinct isotopic compositions. One has been identified as solar wind, the other as higher-energy solar energetic particles because it was found at greater depths in the mineral grains. But the latter has long been puzzling to scientists because its relative amounts were much too large compared with present-day solar fluxes, suggesting very high solar activity in the past.

To investigate this problem, a bulk metallic glass specially synthesized by Charles Hays at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., was exposed to the solar wind for 27 months on NASA's Genesis mission. The advantage of this material is that when it is returned to Earth and analyzed in a laboratory, it can be uniformly etched with nitric acid vapor allowing the depth distribution of the solar wind neon to be measured by stepwise release.

The first experiments at the ETH Institute in Zurich revealed surprising results. Neon isotopic variations were not expected until relatively large depths when the solar energetic particle regime would be reached, but instead they were observed immediately. As etching proceeded, the results were almost identical to those found in many lunar samples, with two major differences.

First, Genesis samples do not contain detectable amounts of neon produced by galactic cosmic ray particles because no appreciable concentrations of such particles accumulated in 27 months. Thus they allowed scientists to analyze pure solar wind samples.

Second, the first gas extractions from the bulk metallic glass showed neon isotopic compositions never seen in lunar sample data. This finding suggests that space weathering and erosion over time reduced the levels of neon on the surface of all lunar samples, which in turn led to a misinterpretation of the lunar data.

The researchers conclude that the Apollo solar energetic particles do not exist. Both the Genesis and Apollo isotopic variations can be quantitatively explained by the fact that the Ne22 isotope is implanted deeper than the Ne20 isotope. Moreover, these findings indicate that there is no evidence for enhanced fluxes of high-energy solar particles billions of years ago compared to today.>>

DavidLeodis wrote:I assume the 2000 in March 23-27, 2000 is an error!

• ftp://ftp.lpi.usra.edu/pub/outgoing/lps ... ull338.pdf
  ftp://ftp.lpi.usra.edu/pub/outgoing/lps ... ull456.pdf

timbelina wrote:Why didn't the capsule burn up like a meteorite would have?

Loco wrote:'Genesis'? Instead of promoting knowledge of outer space with athe APOD website, Is NASA's mission secretly the conversion of heathen populations to belief in Judaeo/Christian/Muslim scriptures? I can't say the world doesn't need more genuine belief in the Almighty.

timbelina wrote:Why didn't the capsule burn up like a meteorite would have?

iamlucky13 wrote:NASA shouldn't comment on religion either way unless they uncover evidence relevant to such commentary. Such an event seems highly unlikely to me, even as a Christian.

Loco wrote:Ah .. but what if they discovered water beyond the furthest star? That would prove Genesis Chapter One correct.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Loco wrote:Ah .. but what if they discovered water beyond the furthest star? That would prove Genesis Chapter One correct.

If that's your criterion for "proof", why wouldn't it "prove" any number of creation myths? Certainly, there are many where the Universe starts out as water and everything else is created within that.

Chris wrote: In any case, astronomically, there isn't the slightest evidence that there is such a thing as "the furthest star", so the matter is unlikely to be put to that test.

Loco wrote:Genesis seems to be the foundation for all other creation myths .. Abram coming from Ur.

Chris wrote: In any case, astronomically, there isn't the slightest evidence that there is such a thing as "the furthest star", so the matter is unlikely to be put to that test.

Unless the universe is infinite, which is not likely as even Big Bangers point to a start point .. and if there is a start then there is a finish, and if there is a finish there is a furthest star.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Loco wrote:Genesis seems to be the foundation for all other creation myths .. Abram coming from Ur.

That's amusing. There are cultures all over the world that have never been exposed to the Judaic creation myth. Look at some of the native North American cultures and their creation stories.

Chris wrote: In any case, astronomically, there isn't the slightest evidence that there is such a thing as "the furthest star", so the matter is unlikely to be put to that test.

Unless the universe is infinite, which is not likely as even Big Bangers point to a start point .. and if there is a start then there is a finish, and if there is a finish there is a furthest star.

It is as likely that the Universe is infinite as otherwise. At this point, nobody knows. But even a finite Universe does not need a furthest star. In fact, the most common model of the Universe makes such an idea meaningless. The situation is further confounded by the fact that there are certainly stars which are outside the observable universe, so there will naturally be water beyond the farthest stars we might be able to see. When we see outwards, we see backwards. Eventually we see so far back that stars haven't formed yet. But there are other parts of the Universe that we can't see.

Loco wrote:We weren't talking about the "observable universe" we were talking about the universe, the physical reality, in which there has to be a farthest star from the centre unless there are multiple farthest stars.

Ah .. but what if they discovered water beyond the furthest star?

Chris Peterson wrote:In the Universe as a whole, there does not need to be a furthest star in the sense you intended, either because the Universe is infinite, or because beyond the "furthest" star you actually start getting closer again.

neufer wrote:You DO know that you will go quite mad arguing with Loco/aristarchusinexile/sputnik.

Chris Peterson wrote:

neufer wrote:You DO know that you will go quite mad arguing with Loco/aristarchusinexile/sputnik.

Unless I drive him mad first. Oh... wait, hmmmm.

Genesis Mission's Hard Impact

Explanation: A flying saucer from outer space crash-landed in the Utah desert in 2004 after being tracked by radar and chased by helicopters. No space aliens were involved, however. The saucer, pictured above, was the Genesis sample return capsule, part of a human-made robot Genesis spaceship launched in 2001 by NASA itself to study the Sun. The unexpectedly hard landing at over 300 kilometers per hour occurred because the parachutes did not open as planned. The Genesis mission had been orbiting the Sun collecting solar wind particles that are usually deflected away by Earth's magnetic field. Despite the crash landing, many return samples remained in good enough condition to analyze and research is ongoing. So far, discoveries include new details about the composition of the Sun and the effects of the solar wind on unprotected material.