Slashdot Mirror
Mars Odyssey Completes Aerobraking
Cally writes: "Space.com reports that
Mars Odyssey has
completed aerobraking and is ready to begin its
main science mission. As the spacecraft has already produced exciting results before the start of the science mission proper, interesting data on the quantities of water in the Martian crust may be expected soon - not to mention that Odyssey provides another datapoint in the study of Gamma Ray bursts."
Here's the article:
January 11, 2002
MEDIA RELATIONS OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91109. TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov
Mars Odyssey Mission Status
January 11, 2002
Flight controllers for NASA's Mars Odyssey spacecraft sent commands overnight to raise the spacecraft up out of the atmosphere and conclude the aerobraking phase of the mission.
At 12:18 a.m. Pacific time Jan. 11, Odyssey fired its small thrusters for 244 seconds, changing its speed by 20 meters per second (45 miles per hour) and raising its orbit by 85 kilometers (53 miles). The closest point in Odyssey's orbit, called the periapsis, is now 201 kilometers (125 miles) above the surface of Mars. The farthest point in the orbit, called the apoapsis, is at an altitude of 500 kilometers (311 miles). During the next few weeks, flight controllers will refine the orbit until the spacecraft reaches its final mapping altitude, a 400-kilometer (249-mile) circular orbit.
"The successful completion of the aerobraking phase is a major milestone for the project. Aerobraking is the most complex phase of the entire mission and the team came through it without a hitch," said David A. Spencer, Odyssey's mission manager at JPL. "During the next month, we will be reconfiguring the spacecraft to begin the science mapping mission." The science mission is expected to begin in late February.
During the aerobraking phase, Odyssey skimmed through the upper reaches of the martian atmosphere 332 times. By using the atmosphere of Mars to slow down the spacecraft in its orbit rather than firing its engine or thrusters, Odyssey was able to save more than 200 kilograms (440 pounds) of propellant. This reduction in spacecraft weight enabled the mission to be launched on a Delta II 7925 launch vehicle, rather than a larger, more expensive launcher.
JPL manages the 2001 Mars Odyssey mission for NASA's Office of Space Science, Washington, D.C. Principal investigators at Arizona State University in Tempe, the University of Arizona in Tucson, and NASA's Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas, operate the science instruments. Additional science investigators are located at the Russian Space Research Institute and Los Alamos National Laboratories. Lockheed Martin Astronautics, Denver, Colo., is the prime contractor for the project, and developed and built the orbiter. Mission operations are conducted jointly from Lockheed Martin and from JPL, a division of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va., is providing aerobraking support to JPL's navigation team during mission operations.
but does nasa have any long term goals?
What are we trying to achieve.
I'm not looking for troll points, but am actually curious. Human colonization is quite unlikely due to the plant being so close to the Sun.
Other then a place to live, does a planet such as this offer any benefit to us?
.. the prior story about preliminary findings. This is not redundant: It is something that has mostly been ignored by official NASA press releases but has still made it into the mainstream media. I really hope that the failure of NASA to mention that they already have detected "large desposits of hydrogen" close to the surface means that they're waiting to confirm their findings, not that there's some dark conspiracy postponing any serious trips to Mars by decades in favor of sinking money into NMD, ISS and the Shuttle instead.
interesting data on the quantities of water in the Martian crust...
You know, doesn't this mean that all this other searching for extra-terrestrial intelligence is pretty counter-productive? If there's water right there on Mars, chances are there would be intelligent life there within a few billion years too. (It's the initial part of the thing that takes awhile...once you've got cells, the growth is like, exponential man.)
Instead, we're sending probes up there when we KNOW there's no intelligent life yet. It's like barging into the prenatal ward every few minutes while your wife's about to give birth to say "are you done yet?" Believe me, when she's done, you'll know!
At this rate, within the foreseeable future we'll have groped every planet capable of sustaining life with these stupid probes. Ever consider that under these conditions, intelligent life won't want to evolve? People like to be left in peace (that's why they get all fussy about the anal probes they constantly imagine aliens violating them with)...don't you think other would-be life might feel the same way?
This is not off-topic.
If these engineers and scientists weren't preoccupied with their little space experiments
then they would be out roaming the streets, preying on innocent children, and frightening
women. Its better this way. Sure we could lock them all up, but there's always the chance they
might produce something useful like a robotic sex slave.
Only a few million more miles until the onboard computer malfunctions and that trippy space sequence starts!
Learn to Play Go
By using the atmosphere of Mars to slow down the spacecraft in its orbit rather than firing its engine or thrusters, Odyssey was able to save more than 200 kilograms (440 pounds) of propellant. This reduction in spacecraft weight enabled the mission to be launched on a Delta II 7925 launch vehicle, rather than a larger, more expensive launcher.
No small feat, there. Too bad they didn't use regenerative aerobraking—we might have gotten the spacecraft back.
[This is a serious question, please think before you moderate]
Could, anyone explain why we are going to Mars? Or, why we are even bothered taking pictures of it? What's the point of going to Mars, when most of the powers in this planet are at the brink of nuclear war? I don't see any short-term necessity to go to Mars. If anyone wish to give constructive remarks contrary, please feel free to do so. I understand the ghist of this site, but should we not worry about the amount of human lives being lost in the name of established religions that dictate nothing but outdated virtue?
Thank you.
Javid O'Hare.
Citizens Commission on Human Rights
Anyway, PBS tends to re-run Nova episodes quite a bit where I live, so check your local listings - you might be able to catch it again real soon if you missed it the first time.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
This person's comment links to a website showing inappropriate material such as child pornography. I have a friend who click on this link and has now been sentenced to prison for trying to view child porn.
Don't let yourself become a victim!
Don't click that link!
After a nearly perfect launch, 2001 Mars Odyssey is on its 400-million-mile, six-month journey to the red planet. The spacecraft will primarily search for water on Mars but it will also seek 19 other chemical elements and measure radiation. NASA, just barely holding the budget-cutters at bay, needs to recover from two previous Mars failures: the Mars Polar Lander and the Mars Climate Orbiter. If everything works, Mars Odyssey will spend two years circling the planet while taking measurements and readings. The mission was already providing remarkably sharp and dramatic views before and during lift-off with two cameras attached to the Delta 2 rocket, one facing up and one down.
NASA:
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/
Space.com: Space.com
Look, spending the resources we currently expend on space travel isn't going to contribute substantially to work peace (nor hunger, nor overpopulation, nor keeping people from being laid off).
On the other hand, the greatest points of human progress have historically taken place in two times -- exploration and war. Both of them create necessity, which is (of course) the mother of invention. I assume you'd rather avoid war, as would I, so exploration seems like a good investment.
Besides, its our nature to do this sort of thing. That's why people weaved reed boats, why they sailed before they could figure their position with any certainty, why we, as a race, have always struggled to see what's over the next hill.
The small-minded idea that you could solve disease, hunger and war by supressing the instinct to explore and becoming universal xenophobes is both juvenile and foolish -- at no time in history has anything like this proven true. Indeed, the worst times tend to be those where we stopped being curious -- dark ages, anyone?
I don't mean to be too brutal, but your half-thought-out assertion in this area offends me.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
But these seemed to have retreated to the asteroid belt, allowing our intrepid explorer to plant the flag of Earth, and stand guard as a lone sentry against the terrorists of the outer solar system.
Stand proud, little space probe!
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Actually, the preliminary exciting results would be that it didn't crash into the planet or just disappear.
The way the earth is headed today, it is no wonder why the government is spending so much of the taxpayer's money towards space travel research. Soon the world will become uninhabitable and the only way for the human race to survive is by colonizing space.
This guy's lame ass post was modded as
insightful? This whole thread is quite
obviously a troll. The original post was
"...too close to the Sun...", Those
people posting at insightful & interesting
to this troll post are the very same people
who want to give Wes Crusher a nasty
ass-tongueing. The very same people who like
to watch their moms take a shit. The very same
people who are gay homosexual faggot queers.
The very same people who like to give handjobs
to their dogs. The very same people who like to
suck stranger's cocks in Rock Creek Park. Fuck all these people.
Are they sure to be using ONLY metric or ONLY US measurements? 'cause all this aerobraking stuff sounds nice and dandy, but if they're mistakenly using inches instead of cm in one measurement when computing the trajectory, this thing's going straight past the planet...
There's obviously no such thing as "regenerative aerobraking." My comment was mainly about the fact that by using aerobraking, they cut a few million off the launch costs. That's going to be invaluable in the future, as science budgets continue to be stripped to the bone.
Why anyone took the incredibly dry witticism at the end seriously is beyond me. Perhaps I should have used more vermouth.
I've seen astroturfing on Slashdot before, but this is a pretty lame example of such.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
I can't beleive some cock sucking moderator wasted a mod point on moding the parent off topic, when they should be blasted the parent's parent for being REDUNDENT
So they are at least investigating if (and when) human colonisation is feasible.
For the more general question of why NASA is mucking about in space, have a look at some of the FAQs.
It seems one of most common questions is 'Can I apply to take a ride on the Space Shuttle?' (A very polite 'No' in case you were wondering. Presumably the Russian Space Agency have a different answer to this one
I like how the first on-topic post gets modded down as Redundant. Overrated, maybe but how is this redundant?
Quite clearly the original post is a troll.
>>"Human colonization is quite unlikely due to the plant being so close to the Sun."
And to think people are attemping to make intelligent replies...
Furthermore I would like to point out that
winXP is far superior to linux and it's only
costing $99.00US!!
I swear, Slashdot could post the most mundane story about space exploration, and it still draws the same old complaints about this and that, the usual space trolls. I'm just going to respond to them all here for future linkage.
1.) If you have difficulty understanding exploration for it's own sake then you aren't "all for exploration."
2.) If we knew of all the ways we could use and develop (insert name of celesial body here), then we wouldn't need to explore it, now would we?
3.) Yes there are people dying in (insert Third World country here) of (insert Horseman of Apocalypse here). The reasons for these deaths are purely political in nature. Money is not the solution to all problems just as it isn't the root of all evil. If anything it becomes a scapegoat for the real causes of strife. I don't see how not spending the money on space exploration and letting Congress (of all people) spend it on (choice of one or more of the following: junkets, political campaigns, television commercials, Jesse Jackson, economic incentives, UN resolution, Jimmy Carter, "peace-keeping" expedition) to "make the world a better place" is really going to change a damned thing. (Name of two opposing ethnic, religious, or political groups here) need to talk to each other, and dangling money in front of their noses isn't going to get them to do that, it will just get them to chase that money.
4.) As for education reform, go talk to your state and local governments. If you don't know why you should be talking to them instead of the federal government, then you are an example of how badly we need education reform.
5.) Do you have any idea how small a percentage of the federal budget is spent on space exploration?
6.) We are NOT on the verge of nuclear war! At worst, the only countries on the verge of nuking each other are (names of two nuclear powers that didn't sign non-proliferation agreements)! And they aren't the ones sending up these probes, are they?
7.) With all the problems there are in the world today... why would you want to live in the world today? (name of celestial body) looks like a damned good alternative to me!
You think it's easy to make space probes that work perfectly?!
They have to launch these fragile robots through the harsh interplanetary void, always mere inches -- no wait, was it centimeters? maybe cubits... fathoms? -- from disaster...
I'll be chuckling over that for days...
How about regenerative ferrobraking? Shoot iron slugs from an accelerator at the spacecraft, and have it catch them in a magnetic field and throw them back to the accelerator. No propellant loss, spectacular efficiency, works for starting as well as for stopping. Accuracy is problematic.
Nasa once again launched a spacecraft at Mars. However, due to inaccurate calculations, the spacecraft missed its target and instead settled in a stable orbit, unable to crash into the planet and achieve its intital objective. A preliminary investigation blames a slight miscalculation due to the improper use of significant digits.
Mission planners are uncertain how to proceed now that the mission has been officially declared a failure. "We now have a $250 million piece of equipment uselessly orbiting the planet." A small group of scientists has declared the mission "not a total loss" as this might present a rare opportunity to study the planet before the orbiter crashes into the planet naturally at some later date.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
This text is already on the internet. Obviously there is no need to mirror it...
to define intelligence as the way humans think and talk. Let's us treat all the "lower" animals just like they deserve.
I equate intelligence to survival. In that regard everything that is alive has the intelligence to survive in a set of environments. How many people get killed every year doing something very stupid? They are postumously given the "Darwin Award" if they manage to kill themself in a humourous enough manner. These people can talk, do math, read, and yet they manage to lack the common sence of a dog.
Most people, if left on their own, in the mountains, in winter time, would die within a matter of days. Being able to do long division and talk really won't help you there. Just ask the Donner Party. But bears, deers, wolves, birds and scores and scores of other "animals" seem to live through the mountain winters just fine. In fact, they thrive in it.
A man that is cast into the Atlantic Ocean will only last 40 minutes tops before he dies. If he has a boat he may last a week. Not too smart, eh? But a dolphin can survive just fine. In fact wild dolphins have been known to tow people back to shore, saving their lives. There is also no known attacks by dolphins on humans in the wild.
If we judge a species intelligence by compassion, and "humanity" then dolphins far out strip our own meager facilities in that regard. Funny that we coined the term "humanity" for a set of morals and behaviors that most humans are lacking in.
Maybe dolphins save us because they recognize in us a kindred spirit? Sad that we don't return that regard.
We are far less smart than we think we are. Even myself.
I won't argue that the potential for nuclear war is an odd argument against space exploration, but are you so sure of your statement, and, if so, why? If you're just assuming that "the Cold War is over so things are basically OK" then your assumptions are wrong. A little education wouldn't hurt. (The linked article was written by a former US Senator; there are other articles and resources on that site that may open your eyes a bit. Then again, many people are too apathetic to bother learning the facts when media views and "common sense" are so much more easy to digest.)
What you say is absolutely true of space exploration. It is slightly less true of commercial/ military uses of space. I have a problem with the two sharing one budget. Space exploration itself is very cheap, the most expensive probes cost pennies per inhabitant of the Earth. Space commercialization is considerably less cheap. The two do overlap somewhat (launch devices, technology development, etc) but it is high time that we had a seperate, ongoing committed budget for space exploration.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
*f*
I equate intelligence to survival
The moon's survived for four billion years. Does that make it intelligent?
I can't get a traceroute to mars.jpl.nasa.gov and get timeouts on http /.ted?
Maybe it is
Any info?
Get my e-mail after a captcha test in: http://tinymailt
OTOH, how long does the wolf survive in the Sahara and the dolphine in the Himalaya ? There have been more men surviving winters in the mountains and long journey on water than wolves/dolphines in the mentioned environments. Intelligence is the ability to cope with NEW problems/environments not with those that were present eons ago.
Let's go to venus. It has a really thick atmosphere. Lots of CO2 there too. Drop off a couple of palm trees and contianers of cenapede grass and we got Venusian paradise.
Probably would be more complicated than that but Venus interests me more than Mars.
oh well
I believe you've slightly misinterpreted the mission's goals. The aim was (and is) to check the feasability of human exploration, not colonisation. What they are talking about here is that potential (ie. unlikely, but not yet entirely ruled out) mission to Mars around 2020. The mission involves a handfull of astronauts, and will presumably cost hundereds of billions, if not trillions, of US dollars.
NASA isn't interested in colonising Mars, they're a US goverment organisation that has to look reasonably credible in the scientific community, not just some ad hoc space colonisation advocacy organisation a la SSI.
It seems one of most common questions is 'Can I apply to take a ride on the Space Shuttle?' (A very polite 'No' in case you were wondering. Presumably the Russian Space Agency have a different answer to this one ...)
Why the Russians will sell space rides and NASA won't: the Russians aren't worried about being sued if the thing explodes.
...a truly excellent hard-SF book, in which a gamma-ray burster plays a major role. The math gets deep at times; just keep slogging through it and your mind will be expanded. (Possibly painfully.)
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
First, because it's so shallow gravitationally that landing (or, in bulk, crashing) raw materials from the asteroids is cheaper in terms of delta vee than landing on Mars with twice the gravity of Luna. Delta vee is your biggest long term expense, and if we won't have cheap fusion for yet another fifty years (it's been fifty years off since at least 1945), solar power in lunar orbit is easier than in martian orbit due to the inverse square law and Luna's closer distance from the Sun. If something goes drastically wrong, you're less than three days from Earth (remember the researcher in Antarctica with breast cancer? She could get treatment a lot faster than if she'd been on a Hohmann orbit to Mars) and all those hospitals. I know there are bugger-all volatiles on the Moon (which was the slag left after a plume of material blew off the proto-Earth when it was hit by a Mars-sized body), but eventually we can get volatiles from the outer solar system cheaper (in delta vee terms) than launching them from Earth, and Mars, although it has far more volatiles than Luna, is more expensive from which to launch and has an atmosphere that at this point is more nuisance than benefit: both Luna and Mars will kill you if you run out of air, and the Moon can be used far more easily to vent poisonous industrial gasses as part of industrial processes with no downside (the lunar gravity will always be too slight for a breathable atmosphere, whereas Mars can be terraformed to a shirtsleave atmosphere within a millenium).
Secondly, the Moon is more typical of the kinds of places most people will be living within the next five hundred years (not that the Earth's population will be transferred, any more than Europe's population dropped by colonization of North and South America: rather, population in the New World expanded due to new births onsite), and it behooves us to learn how to settle airless rocks, whether Moon-sized, or, more likely, smaller, colder and more distant worlds). Luna at least has the advantage of lots of sunlight since it's so close in. The Oort Cloud will eventually be the most populated region of the solar system, but that's another post on another day. Planets are simply too heavy and too wasteful of useful potential volume to make good places to live. And they are not very steerable.