Mars Landing Successful
By Nicole Belle Sunday May 25, 2008 1:00pm'cause I've been a NASA geek since I was a kid...
A NASA spacecraft has sent pictures showing itself in good condition after making the first successful landing in a polar region of Mars.
The images from NASA's Mars Phoenix Lander also provided a glimpse of the flat valley floor expected to have water-rich permafrost within reach of the lander's robotic arm. The landing ends a 422-million-mile journey from Earth and begins a three-month mission that will use instruments to taste and sniff the northern polar site's soil and ice.
"We see the lack of rocks that we expected, we see the polygons that we saw from space, we don't see ice on the surface, but we think we will see it beneath the surface. It looks great to me," said Peter Smith of the University of Arizona, Tucson, principal investigator for the Phoenix mission.[..]
"Seeing these images after a successful landing reaffirmed the thorough work over the past five years by a great team," said Phoenix Project Manager Barry Goldstein of JPL. A key milestone still ahead is the first use of the lander's 7.7-foot-long robotic arm, not planned before Tuesday.
"Only five of our planet's 11 previous attempts to land on the Red Planet have succeeded. In exploring the universe, we accept some risk in exchange for the potential of great scientific rewards," said Ed Weiler, NASA associate administrator for the Science Mission Directorate, Washington.
Phoenix carries science instruments to assess whether ice just below the surface ever thaws and whether some chemical ingredients of life are preserved in the icy soil. These are key questions in evaluating whether the environment has ever been favorable for microbial life. Phoenix will also study other aspects of the soil and atmosphere with instrument capabilities never before used on Mars. Canada supplied the lander's weather station.
Login or Register to post comments.
Where? In an Arizona desert?
Neat and all but... how much money did we spend on this?
It's like David Cross said... we're gonna put a man on Mars.. great.. how about putting a man in an apartment?
Fuk Li knows his stuff!!
We can land Rovers on Mars and send Scientific Digging apparatus to the surface of Mars.
We can send Scientific measuring devices to not only anywhere in our Solar System, but clear out into deep space. We have taken close up pictures of Jupiter and the Rings of Saturn.
Keeping that in mind, why the hell can't we come up with a way to NOT use fossil fuels?
As to costs, a diaraist on Kos reports that the total cost of the probe, including getting it there, amounts to a 3-day expenditure in Iraq.
I guess Nicole and I are about the same. I think this is fantastic! Finally, something that actually worked! I even went to the NASA website and viewed the landing video. Great stuff!
NASA -
the National American Surveillance Administration.
If we were to believe the religious fanatic republithugs; then the Earth is only 6000 years old and "heaven" is above the clouds. So apparently the planet Mars doesn't really even exist; if we use bushian "soundscience".
Wow, talk about serendipity
Just last week I got my mailed copy of Orson Welles's War of the Worlds.
If anyone is interested, several videos are at the NASA TV site (link below). My personal favorite is the Phoenix Landing: Nerves and Joy video on the right hand side. You might have to update your quicktime though as I had to do to watch it.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/main/index.html
Here's my comment from another board on the topic where there were a few too many "let's save the Earth first before we explore space":
"Great, more comments on 'let's save the Earth first before going to space'.
Point #1: Money spent on space equals about 0.7% of the budget of the US. NASA gets about $16 billion a year. The Iraq War has cost about $500 billion. There are larger priorities here.
Point #2: NASA technology allows us to improve life here. Prime example: poor countries with small budgets that have problems with malaria are allowed to use NASA's resources to pinpoint where mosquitoes are most likely to breed and wipe them out before they can spread the disease. Without the technology they wouldn't have the budget to do so and countless people would die.
NASA saves lives."
Thank you Wanderer for this as well:
"As to costs, a diaraist on Kos reports that the total cost of the probe, including getting it there, amounts to a 3-day expenditure in Iraq."
That's exactly right.
And what was the cost to us taxpayers for sending this(the seventh) probe
to Mars? Don't we have a need for a better way to spend our monies than to
once again visit a dead planet???
Joe O. @ 6:
Most thinking people appreciate the significance of this really fantastic feat. I also went to the site and was actually on the mission site when they announced live that they had succeeded.
BangkokBob@13: I'd much prefer to have a spy satalite flying over Iraq and
giving me live pictures of what is going on; rather than relying upon the Pentagon
and Defense Dept. telling me how successful the Surge is working.
Good thing "Heckof a job Brownie" isn't at NASA.
As far as commenting on the need for this, I'll just add my 2 cents and say I hope this doesn't lead to weaponization of space.
For the amount of money being spent on Iraq, you could start on the martian amusement park, already in progress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Martian_face_viking_cropped.jpg
Fellow NASA nerds unite. I remember getting free pictures from NASA as a kid of the Apollo missions and following along as we made our way to the moon (or Arizona). I wonder how many people those pictures inspired to put a little bit of science (and mystery!) into their lives? One for sure.
Considering the Pentagon can't account for $15 billion dollars of Eye-rack money, we could be funding NASA for a year on just what's been grifted so far. It's all in the perspective.
Besides, it's high time we start letting those Martians know who controls the solar system. Godless heathens.
I was lucky enough to see Apollo 11 on pad 39A one month before liftoff. Those were heady days indeed. Probably our technological peak.
Too bad the MI complex is using all of this to watch us and weaponize the upper atmosphere. I used to respect the USAF until I realized what their real purpose was.
Different Anonymous @ 17:
If we'd kept the receipt for Bush we could ask for our money back and send him home.
Che's Lounge @ 18:
shame they never left low earth orbit.
I, for one, would much prefer my tax dollars be spent on expeditions like this than the grand little adventures in Iraq to kill brown people, or wasting money on missle defense , or virtual border patrols ,or better ways to spy on and control citizens, etc...Hell, if it wasn't for programs like this, the computer and internet would probably not even exist in the robust form they do today.
we want to know if it's a good enough place to relocate after we fuck up this planet.
Che's Lounge @ 18:
the first permanent thing on mars will be a military base.
The Phoenix landing is exciting! It's going to search for water and signs of life. We could be Martians--meaning Mars may have provided the seeds for life on Earth. Or we could move to Mars in about 30 years.
CoIntelPro for Democratic Party Victory @ 22:
We're running out of places on Earth to fuck up, so we need to expand the franchise.
fuk ya!!!!
WOW you people are depressing! If we can do this then why? Why can't we spend the money on other things? Why can't we use all that brain power on other things? whaaaaa!!!! Any money spent by this government on pure science is money well spent. Shut up and whine about money spent in Iraq, giving oil subsidies, political ads, tax breaks for billionaires. NASA is doing OK.
Doggiebobo @ 12:
go look at the L257 pictures aka Burn's Cliff
We can land a probe on Mars but not find Osama bin Laden?
Alrighty, then!
Considering how weird life on earth has become, Mars doesn't seem all that inhospitable.
I am in absolute awe of the people who collaborated on this project and accomplished this feat. At this point in my life, absent a calculator, I would struggle mightily to solve a long division problem.
Leslie [Hussein] @ 24:
Populations are never going to leave the Earth and travel through space, not without some novel form of propulsion tech and free energy.
The energy costs to get X weight into space is bad, then theres all the problems of life support and moving a to b and then stopping/ landing and habitat.
Yep I'm a space geek myself. I was having lunch Friday with one of the NASA engineers who is working on the replacement for the shuttle. He was talking about the massive budget cuts the bush administration have made to NASA's budget. Because of the budget cuts there is going to be a five year gap after the shuttle is retired and the new ship is ready. I asked him how our astronauts are going to get to the space station. We will be relying on the Russians to take us. THE RUSSIANS. Oh how my pride is hurt. Thanks bush et. al. for once again dropping our status as the best in science.
ferrofluid @ 28:
heres a good page to see the L257 pics in glorious false colour from JPL
hint; look at the 'things' perched on the corners of the boulders at the left side of the pic, rather snail or shellfish like !!!
the frozen liquid and flow in the crevices on the cliff side.
Going to Mars was worth it just for this photomozaic alone.
Well, I think it's pretty damn exciting, my own self. Well done, guys!
One more point to those who wail and gnash teeth about our spending money on this stuff ,which they say could be spent on better things, the Apollo program, 13 years at about 30 billion dollars at the time returned each dollar of tax investment on an average as $7 into the private sector. Technical spinoffs included the MRI and CAT scan, athletic shoes (Adidas and Nike modeled them after the moon boot), the all weather tire and the miniaturization of computer hardware and advances in software which helped make the PC possible among other things. In fact, every one of those items are STILL paying off 30 years later.
If we can get that kind of return on taxes, damn it, RAISE them, don't cut them! The benefits to stuff such as what NASA does isn't always immediately obvious.
♠Bangkok-Bob♠ @ 4:
Or find those WMDs or OBL...
this one prob better, esp the false colour TIF one, jpg is a bit fuzzy
Cornell Burns Cliff
I used to think that too much money was spent on NASA, despite my desire to learn more about our universe.
After watching the complete fraud of the Iraq debacle, I have come to think that NASA projects are a good use of tax dollars. Go figure.
Way to go NASA!!!
People need to realize that some space science is actually beneficial to mankind and Phoenix is just such a project. What they learn on Mars can help us better our understanding of global warming.
And if Phoenix can even find so much as an ancient fossilized microbe then people here on Earth who have been shackled to their idiotic and dangerous religious beliefs will be thrust quickly into the 21 century world of reason. Religions and supersticious thinking will lose their power over people and be religated to the dust-heap of history where they belong... I know, I know, wishful thinking, hey! one can only hope, right?!!!
Rick @ 40:
go look at the link in post #38
Wouldn't have missed it. Watched it live on NASA TV Real stream same as we did the previous Mars landing. People who don't see the advance of basic knowledge as intrinsically valuable should try living in a sod hut and spearing fish with a stick for survival. What we give to advance ourselves is such an insignificant cast-off of what we waste promoting destruction.
While we have already proven the technology exists that can land a craft on the mars and the moon, how much harder could it be in finding new alternatives sources of energy for a growing world population? priorities people. Nothing wrong with going to space, but how about doing something meaninful here on terra firma?
Andrew @ 43:
Chimpy & co could have spent $500 billion on R&D in new energy sources back in 2002,
alas they didnt, instead they gave the borrowed and stolen money to their friends, and themselves indirectly.
gempei @ 16:
It would be cool to strap on wings, air supply, and fly like an angel in the low gravity and check that giant homo-erectus-ish face out.
♠Bangkok-Bob♠ @ 4:
We can land Rovers on Mars and send Scientific Digging apparatus to the surface of Mars.
We can send Scientific measuring devices to not only anywhere in our Solar System, but clear out into deep space. We have taken close up pictures of Jupiter and the Rings of Saturn.
Keeping that in mind, why the hell can’t we come up with a way to NOT use fossil fuels?
That's due to the fact that the big oil corperations are determined to keep us paying for oil until they can find a way to make us pay through the nose for alternatives. It's how businesses work.
Did you know that Michael Collins navigated Apollo 11 to the moon using a slide rule?
I am once again amused at how equally science-ignorant "progressives" and reactionaries are. Some of y'all seem to think that developing a new source of energy is as simple as building the next generation of iPod. It isn't. Go look up the National Ignition Facility and see how hard we are working on fusion, for example. Of course, we do have a non-fossil fuel energy source, but most liberals faint dead away when nuclear energy is mentioned. And solar power sats? Oh, the beamed free energy might cook a snowy plover! Can't use the damn sun in a way that would radically cut our need for oil-burning power plants.
As far as the whole "Oh, we have problems here on Earth!" argument goes, NASA's annual budget is about $12 billion dollars. That's five dollars a person (roughly) in the US per year. Phoenix cost each American about $1.28. You give the next six homeless people you see a dollar each and you've done more good than killing NASA would do. And losing NASA would be a tremendous loss.
Just like the US...look for another planet to Fuck up. Al Gore.
Think of how much you just spent on that big screen tv while some people don't even have black and white televisions! Priorities, people. Priorities.
In exploring the universe, we accept some risk in exchange for the potential of great scientific rewards,” said Ed Weiler, NASA associate administrator for the Science Mission Directorate, Washington.
Fantastic! Only one thing though Ed you're not really out of the solar system yet so let's leave off the "exploring the iniverse" bragging.
Regarding new propulsion, here's the most promising technology so far:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VASIMR
With this we should be able to reduce travel times to Mars to about 2 months instead of the 6 or 7 it usually takes now.
Trucker Doug Says: I am once again amused at how equally science-ignorant “progressives” and reactionaries are. Some of y’all seem to think that developing a new source of energy is as simple as building the next generation of iPod. It isn’t. Go look up the National Ignition Facility and see how hard we are working on fusion, for example. Of course, we do have a non-fossil fuel energy source, but most liberals faint dead away when nuclear energy is mentioned. And solar power sats? Oh, the beamed free energy might cook a snowy plover! Can’t use the damn sun in a way that would radically cut our need for oil-burning power plants.
As far as the whole “Oh, we have problems here on Earth!” argument goes, NASA’s annual budget is about $12 billion dollars. That’s five dollars a person (roughly) in the US per year. Phoenix cost each American about $1.28. You give the next six homeless people you see a dollar each and you’ve done more good than killing NASA would do. And losing NASA would be a tremendous loss.
Sorry friend, but 4 billion a week just might be better spent in finding something to replace oil because it isn't going to be around forever. We had our first warning back in the 70's an dropped the ball. Advances in solar and wind can have a significant impact, but the department of energy needs an enema. The time is now to strat developing alternatives.
Che's Lounge @ 47:
No he didn't it.
they only made it to low earth orbit.
Trucker Doug says:
As far as the whole “Oh, we have problems here on Earth!” argument goes, NASA’s annual budget is about $12 billion dollars. That’s five dollars a person (roughly) in the US per year.
More like forty dollars a person (roughly) in the US per year. Still, money well spent.
NASA is great, they have shit landing on other planets and flying all over the solar system and beyond from 25 years ago.....how about hiring them to make a better car...
jes' thinkin' out loud
ferrofluid @ 38:
That's AWESOME!
Pretty cool. That's 3 landers active on the surface and two orbiters (three if you count europe). Another rover may go up in 2009 or 2010, called the MSL. The largest one yet. Then again it might get cut. Right now they are trying to figure out the budget for mars missions what with the return to the moon costs and the building of two new rockets to replace the space shuttle.
Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have my tax dollars spent on this than in Iraq, but saying it's the same as three days cost of the war doesn't exactly make it cheap, not when we're spending five thousand dollars every second.
As someone who makes barely more than minimum wage and has no health insurance I just find it kind of decadent to send a rover to Mars. I tripped and fell getting on the bus the other day and hurt my leg. Since I can't afford to go to the doctor because my country does not think health care is my right, I've been spending the last few days limping around work, hoping it's not serious and it will get better. So yeah, I think I do have a right to complain about my tax money going to Mars. Or Iraq. Or anywhere that doesn't actually help the people in this country who need it the most.
And while you were spending those couple dollars on your fancy bus ride, some poor child in Africa died because his parents couldn't afford the couple dollars for a vaccine.
Why don't you walk to work, limp and all, and donate that money to the people on this planet who need it the most?
Why is the US going to another planet when they haven't finished fucking this one?
Icelander @ 60:
Because I have to survive. I don't see your point. If you even have one.
C'mon guys, take it easy. Maybe Osama is on Mars.
Seriously, I love the space program. Its one of the last remaining projects based on our dreams rather than our fears.
If the US does find life on Mars, how long will it take you to kill it and steal its oil?
Login or Register to post comments.