Slashdot Mirror
Europe Goes To Venus; Mars Comes to Us
JamesO writes "The BBC says that the ESA is going to Venus, reusing the Mars Express design.
Also here. Launch seems to be expected in 2005." And knownsense writes "Space.com is reporting that Mars is coming to closer to Earth. It will be closer by around 191 million miles and will end up 85 times brighter about August next year. This apparently is the first time it's been this close since the Neanderthals."
ps. 1 mile = 1.6 km
transmission_err
The US doesn't have any faked landing of Venus that we're covering up, I hope. If that's the case, Venus express will never make it.
But will any geek actually get off his/her ass and look outside?
Also, now that Life may exist on venus, will this lead to more interest in the oft' forgotten planet?
This is very welcome news!
Just the other day I was talking to a friend about why there is so much more interest in Mars than there is in Venus. There are plenty of difficult questions that more missions to Venus could answer.
I'm very interested in what the results of this mission well be, there is after all so much to learn.
Of course, we need an obligatory Simpsons quote here:
"mmmmmmm..... gummie Venus"
"Entropy is the bad-guy, and he is everywhere"
appear more than six times larger and shine some 85 times brighter than it appears now...
Does that mean we can play Holst's "The Planets" 6 times louder and have a valid reason for when the neighbours complain?
Are you local? There's nothing for you here!
Aren't we sending people there?!? If we're so close, then wouldn't this be an opertune time to take the next step in human exploration of space? I've gotten to the point where I seriously doubt the intent of NASA to ever send a manned mission further than the moon. They've become so addicted to safe, academic research in orbit or from afar that they've forgotten how to take that leap into the unknown which was (in my opinion) what made the early space program (Murcury, Gemini, and Apollo) truly great.
Narrative
Is it just me or does that figure seem a little high?
"Auggh, my eyes! Damn you, Mars, damn you right to hell!"
Astronomy is my passion, tech and computers always second. Although planetary exploration is not my forte, I have been paying close attention to all the recent probes/satellites/additions to ISS. Seems to me space agencies are pretty good at getting stuff done even though they're one of the first budgets cut. Cassini will soon arrive at Saturn and I am anxiously awaiting the flood of images from said sattellite.
[joke]
Well it must be because NASA are waiting for the current schlock of Hollywood movies to wrap, so they can hire some of the biggest sound stages ;)
[/joke]
Are you local? There's nothing for you here!
Actually, it got much closer in 1951...
Seriously, though, I hope NASA and ESA and the Chinese and private firms have planned well in advance to take advantage of this situation.
Get off my launchpad!
And just think, just in time for a Neanderthal's party to win in the U.S. midterm elections!
Coincidence? I don't think so!
-----
Paid for by "The Committee to Elect Edward D Wood Jr, Posthumously"
Yeah, and look what happened to them!
Well, there's not much point in sending humans to Venus right now.
What would humans do in orbit around Venus that can't be done from a remote station here on earth?
"Hello Mission Control, the Venesian atmosphere is cloudy, and I cannot see a thing. I am about to launch the Venus probe with it's IR/UV/Radio-scannerthingamagig. BTW, I am still stuck in this tin can. I haven't experienced gravity in over a year, and my bones are disintigrating. The air is stale, the food is boring and I am about to go crazy."
Before you even start thinking about sending someone to another planet, there's a zillion other things to think about first. How to build a ship, how to feed the crew, what are the long term effects of space travel, etc. We still have a ways to go. A Satellite could go there now.
Remove satellites can do it far cheaper then a manned mission. If we're going to send humans anywhere, let send them someplace where they could acually walk.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
One, it's not that much closer than usual. It's not a big enough deal to merit immediately sending humans. (But, the two sweet Mars rovers the US is sending next year, and probes from Europe and Japan, will take advantage of the close proximity of Mars to Earth on this orbit to increase data rates slightly.)
:) (I'll settle for routine travel to Mars, though. :)
Second, NASA doesn't set the priorities for what it does. It doesn't have much flexibility in how it uses its budget. Its missions and expenditures are determined by Congress in each year's budget. I assure you that there are many people inside NASA who are chomping at the bit to break humans out of Earth orbit (including many very high-ranking people inside the agency). But, Congress has to unleash NASA, and fund any mandate it approves.
I'm with you, though, man. I want Americans to have the capability to go whereever the hell we want in the Solar System.
The article states that next August, when mars gets the closest to it has ever been, it will be 34.6 million miles away from earth. The article later goes on to say that in 1988, Mars went through a similar (though less extreme) event that closed the distance to earth to 36.5 million miles.....Now I know the 2 million miles is still a huge distance when you think about it, but that's barely a 6% difference.
:-)
Agreed. This is mostly a "numerical anomally" rather than something that is visually signficant. Close approaches happen about every 15 years or so, and most of these are probably within a few percent points of this coming distance.
Although, it would be cool to come out side one night and see Mars close enough to find the missing Polar Lander with the naked eye
Mars is often a tough telescope target. Your eye has to be trained to see any significant detail on the disk. Otherwise it will just look like a small orange disk, roughly the size of a penny held at arms length through the scope, with maybe one or two dark but vague splotches and maybe light areas that mark one or both poles or some high clouds. A "slightly dirty pencil eraser edge on" is how I would describe the view.
I was disappointed to see it at the city observatory at the last close approach. My little 60mm scope actually showed more detail (probably because I waited for a better time when it was higher in the sky.)
I would suggest picking a good Saturn night if you ever go to a town observatory. Saturn, the moon, and Jupiter (in this order) make the most impressive viewing targets IMO. Mars will probably disappoint you visually. But it is cool to know you are looking at Mars, dispite the poor view.
However, Saturn varies over time because of the ring tilt from our perspective. If you go during a year with a non-tilt, you won't see much ring detail. Similarly with the moon: it goes through phases (lighting angle), and some phases are not that great in a telescope. Jupiter is probably the only consistent object WRT appearence and appearent size. It won't shrink, darken, or tilt funny on you. Even the Sun's disk changes in activity every 11 years (if you view it through a filter and projection). Although it is true that Jupiter's red spot does fade in and out depending on the type of clouds it is next to, or if it goes behind the planet. But there is more to Big Jup than just the red spot. You can usually see 4 of its moons quite easily (as starlike specs) and at least 2 tannish cloud bands on the planet.
Table-ized A.I.
"Hey! That looks like a giant flaming meteor headed straight for earth!"
"No no, that's just mars. Mars is supposed to be extra bright this year. See how red it is?"
"Are you sure? It looks like a life-exterminating meteor to me."
"Nope, just mars. Definately mars. Nothing to worry about here. By the way, we'll be heading off to venus for awhile."
"Venus? Why? What's over there?"
"Oh nothing, nothing. Incredibly boring place actually, just clouds and all. Don't worry, the earth is perfectly safe, we'll be back later."
"Are you sure about that whole not being a meteor thing?"
"Of course. Got to be going now, want to have a good view."
"View?"
"Er I meant I'll be seeing you. After I'm back... from venus.... later."
Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!
This apparently is the first time it's been this close since the Neanderthals.
So that's the best time for the martians to launch their invasion fleet?
True warriors use the Klingon Google
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
If you want to send people on the most fuel-efficient path to Mars possible (which is almost necessary just to get them there at all, unless you're using a rocket better than anything we've ever built), you use a Hohmann transfer orbit, an ellipse which is tangent to the inner circular orbit (Earth's) at one end and to the outer orbit (Mars') at the other end. Even with a nuclear or better propulsion system, you wouldn't just point the rocket towards Mars and fire, you'd take advantage of your existing velocity in Earth's orbit to cut a sort of diagonal path between the two.
Either way, an extra-close approach of Mars wouldn't cut very much time off the trip.
They've become so addicted to safe, academic research in orbit or from afar that they've forgotten how to take that leap into the unknown which was (in my opinion) what made the early space program (Murcury, Gemini, and Apollo) truly great.
Although I agree that NASA isn't what it used to be, I think you're missing the most important difference between 1960s' NASA and today's NASA: funding with blank checks.