Beaker wrote: 

Not a typo.  Dunsel is how transcript writers heard it, but I believe dunsail is the correct spelling (cf stunsail, pronounced "stuns'l")

 hobiejoe wrote: 
You can actually see them over land as well. We occasionally get them from the deck here with the sun setting over the peninsula. It has to be VERY dry though, and almost no surrounding clouds.

This is a cool picture too.

 

Anyone wanna take a swim in the Bahamas? We'll need a diving board.

 Zep wrote: 
Crikey, that is an extraordinary trajectory. I'd always imagined a somewhat more glider-like gentle descent.
 
And as for the "airglow", well... it's well known that in favourable conditions on an open sea a lucky sailor will see the "green flash" across the western horizon moments after the sun has set. Not seen one yet

 Zep wrote: 

I could write a sci-fi novel about that evil dark cloud in the upper right corner.

Very interesting picture.

 Zep wrote: 
very cool pic.

Atlantis returns to Earth, as seen from the International Space Station.  Details here. 

"The green band of light in the background is called "airglow." Airglow is a luminous bubble that surounds our entire planet, decorating the top of the atmosphere with aurora-like color. Although airglow resembles the aurora borealis, its underlying physics is different. Airglow is caused by an assortment of chemical reactions in the upper atmosphere driven mainly by solar ultraviolet radiation; auroras, on the other hand, are prompted by gusts of solar wind."
 

 justlistening wrote: 
All you trekheads out there (including the original) will of course remember the episode that broached the subject of whether humans were essential to space exploration, THE ULTIMATE COMPUTER.  Predictably, the plot involves demonstrating that computers are not fit to pilot star ships without humans.

My opinion is that, given the basic assumptions of the star trek series (a universe populated by numerous sentient life forms strewn about the galaxies), it probably would be impossible to avoid sending humans into space.  We've been sending diplomats across borders for millenia; it's hard to imagine that an advanced robotic computer might be developed that could replace humans in tact and judgement any time soon (maybe something like the replicants from Blade Runner?).  In terms of the need for humans to pilot exploration ships in the real universe, where for all intents and purposes we're the only sentient life around, Captain Kirk (or "Captain Dunsail", as Commodore Wesley calls Kirk) has, I believe, already been made obsolete.

 Xeric wrote: 
OK, but that's why we have guys like Richard Branson.  He can afford to spend extravagantly on manned spaceflight projects for romantic reasons!  We really can't.

 bokey wrote: 
Where do you see me advocating the above?  Wasting money comes in many forms, including fighting pointless wars.

The point is, sending human flesh into space is inefficient; we can employ contractors and generate economic growth by being smart about utilizing our space flight capability and produce much more meaningful "science" along the lines of projects like Pioneer, Voyager, Mariner, etc.  You get much more bang for your buck regarding advancing the frontiers of science and knowledge when you stop insisting on sending humans into space to evacuate their bowels and vomit in zero gravity.  Stagnating is what we basically have been doing with our inefficient approach to space exploration.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
The guy who's the head of the company is a former astronaut for NASA with a PHD in Science. Hope his technology works.

 GeneP59 wrote: 
Cool.
 
It says 2014 "or later" now...
 
I never looked up who Ad Astra was. I've seen the name and just skimmed over it. Things are still awesome up there. 

There was supposed to be a test fire of a new plasma engine on the Space Station next year and I never heard anything more about it. This new engine is suppose to knock 6 months off the trip to Mars down to  a 39-day mission to Mars. If this is feasible, the new technology will make going to Mars and further a return trip not a one way ride.

 Proclivities wrote:  Not to mention dust storms that blanket the planet and radiation due to lack of atmosphere. (got your continued reference though)

 Zep wrote:  
 "...in fact, it's cold as hell"  (That simile always bothered me - I thought hell is supposed to be hot.) 
I see your point about setting up an outpost or settlement; that'll probably happen someday.  I just figure picking the first guy could be a little troublesome.  You're probably right about a lot of the westward expansion people not expecting to come back - the same is probably true for many of the early trans-Atlantic sailors.

 Zep wrote: 
*pictures Kevin Costner making coffee for a little green man*

 Zep wrote: 
It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it. (Got your Rocket Man ref)

 Proclivities wrote: 
The mission would not be to strand the astronauts, but to give them enough resources to start a new outpost.  Humans have done this on faith for generations.  It's likely many who went west during the U.S. expansion thought very little about returning. 

Think too of the opportunity to start all over again, another common theme in history. 

Still, I get your point. 200 million miles is a lot of road.   And Mars ain't the kind of place to raise a kid. 

 GeneP59 wrote: 
Good point. Beer, Babes, Baseball ... no easy balancing act, that one. 
 

 justlistening wrote: 
Well, one might wonder as to the mental health of someone who is willing to travel 200 million miles to be stranded on some cold, little planet.  It's a little beyond what test pilots do.