6 New Mars Missions

Re:Short Sighted by Ektanoor · 2000-10-27 07:57 · Score: 3

Last year in a highly popular russian e-journal this poll was made:

Wanna live in Russia : 39%
Wanna live in the West : 21%

Well people hold your breath. The webmasters thought that two questions was not enough. So they thought, thougth, thought, thought and decided that a "funny question" would be enough:
"Ain't there another globe?"

And what you think? How many people choose this question? 39%!!!!!

The poll was used by nearly 50 000 users. It was a scandal that even several TV stations mentioned it in their news. There were even experts who commented it! A bomb. Nearly half-Russia is ready to get the Hell outta here at first chance. West? Noooooo. Mars, The Moon, Jupiter, Milky Way, Andromeda...

Re:NASA, please stop! by Ektanoor · 2000-10-27 05:32 · Score: 3

What you express here is mostly what stops Space Exploration. "Dispatch a nuke". Do you have some knowledge of rocketry? Nukes are suborbital engines! They are mostly designed for parabolic orbits and surely not for interplantary travel. Even SATAN, the scariest of Russian nukes had to be redesigned to carry orbital loads.
In this way, probably think 90% of your representatives and senators. Don't worry. Our Duma thinks the same way...

Your concern about billions of dollars is understandable. However I should note you that not going to Mars is a mistake. I have seen in detail nearly 40% of the surface of that rock and I tell you that we need to get there. No matter the cost. That is not a planet. No it is not what we may think of a planet, its evolution and nature. As an example: there is a place near Acidalia Planitia that shows a small valley with a depth nearly one kilometer. There are several things that tell that this valley was formed in a matter of minutes and I'm sure it was water that did it. I also tell you that this thing is really small. There are bigger and deeper valleys around. In fact that region is a mess of gigantic canyons crossing each other. In Mars there are several of them.
No knowledge we have today is able to explain such thing. It seems that something hit Mars and hit it badly. And hit it very recently. No it is not aliens or the forces of Pandora's Box. But it is something that ripped of a good chunk out of the planet, left it vibrating like mad, wiped its water and atmosphere. The most critical is that this thing is not so old as NASA tries to show.

And it is scary that it seems that this could be more than one blow in the History of this planet.

and it is even more scary that we Russians and you Americans can't manage to reach that planet in most cases. We send to every corner of the Solar System several probes. Only a few failed. But on Mars 80% of probes went into limbo in the most strange ways. It seems we are missing something but I wouldn't risk to say aliens. In their good minds they would avoid that place. Because there are things much more weird than Fussy Faces and Hoagland's mirages...

Like craters laying around an nearly oval mound. Like if something carefully choose to hit its base and sides. Only... All around the mound...

Re:Sending pathfinders to Mars by Mindwarp · 2000-10-27 02:58 · Score: 3

How about an even cheaper way to find out if a lander works: Land it on EARTH!!!

The primary reasons that I was thinking of the Moon rather than Earth was the fact that conditions here are radically different from Mars. Firstly, you're dealing with a soupy-thick atmosphere (well, compared to Mars and the Moon you are, anyway). Secondly, you're dealing with a relatively stable and narrow temperature range (again, compared to the temperatures that are experienced on Mars and the Moon). Thirdly, gravity is way higher here.

I was just thinking that the Moon would provide greater validity for the test than here.

As an aside, NASA already test their technologies on Earth before blasting them into the depths.

--

--
The gift of death metal does not smile on the good looking.

Re:How long is a Meter by Mindwarp · 2000-10-27 01:36 · Score: 3

NASA has some great ideas, and these robots will pave the way for more exploration, but when are we going to put a man on mars?

I see these missions as more of the 'ground work' necessary before putting a human on Mars rather than as an alternative to doing so. I am confident that mankind will one day walk on the surface of Mars. However, we must remember that a journey to Mars is radically more difficult than the journey to the moon. A journey time of months rather than days introduces hoards of new technical problems to solve (exposure to solar radiation, how to minimise bone-density loss, the enlargement of certain vital organs due to micro/zero gravity environment.) The International Space Station, coupled with the Russian experiences with Mir will hopefully help us to find solutions to these issues.

Of course, there is also the technical challenge of building a craft/lander large enough to sustain the human crew for the duration of the flight there and back, plus their stay on the Red Planet itself. We've experimented with sealed-system ecologies already, and those experiments have show us just how difficult it would be to balance such a closed system. I believe that considerably more research into technologies such as hydroponics are needed before we can think of providing the long-term support systems that a mission to Mars would require.

Heck when are we going to put a man back on the moon?

Personally I don't see any world government putting another person on the moon again. The first gargantuan effort was undertaken primarily for political reasons, and I don't believe that there is enough scientific justification for funding more manned moon missions. That doesn't mean that I don't believe that people wont once again walk on the surface of the moon though. I just don't think it'll happen until some corporation works out how to cost-effectively access the moon's mineral wealth.

--

--
The gift of death metal does not smile on the good looking.

Re:Who actually cares? by Stonehand · 2000-10-27 02:51 · Score: 3

Well, at some point, we should think about establishing a second colony. Right now, Earth is a single point of failure... and we can't rectify the situation without space research, including acceptance of risk.

--
Only the dead have seen the end of war.

How long is a Meter by cluge · 2000-10-27 01:24 · Score: 3

And before we begin ladies and gentleman an inch is 2.54 centimeters long, thus a meter is 39.37 inches, or 3.28 feet. Please remember this the when planning a SOFT landing on the red planet. Robots generally don't like high impact velocities.

NASA has some great ideas, and these robots will pave the way for more exploration, but when are we going to put a man on mars? Heck when are we going to put a man back on the moon?

--
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.

Re:How long is a Meter by HiyaPower · 2000-10-27 01:41 · Score: 3

Now if folks would only use the sensible English units of measure all of this mars stuff could have been pre-empted. But noooo, they have to use the French system of measurement sponsered by the French Revolution. Why the meter isn't even the correct sub-multiple of the distance from the pole to the equator that it was supposed to be. From here on, they should use only furlongs/fortnight for speed, stones per square ell for pressure, and other sensible units of measure... Now how much is that in old pence?

Re:i want to see some action by MousePotato · 2000-10-27 02:44 · Score: 3

Sadly, the previous budget cuts are partly to blame for the failures. In the past NASA used to design/build/launch missions as pairs ala Voyager, Pioneer and the all to pertinent Viking. It has been a long time since the budget allowed them the luxury of building and launching 2 of everything (albeit usually months apart etc). The twin mission sets provided for redundancy in the best possible cases: the cost is about 1.5 times the cost of building a single project, improvements in the design/build process benefit the prgoram, if one fails you still have the second not too far behind. I think the psycological value of this is better in the case of the sheeples too:One failure and one success on the same mission type makes it a bit easier to downplay the failure with all the wonderful data you get from the success.

--
Prospecting Stinks. Stop Wasting Time on Cold Calling.

30 years ago... by doorbot.com · 2000-10-27 01:52 · Score: 3

We could have a colony on Mars right now. Not a massive metropolis, but something similar to SkyLab. It would have taken 30 years back in the 60s, but it was possible. It's over 30 years later an no station on Mars. Now we're considering missions to Mars at phenomenal costs.

The system was essentially a flower with the Earth at the center and Mars at the end of the "petals." You'd have under 10 petals, each representing the path a space craft would take to meet Mars in it's orbit. The shuttles would provide supplies and transport people to the Mars station, keeping them resupplied every 6 months (or 3 months, depending on the number of shuttles, etc).

Why didn't we do it in the 60s? We'd been to the moon, and that had satisfied the public's lust for space exploration. The space race was essentially over and political tides were turning. The "hippie generation" was speaking it's mind, and wanted to cut the space program. Now, there's nothing wrong with that, the voters pay for the programs, so they should decide where the money gets spent. The problem is that it's always more expensive the longer you wait... sure it cost a lot then, but it costs far more today (adjusted for inflation!).

Sadly, many fantastic advances have come from defense spending (and the space program). Things like the semiconductor. These technologies eventually trickle down (oh no, here it comes ;)) to the commercial market. Can you imagine buying night vision goggles 15 years ago?

Funding problems are the Feds/NASA's fault. by b0z · 2000-10-27 01:34 · Score: 3

This is my opinion and I may be completely wrong, but if they want money, they have to use capitalism. They should not keep all this stuff secret, but let companies like lockheed martin, boeing (damn that name...too hard to spell, should be "BOING!") and others try to get there first. The most logical means to do so I would think would be to set up a moon base, as that would be the best way to do testing and eventual takeoff to leave the Earth completely. Even though going to Mars may not provide us with anything useful, but it would beat the hell out of the billions of dollars we spend on the entertainment industry now just so we can see some fake movies. I think a lot of people all over the world would be interested to see the first people to step foot on another planet...who knows...I bet others would get involved too...take the little pepsi girl up and let her sing "bah buh bah bap bah" before launching her towards the Sun...anyways, it is just my fantasy...I think a moon base would be a good place to start...it would be pretty neat to be able to look up at the moon and see lights on the dark parts at night...sorta like the death star. :oD Oh well.

--
Mas vale cholo, que mal acompañado.

Re:Funding problems are the Feds/NASA's fault. by Mad+Hughagi · 2000-10-27 02:15 · Score: 3

Companies like Lockheed and Boeing are allready part of these missions. They are hired as contractors to help construct the spacecraft and whatnot. The problem with privatizing the space industry is that it would require a large capital investment with acceptance for a high probability of failure.
NASA is staffed by the best in the field. If you look at their hiring boards and whatnot almost anything to do with the space program requires that you have your doctorate - and they have thousands of these people working for them, day in, day out. Often the public is just sent out the figures for how much 'a' mission is going to cost but no-one realizes just how many people and how much time coordinate the entire venture.
Private industry in space is pretty much limited right now to telecommunications - and even at that they fail on a much larger basis. You think NASA is bad, you should see how often you get a firecracker out of a multi-million dollar satellite launch. The scary thing is that these satellites are allways insured, usually at well over 50% of what they cost in the first place! In terms of complexity these private launches are nothing compared to sending probes to other planets.
I guess what I'm trying to get down to saying is that for a private industry to get into space exploration it would require a monumental investment and a lot of guts. Maybe if a driving force for private space exploration existed you would see something, but I don't think there is a reason to go private that will outweigh the costs.
I guess that's why it takes the richest nation in the world to collectively put money into it, if everyone chips in a bit and the loss occurs at least it won't result in a catastrophe for the people involved.

--
UBU

Unmanned but still interesting by squiggleslash · 2000-10-27 01:31 · Score: 3

(Sorry Anne Marie, that should have been "unstaffed" ;-)

It's actually just three more missions than already planned. The old ones were two more "surface rover" missions, plus an orbiter.

The new ones are:

The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter - which will take pictures of 20-30cm resolution, much higher than done before.
A mobile laboratory, which will also test the viability of more complicated surface landings than done before
And most excitingly, a "scout mission" that could involve flying some form of plane or glider through the martian atmosphere, though the precise details have yet to be decided upon.

There's only one real question though that Slashdotters are interested in: Are we going to send up a bunch of furbys to explore the Martian surface? And if so, could NASA make them act as a Beowulf cluster?

(*ducks*)
--

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.

More weird news... by superdoo · 2000-10-27 01:35 · Score: 4

What I find kinda of humourous is that we're whizzing all these satellites around and have hundreds of telescopes, thousands of astronomers staring at stuff 24/7/365.25 and yet we just found 4 more moons around Saturn and a possible planet between Neptune and Pluto. Does anyone else get the feeling that the more we know the more we know how little we know?

Unmanned missions? Bah! by thesparkle · 2000-10-27 01:41 · Score: 4

6 missions, the best of which will get us some rocks. If we are lucky?

I have learned a few things by watching late night movies. Obviously more than those pencil-heads at NASA.

* The best way to get to Mars is on a V2 rocket. The kind with fins developed by the Germans during WWII and used extensively during our 1950's, RKO pictures-sponsored manned space program.

* Why only get rocks? What about one of those beautiful Martian women? You know, the kind that lives in that city where there are no men, kissing or Coca-Cola?

* Why all the science? You can tell that Mars is habitable because of those canals that line its surface. Mars looks like a big version of Venice, Italy!

* Is the air breathable? You don't need a bunch of gizmos to find out. Have the mission's captain take off his fish bowl helmet and take a deep breath after he tests the oxygen content with his cigarrette lighter.

We'd better quit this probin' pussyfootin' around business. Anyday now one of them Martian saucers will land in New Jersey and start deathraying us!

Sending pathfinders to Mars by Hairy_Potter · 2000-10-27 01:23 · Score: 4

I see the link talks about sending pathfinders to Mars.

Great, they'll be full of overweight soccer moms drinking Starbucks and running econoboxes off the road.

Unless the Firestones blow halfway to Mars.

Martians by bmongar · 2000-10-27 01:25 · Score: 4

What makes them think the Martian Defense Force won't shoot them down again like they did the polar lander

--
As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.

They'll never make it. by jd · 2000-10-27 01:50 · Score: 5

If Bush becomes President (likely, despite the high probability that it'll bring on the end of the world), there won't be any more NASA. It'll be replaced with a coca-cola bottling plant, on the grounds that it's cheaper, more profitable and actually works.

IMHO, the first REAL Mars missions will come when Ozrock or one of the other major national hobbyist groups manages to get to (and past) orbit. These guys are doing more R&D these days than the US, Europe and Chinese combined on rocket technology. No great surprise, there. When was the last time you saw a politician encourage people to branch out and create something novel?

My revised timetable for space science is as follows:

2001
- NASA loses another probe. Space Station suffers first major GPF. Reset switch is inside.
- Chinese land dissidents on moon. Fail to provide return ticket.
- Commercial sector puts more adverts on the side of rockets. Doesn't really catch on with customers. Further attempts are abandoned.
- Hobbyists reach Low Earth Orbit. Apart from a mention on Slashdot, nobody really notices.
2010
- NASA finally gets a probe to land on Phobos. Unfortunately, a navigation error places it in Phobos, Virginia, USA.
- Europe launches Arianne VII, amid great publicity. It explodes on take-off, destroying a multi-billion dollar deep-space probe and three slices of lemon. The lemon is blamed for the fault.
- Hobbyists reach the moon, and build an Open Source base there.
2020
- NASA's board of directors is replaced by two white mice. ("It can't hurt to try", said the President.)
- The Russians consider bringing Mir down. The Mir Telethon raises more money, and it's kept up "another year". The fungus develops intelligence and cracks the Telethon's bank account to ensure survival.
- Hobbyists colonise the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Eric Raymond and Richard Stallman argue over the licences new bases should be released under.
2100
- NASA completes the International Space Station, which promptly disintegrates from old age.
- The commercial sector launches three orbiting bill-boards, claiming that nobody will ever need more bill-boards than that.
- The Free Software Foundation moves it's main database to the Greate Magellanic Cloud, which it now controls. The Open Source Initiative counters with forming a major empire in the Andromeda galaxy. Linux vs OpenBSD debates in the M25 galaxy reach no firm conclusion, after it is discovered that there are no translations into local dialects and that nobody there really wants to learn any Terran languages.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)

Too optimistic by Ektanoor · 2000-10-27 01:42 · Score: 5

2000 - We plan to send 6 missions to Mars
2001 - We are planning to send 6 missions to Mars
2002 - Due to economy plans and cuts, missions will be 5.
2003 - Send one mission. Ooops...
2004 - Well someone forgot the scredriver in the engine. That will not happen again. So now we will send three missions.
2005 - We said three? Well two. The Senate was too furious to cut only one...
2006 - We are reading the new missions. Yeah we had to loose one year due to all these studies, controls and checks.
2007 - Launched another one. Ohhhh Daaaamnnn...
2008 - Well either the thing touched a meteorite or it fell in a canyon. No of course we don't believe in "alien conspirations"...
2009 - We are planning one mission.
2010 - We are still planning it.
2011 - Planning.
2012 - I ALREADY TOLD YOU! THERE ARE NO GREYS THERE!
2013 - Well... Hmmm... Launched another one. We made everything we could... Even choosed a lsower path just in case... Cross fingers...
2014 - Hurrah!!!!! ?????????!!!!
2015 - Well... it seems we got something anyway. Now we are planning six more missions...
...
9999 - Ladies and Gentlemen. I am proud to announce... Man made his first step on Mars. A small step for a man a LONG step for Mankind... OH DAMN!

Re:Of course, the BIG question... by Mindwarp · 2000-10-27 01:53 · Score: 5

It would be nice if we'd spend tax money on feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and protecting the environment before defense and space missions.

You know, we could do all that right now without having to cut back on spending on scientific research. The reason that this isn't done now is that there's not enough political capital in writing off third world debt, and there's certainly not enough corporate capital in giving away the various technolgies (genetic/chemical/information) required for the developing nations to feed and house themselves. I don't believe for a moment that any money cut from the NASA and scientific research budgets would ever go toward helping the poor.

People often consider money put into scientific research and these 'big science' projects to be lost, as if the tens of billions of dollars allocated just falls into a huge black hole, never to be seen again. This isn't typically the case. The dollars put into research end up fuelling the growth of the high tech industries within this country, creating new jobs and increasing the demand and requirement for a highly skilled high-tech workforce. This in turn can only help the research efforts that are currently concentrating on finding solutions to the world's more mundane problems such as poverty, starvation and illness.

The stimulation of high-technology industry within the U.S.A. can only be good for this country in the global economy. Who knows, with the increase in foreign trade income that the growth of technology industries should produce, maybe the U.S.A. will feel generous enough to forget foreign debt?

--

--
The gift of death metal does not smile on the good looking.

Re:On the move again by Smitty825 · 2000-10-27 01:58 · Score: 5

This isn't the right direction for NASA. I think that they are doing this "Astro-biology" thing just so that they can get publicity. IMHO, adding six new Mars missions and then canceling (uh, I mean postponing) the Pluto-Kuiper misson is a big mistake. The reason is that Pluto has an athmosphere right now, which is expected to freeze over for 200 years in around 2015. If we don't get a probe there before that date, then we will lose lots of scientific data about Pluto.

The important fact to remember is that we can launch to Mars every 2 years, but we only get 1 opportunity to reach Pluto. For more information, check out Pluto Mission.

...but I do it would be cool to send a person to Mars, though!

--

Doh!

Re:NASA, please stop! by Vociferous+Troll · 2000-10-27 02:09 · Score: 5

You idiots are funny. I get a kick out of you.

The US government spends billions upon billions of dollars studying things such as cow farts (this is true) and how mice react to having their nads shocked. The military budget this year included billions of dollars for a couple of naval vessels that the Pentagon didn't even want -- simply because a key Congressman on the Armed Services Committee happens to reside in a state that has a large defense contractor who needs the money (corporate welfare, anyone?) The amount of government waste is incredible.

And yet when you "don't-waste-my-taxes" buffoons come blubbering along, it's the space program you complain about. You're going to have to forgive us if we don't take you seriously. You're much more fun to laugh at.

Space exploration is not cheap. Nobody is saying that it is. But the space program is a veritable island in a sea of pork. The fact that you single it out suggests that you are not against government waste, but against the space program itself -- which would seem to suggest that you're some kind of bumpkin or religious extremist. In either case, your opinion is noted, but completely and utterly devoid of worth.

--

--
The New World Order is upon us, and it's about damned time.

21 of 113 comments (clear)