Slashdot Mirror
NASA Rolls Out Mars Mission Plans
An Anonymous Coward writes: "MSNBC is reporting NASA's plan for the next Mars mission: either a single rover or a team of two rovers to be sent to the red planet in 2003. I'm glad to see that the government hasn't lost faith in NASA despite the recent setbacks with their Mars program."
After all those spacecraft were lobbed at Mars at a high speed, it should have been pushed closer to Earth by now.
Nothing more exciting than going back. The Pathfinder mission was certainly a PR success. Perhaps a couple more like that and we can look forward to some commercial ventures spurred on by the marketing people of the world. Get your Mars Happy Meals right here. Doesn't bother me as long as we go! I have been waiting for more exploration of the red planet for three years and now it seems like we may get our wish. I can't wait for the new findings on more water. More marketing...Evian Martian Blast!
----------
Twisted Little Gnome - The Podcasting Network http://www.twistedlittlegnome.com
of spending so much money looking at Mars. Why don't we just rerun the movie until everyone is sick of the whole thing, then focus on some of the real issues, like why we need so many cars?
My blog
sorry, i should go on one for spelling
.sig (insert funny sig here)
Also see this BBC News article!
Isn't this the kind of thinking that got them in trouble before?
Pity, thought they might be sending people. Hopefully they won't lose contact with their vehicles before anything comes back from them
...it's not like it's their money that's getting spent.
The agency reportedly was operating under a self-imposed deadline of Aug. 1 for determining the shape of the 2003 probe.
They current favourite within nasa is rumoured to be a 8 inch clear plastic cube with shiny bits inside. The metallicity of it gives it the edge over the previous revision which resembled a blue amorphous blob.
A nasa spokeswoman commented "We want to make the probe as ergonomic and easy to use as possible. It really will be as simple as plugging it in and pressing the launch button"
In an attempt to steal nasa's glory, microsoft today announced they would revive their own space program.. cancelled in the early nineties after their inability to run a craft for more than two hours without a catastrophic crash.
I'm glad to see that the government hasn't lost faith in NASA despite the recent setbacks with their Mars program." /. to start spreading fud about nasa.
99% of nasa missions are succesful. just because media blows up those 1% unsuccesful missions doesnt mean that us govermant should shut down nasa. i really didnt except
-- http://electronicintifada.net --
i don't see a family saloon car making it all the way to mars.
Still, I'm glad to see them doing something. It's depressing to think that after all this time, Mars is still such a pipe dream. As a child, I was expecting men to walk on Mars by now; I was hoping Gloria Steinem would get to bitch, "Mars needs women!"
2003. Airbags. Roll a half-mile. Sigh.
....
....
--Hey Doctor Jones! No time for love!
If it doesn't fit, use a bigger hammer...
I'm glad we're hurling more objects at Mars and all, but I'm amazed at the slowness with which we're exploring everyone's favourite big red bouncy ball. After all, it's been nearly a third of a century since we first put men on the moon, and yet that's as far as we've sent humans and, what's worse, we haven't even hurled very many probes out to our planetary neighbours. What's the total number? Not many...
It honestly makes me wish there were still a space race going on; at least then we'd still be actively involved in space exploration. Instead of space exploration NASA spends most of its time trying to convince pointy-headed bureaucrats and politicians to give it enough money to survive. Despite recent successes--and failures--it really seems like NASA is suffering a slow and excruciating death by underfunding; a sad state of affairs for a space exploration program which built up such momentum way back in the Kennedy administration.
Think of how many pivotal moments NASA has given us in the twentieth century. Nipping at the heels of the Soviets with our first man in space, and totally outdoing them with the moon landing (my grandparents shot a Polaroid of the television screen the moment Armstrong set foot on the moon); the gripping drama and ultimate redemption of Apollo 13; the public amazement when the Space Shuttles, like the spacefaring planes of science fiction, flew for the first time; the emotional Challenger disaster and the ensuing investigation; the colorful Pathfinder images that captivated the public for weeks. Just about every American can remember at least one of these things, and see it as an important event we'll always remember. Personally, I'll never forget my elementary school teacher hearing about it on her radio and taking the whole class to the school library to watch the live coverage following the Challenger disaster.
But instead of great moments like these, we can look forward to much smaller events and less publicly enthralling ones. Quite sad, when our government spends $3 *T*rillion a year, that we "don't have the money" to explore space as vigorously as we did in the first decades of the space program. I'm beginning to think that we'll never see a manned mission to Mars in my lifetime, at this rateand before anyone complains about high expenditures for small returns, remember that there's always been more to the space program (til recently) than just scientific data. There's been national pride for Americans, and more general pride in the accomplishments of mankind; there's been old-fashioned adventure, space really being the final frontier, the last place man hasn't set foot; space *travel*, actual exploration by humans, is what fascinated us, not data from a probe. The budget of the NSA alone would probably be enough to keep sending men further into space for some time, maybe even enough to start planning a lengthy manned Mars mission. But instead we spend it on Echelon and corporate espionage. It's disappointing to say the least. I don't think, short of provably finding extraterrestrial microbes with one of its landers, there's anything NASA can do to captivate the public interest and spark public excitement any more. Nothing that can be done with a mere probe can top the Pathfinder images, except for finding Martian or Ionian or Europan life. But, here's hoping...
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
C.
I sometimes write stuff
Land directly on the surface using a booster? Haven't you ever played XLander? It's damn near impossible unless you are a mathematical prodigy with unusual dexterity.
It's hella easier to just pad the thing you're going to throw and point it in the general direction of Mars. In any case, it's exactly what the last probe did and it worked fine.
--
Give us our karma back! Punish Karma Whores through meta-mod!
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Is it just me, or has everyone lost faith in NASA? I mean, in the last 15 years we've had the Challenger disaster (more of a government coverup than a real disaster--they don't want you to know that it was off it's flight path and on a collision course with Miami), the Hubble Telescope which sat out there doing nothing for four years, the Mars probes that were suddenly lost, and the two year behind schedule International Space Station. Oh yeah, and there was the tadpoles in space project, too. Trust me, I'm the last guy that would like to see cut throat corporations take over the space industry, but if that's the only way that we'll make any progress, I'm all for it.
We should have had a colony on the Moon by 1980. We could have been to Mars by now.
Come on, NASA.
Not so much in terms of economics (a space elevator would make space travel vastly more feasable from an economic viewpoint), but in terms of public perception. Sure, we've put men on the moon, but the moon is still pretty much part of the Earth from a perception point of view - after all you can see it in space every night with your very own eyes.
But Mars is definitely out there. Putting people on Mars would be an acheivement with some real impact on public perception of the space industry - people are in general bored with Shuttle launches, but look at the attention that has been paid to the Mars missions recently.
Given that the technology to colonise Mars (and indeed other places in the solar system) is there it is only the will to do so that is lacking. People on Mars would make manned space travel an issue to the public again, and once something becomes an issue, governments tend to want to look good about it. And if one country does it, you can bet they'll all want to do it.
Here's hoping for a manned Mars mission soon!
Remember that last really successful mars mission? (Pathfinder, I think it was called.) THAT was dropped on mars by the "Airbag device."
It was done before, and it's a LOT cheaper than, say, retro-rockets. (No oceans on mars, no runways, and the atmosphere's so thin... gotta have SOMETHING to stop with)
Although I have the utmost respect for NASA and it's accomplishments, maybe it's time for somthing new. Ever since the Apollo program funding for space exploration has steadily decreased. NASA's crowning achievement (the shuttle) is old technology. Maybe it's time for a new way of doing things? We are already seeing signs of privatization in the space industry, and i'm not just talking about Mir being used as a space hotel for tourists. Projects like the Xprize could lead to a new era in space travel. The first is bbeing prize is given for simply getting into space. But future prizes could be awarded for say the first team to return a sample from Mars. Just my 2cents but I definetly think space travel should move away from Government organizations...
People are always complaining, "Wah wah, why waste money on [insert interesting pastime here] when there are starving/cold/rusty/disenfranchised/boring/whateve r [insert poor beset-upon sector here] people in [wherever]. Blech. No one starves here in America by necessity. There are always jobs, if you want them. There are plenty of handouts--err, "assistance programs"--as it is, too, so there's no substantial complaint to be made that government doesn't already do enough to support people. So, why not take some of that pork-barrel BS that subsidizes corporate America, or cut some of the bloat and cruft of our bureaucracies, or take some of that NSA money [one Senate member called the classified spending figure "bigger than the Gross Demestic Products of almost all the countries we monitor, combined"], and give Americans something to be proud of? For decades NASA and its far-reaching programs were a source of both national pride and pride in man's accomplishments. Now, what do Americans have to be proud of? The universality of McDonalds? The fact that almost every other country either openly hates us or sniggers behind our backs? The fact that Bill Gates has much more money than NASA does?
All I said is that our space exploration used to be a national pastime, providing many high points in the first decades of our space program. It was something all Americans, and all people, could be proud of. And, I said that we're not going to get any more of that unifying magic out of the space program, if all we do is throw more hunks of metal at Mars and the Jovian moons. So don't give me any of that bleeding heart crap about how the resources should go elsewhere, since most Americans think our government needs to cut back most of its spending on bureaucracy and mismanagement anyway. At least when NASA had a decent budget, they did amazing things that inspired people--you can't say that about the welfare system, corporate tax breaks, bureaucracies which cost ~75% of our tax dollars to manage the other ~25% that actually gets spent on something other than bureaucrats' salaries, etc.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
i am not entirely sure about this figure, but last i remember nasa's yearly budget was around 5 billion. that is really pathetic. when the soviets were in this race the US people loved the fact that the US could keep up and that we hit the moon first. now it is pretty much the US ... no competition ... no funding. unless china steps up its space mission or the soviets get back in the race, nasa isn't going to have its funding. the american people have less of a problem spending 5 billion on a nuclear submarine than a year for nasa to operate. i can't count how many times i have heard people bitch about the fact that nasa even gets what little they do. i guess education would help as well, but most americans are too content with their limited knowledge. contention is the root of stupidity!
The whole benefit from Apollo wasn't the moon rocks we brought back; it's what we learned in the process of sending people there. It's a shame, but if history is any guide, we're not going to seriously try until some other country looks like it's going to do it. With no Soviet Union, we may be waiting a while.
Don't get me wrong, I would be totally pumped if we had a manned mission to Mars (or better yet, a Mars Station).
But I don't know if that would get the public all that excited. Back in 1969 the general public was pretty thrilled to see live pictures from the surface of the moon. But today most everybody has seen Star Wars, Star Trek, and a billion other SF shows and movies--they are going to need to see more than a man in a spacesuit jumping over some red rocks to get them excited.
What we really need is a Mission (with a capital M). In the 60's this was Beat The Reds To The Moon. "Do it for science" is never going to be capitalized for Joe Schmoe. We need something like Mars Has Gold or Mars Has Life or whatever.
The only (halfway valid) "cause" I can think of off the top of my head is The Asteroids Have Precious Metals And Mars Is Nearby. But that Mission requires more than a trip to Mars--it requires space-mining (a so-far fictional activity) and scheduled regular trips out to the asteroid belt (not cheap).
--
Give us our karma back! Punish Karma Whores through meta-mod!
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
"But instead we spend it on Echelon and corporate espionage."
2 .html
Nope, instead we spend it on:
(In order of size, largest to smallest)
Social Security
Defense
"Discretionary" - (I dunno, NSA, junkets, interns, cigars, etc...)
Medicare
Interest
Medicaid
Smaller entitlement programs
Other Mandatory costs
Not opinion, but fact. See below..
http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2001/guide0
There are actually breakdowns by spending types and whatnot.
Please remember, that the information presented there, is from the President's office. Most data is correct, with a little "fine tuning".
The news item notes that NASA wants to send two landers to reduce the risk of mission failure, but is facing resistance from the White House:
And it's not just the White House. Congress is taking a dim view of NASA's budgets as well:
This is obviously why NASA announced they are considering "one or two" landers.
So write your congress critters. Tell them what you think about their budget priorities in an age of government tax surpluses. Tell them you want to vacation on Mars, and you'll send them straight to Io if they don't help you get there!
"Even if you are on the right track, you'll
get run over if you just sit there." Will Rogers
"Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there" - Will Rogers
screw education or law enforcement or healthcare, we need 10 billion dollars to throw into a pile then blow up.
You know they don't have any real rockets, they just pocket the billion dollars, then throw a missile casing full of pinball machine parts into space and blow it up, then say "oops"
waste of money, I can't believe people still buy into that crap.
I think the better termage is pulled. With more mass added, Mars would be actually pulled toward the Sun a little more... (granted, a little rover isn't much mass... altogether we've probably only planted less than 50 Earth pounds on Mars, if even)
Probably only a slight fraction of a micrometer closer, of course!
Then again, since we on Earth lost that mass, we probably moved a slight fraction of a micrometer farther from the sun!
What we do need is a space elevator. However, not the kind that you see in books (I can't remember the book it was in, I think it was a Clarke one... also reference Kim Robinson's Red Mars).
It needs to have a terminal in space, sufficiently radiation shielded, like in the book, and also sufficient thrust to get back up into orbit. However, don't anchor the Earth terminal, leave it free floating, as a platform.
I'm not much of a scientist, so I don't know how good the balancing effects are for a spacebound end, if it would be able to keep the Earthbound end floating freely or if the Earthbound part would drag the whole thing down. Maybe anchoring is a good idea, I don't know.
Why not send a fleet of rovers? If one costs 250 million, two would be much cheaper to build, three even cheaper, etc. Why not make a production line for these things instead of custom building each one. Also, it'll be another 3 or 4 years before Mars will be aligned with Earth again to send out more rovers. They should get their roving out of their system by covering Mars with rovers and then in 3 or 4 more years they could send humans. As it's going, they send one rover every 3 or 4 years then it'll be year 3000 before they send humans. And what with the Y3K bug...
It needs to have a terminal in space, sufficiently radiation shielded, like in the book, and also sufficient thrust to get back up into orbit. However, don't anchor the Earth terminal, leave it free floating, as a platform.
I didn't think that the cables in the Mars books were fixed to the ground - they sort of floated in a fixed jacket or something.
I'm not much of a scientist, so I don't know how good the balancing effects are for a spacebound end, if it would be able to keep the Earthbound end floating freely or if the Earthbound part would drag the whole thing down.
I doubt they'd make it if it was going to fall down... :) It should be kept up by its rotational motion - centrifugal forces...
In other words. . .
MARS NEEDS WOMEN!!!!
I'll dive for cover now. . . (g)
I was born in Cocoa Beach, my father worked on the Saturn V then. He left and is now reciently back working on the shuttle as a reliability and quality control engineer at the Cape. Listening to his accounts of NASA corporate culture and the decision-making process it is apparent little has changed since Feynman's account of the last shuttle tradegy.
It is my opinion that NASA retards our nation's space exploration needs more than it champions them.
I want to see us go to Mars. Colonizing other planets is necessary for our species long-term survival. But NASA is squandering resources and wasting time.
The change in orbit due to mass would be greater on earth since the fuelled rocket + rover(s) would have a significantly larger mass than that of the rover(s). Some parts of the rocket and some of the spent fuel (water + carbon dioxide) would not fall back to earth, therefore disrupting earths orbit moving it further away from the sun than mars would move away from the sun.
Also momentum must be conserve. As the earth will be accelerated away from mars by the launch, mars must be accelerated towards the sun in order to conserve momentum. But as the planets orbit the sun the small velocity will be only in a constant direction therefore not plunging ether of them in to the sun
(I think, maybe?)
.sig (insert funny sig here)
Please read this FAQ:
Mikes Space Settlement FAQ
Here is an excerpt:
How is space settlement different from any of the other space colonization proposals?
Most thinking regarding human expansion into space has focused on the settling of the surfaces of other planets, sometimes after modifying their environments to make them more Earth-like (called terraforming). The space settlement concept maintains that planets are not the most ideal location for human colonies beyond the Earth.
Who developed the space settlement concept?
Principally, Gerard K. O'Neill (1927-1992), who was a physicist with Princeton University's Institute for Advanced Study. Prior to popularizing space development, O'Neill was well known as a researcher in high-energy physics, and as the inventor of the colliding-beam storage ring, an innovation now standard on most particle accelerators.
What are the origins of the space settlement concept?
In 1969, O'Neill was teaching a physics course at Princeton. America was engaged in the Apollo effort, so O'Neill was working space travel into many of the physics problems assigned.
He was concerned about the persistent talk among academics regarding overpopulation and "limits to growth". He was also dismayed by many young people's resigned acceptance of two concepts he personally found repugnant. One was future totalitarian control over the use of resources, the other was that a decline in the standard of living was inevitable. One day he asked his students the following question: Is the surface of the Earth really the best place for an expanding, technological civilization? After some calculation, the answer seemed to be "no".
wow ... like i have always said "religion breeds ignorance". in todays world the idea that people still believe in god is appaling. how can you possibly .... you know what .... never mind!
What is the feasibility of constructing a Mars-going manned vessel within, say, 10 years? Would utilizing the ISS as a construction platform help this at all?
Thank you.
4920616D206E6F7420656C6974652E
Email me.
+++ATH0
There is anti-rationalist Christianity and there is rational Christianity. Don't take the views of the anti-rationalists (like the guy above) for the rest of us.
Faith is orthogonal to reason. One can believe or not believe and be rational or non-rational completely independantly. Belief that Science and reason tell you all there is to know about what there is or belief that there is nothing outside of what Science can measure is as much a statement of Faith as is Christianity.
--
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
The problem with space exploration is that we value human life too much. How many thousands of sailors died on the trip from Europe to the new world? (please understand, I do value human life, I just think sacrifices for mankind should not be in vain. Exploration is not a vain purpose.)
To stay on topic over 36,000 people die of gunshot wounds in the U.S. every year. We CAN do something about that (but we don't). Yet one death for exploration purposes is a waste?
Joe Stalin (Russian Dictator WWII) said this once, "a million men deaths is a statistic, one mans death is a tragedy" While I'm not a fan of Stalin by any means, he was killed more people than Hitler , that quote (which may not be word for word) i think sums up our preception of one person dying. You think of all the media attention in the recent school shotings, yet 10 people under the age of 18 die every day from guns in america. We don't report them on national news. (this was posted on cnn in the last 2-3 weeks)
Governments didn't organize the exploration of the new world 500 years ago, it was business/entrapeneurs (sp?), with government help. If businesses begin to finance exporation again then we will make progress. If not, then by the time I'm 100 (78 years from now) we will probably only have landed enough probes on Mars to be counted on by my then frail two hands. Lets go private people.
--a mind is like a parachute, it only functions when open
Here's a list of all space news sites talking about this story. Compare and contrast the coverage.
Astronomy NowBBC News
CNN Space
MSNBC
Space Chronicle
Space Online
SpaceDaily
SpaceViews
And, of course, my own at Universe Today
Fraser CainPublisher, Universe Today - http://www.universetoday.com
Unfortunately, it has also been *proven* to work, courtesy of the Mars Pathfinder. An easier, simpler, less complicated method has not been found, yet, unfortunately. It does separate nicely the dual problems of landing and positioning; you can land anywhere, and let the rover take care of itself in trying to get where it needs to be.
It would be interesting to see if instead one could create an atmospheric entry craft that actually 'flew' through the atmosphere, and when it was flying in the right direction and the right velocity, drop the parachute, then the airbags. That may give us more control, at the expense of even more complexity.
Perhaps if we could build a helicopter into the craft; parachute to the proper velocity, then heli to the right spot?
Still, this is the best we have, currently
Bye!
GPL Deconstructed
With the sentiment that space travel should move away from Government organizations; I would concede that space travel should not be only the domain of the Government, but the reason the gov't should be involved is because they really don't have an ulterior motive like profit($$) or market domination.
Rather, they have science, progress, knowledge, and achievement as their goals, and they serve the best interests of the public, since the public happens to be their shareholders.
Microsoft Space would not be going to Mars unless they could make money; if there were production capabilities that space provided, they would use the moon or a space station in geosynch orbit. If they needed materials, they would use the moon probably, and not go as far as mars. AOL space would do it for the networking infrastructure, the satellites, the communications research maybe, but again, not for science, or research, or knowledge.
There are still places where public interest should be served. Not just profit.
Bye!
GPL Deconstructed
i am sorry, but i can't just sit by and listen to this. throughout history god has been around for one reason and one reason only ... to explain what we can't figure out ... YET! as science explains some phenomena .... the earth rotating around the sun comes to mind ... god is proven wrong or non existant(i can keep listing numerous occasions ... but you know what, i am sure you have heard them all but your 'blind' faith just looks past it). there is one thing left for mankind to prove to completely disasociate god from our lives .... how life initialy sparked into existance. when scientist make 'life' ... god is no longer needed. at that point religious freaks will have one last thing to fall back on ... the unanswerable question ,"Why am I here?" ....
faster, better, cheaper...
whether it's concorde maintenance or large aerospace projects, this mantra should be examined for it's validity before more lives or large projects are wasted.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
One thing I forgot to mention is that not all vehicles are launched on the side of Earth pointing directly at the destination. Also, not all vehicles are launched straight toward the destination's current position. In the case of Mars, let's say it takes 6 months for a vehicle to get there. In that 9 months, mars will have moved quite a distance.
Quite frequently, vehicles are launched on the opposite side of the planet as is directly pointing at the destination (whether the planet is on our side of the sun or away from our side is another matter to take into effect also!) They use the slingshot around half of Earth to gain cheap momentum, so we don't necessarily move closer to Mars... we could move closer to the sun, if that's the case of a particular launch!
All in all, our movement, and Mars's movement influenced by vehicle launches are not even noticeable, even after 1000 years of launches.
hmmm ... lets think ... where does it say? well, my wording may not be precise, nor the exact verse but here goes ..... genesis: the sun and the moon will know its time. now, one can argue that god wasn't to be taken litteraly, but that just says a lot about your wonderful god. fine, let me quote a better passage from the bible for all you fanatics. god told abraham that he was to sacrifice the best of his herd as well as the best of his farm vegatation ... am i wrong? didn't think so. further down ... god changes his mind???? what was that? did the omnicient god find fault in his all know all seeing rules? how can this be? all of a sudden the jews are not follow this law anymore .... and actually there were many more that god just decided were 'no longer necessary'. now, christians jews and muslims all share the old testament ... and are all bullshit religions. if you want to continue this argument i find nothing more exilerating than arguing with the ignorant. ttfn
Sending robots to excavate a base near water deposits on the moon, send a few scientists over to do what they're good at and we'd have something a lot of people would identify with, and would be a stepping stone to further things
I understand its interesting to learn more about Mars, important to figure out whether there used to be any life around (although prospects on icy Europa seem much better) - but mission failures to that planet are still frequent and each time something fails nasty budget questions are asked that cut not only into what NASA can do but also the extent to which many of us live along with them.
Don't get me wrong, my linux desktop is the red planet and it inspires me in my mundane tasks, and sometimes I can just stare at it for a while. Fact is though that the moon is a lot closer and mars isnt exactly hospitable either.
Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
I wonder what would happen if they just announced that they would be having certain missions. Then, the pressure would be on the White House & Congress to deny the public their space missions.
NASA would sure make some enemies with me leading them...
Fsck this hard drive! Although it probably won't work...
foo = bar/*myPtr;
Check out Project Upper/Mute, an all-around awesome compiler fra
That's why we need to personally support the missile and space programs of countries like North Korea and Pakistan.
Grassroots activism is the only way to get what you want, politically.
Fsck this hard drive! Although it probably won't work...
foo = bar/*myPtr;
Check out Project Upper/Mute, an all-around awesome compiler fra
Grateful Dead's already done it...
It's evidently true that all the great aeronautical achievements took place over twenty years ago.
Fsck this hard drive! Although it probably won't work...
foo = bar/*myPtr;
Check out Project Upper/Mute, an all-around awesome compiler fra
He's got springs in his legs and a propeller in his head.
OK, I'm gonna stop making stupid posts now.
Fsck this hard drive! Although it probably won't work...
foo = bar/*myPtr;
Check out Project Upper/Mute, an all-around awesome compiler fra
Simple. Cars can be taxed. Taxes that can be spent on the space program.