NASA Launching Two Mars Rovers in June

shaniber writes "NASA is planning the launch of the Mars Exploration Rovers this month. The rovers are scheduled for two two separate launches, between June 5th and July 15th. These rovers will both work as robotic geologists, including a human-eye height panoramic camera and a miniature thermal emmision spectrometer amongst their scientific equipment. NASA plans on webcasting the launches, as well. A press kit, with many more details, is also available as a pdf."

Comments

Water, eh?

[Obfiscator]

So the mission is to find evidence of past water on Mars, huh? I hope at least one of the rovers lands in a puddle.

Re:Water, eh?

[FreedomOfSpeech]

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/

Re:Water, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

so those pictures of gullys and river valleys aren't eveidence enough?

Re:Water, eh?

[j4pjeff]

but not a drop to drink...

Rovers on Mars

[[cx]]

Have they tried putting those Japanese walking talking dogs on the planet? Or maybe just some human flesh to see how it reacted to being on the atmosphere?

I think we should bring back a huge piece of the Mars rock and put it on the moon and see if that somehow makes a chemical reaction that blows up the moon and we all are fearful of the crazy world Mars like in those 50s flicks.

Anyways this post just PROVES how ignorant the average man is to Mars and we need these rovers to prove my theories wrong, now march rovers, march!

[cx]

Re:Rovers on Mars

[Derg]

That, actually, is sort of interesting. What would it take to create an Sony Aibo based scientific rover? Its already pretty mobile, just strip out the "personality AI" and load it up with chemical sensors and whatnot. It would obviously have to be "hardened" for the Martian environment, but I cant imagine that would be too dificult. Something like I described could possibly avoid hiccups like the rover that got stuck on a 2 inch or some such rock, iirc. Has anyone thought of taking the off the shelf form factor and applying it to a more "practical" use such as Mars exploration? I know Sony wasnt too happy with a guy modding his to dance disco, but this is more scientific and nerdy... Maybe they would even bother to sponsor some sort of development...

just a thought...

Re:Rovers on Mars

[pkunzipper]

Sounds like a job for ASIMO! Honda's helper robot. http://world.honda.com/ASIMO/

Re:Rovers on Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing it's going to be more along the lines of "this one uses the metric system, but the other one doesn't" to avoid repeating past events. I doubt anything would happen with human flesh, though - seeing as how it's live flesh that tells us anything significant, like "Does the martian atmosphere give people SARS?" =P

Re:Rovers on Mars

[mikerich]

That, actually, is sort of interesting. What would it take to create an Sony Aibo based scientific rover?

A real problem with the Martian environment is that the dust on the surface is extraordinarily fine and penetrates deeply into any crevices. Worse still it is likely to be attracted by static charges that accumulate on the landers.

Since Martian dust is hard and abrasive it would quickly get to work on the joints of the machines making them much more prone to failure.

Wheels, particularly those on the rovers which are largely sealed units show much less vulnerability to wear and tear.

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:Rovers on Mars

[Derg]

Wouldnt it be theorhetically possible to use the same technique that keeps dust out from the weel connectors on the current rover designs to protect the joints on an Aibo type walking rover?

I mean, I realize there are obviously alot of things that would need to be changed, but I see the platform itself, in that it has balance mechanisms and enough of a basic sensor array to know where itself lies relative to space (how else is it able to sit up and walk around, it has to know its feet are above the floor somehow).

I also see it as an opprotunity to encourage people to make the most of consumer-available technology. I may not have access to the multi-million dollar rovers that NASA and the ESA have, but Aibos are relatively easy to get your hands on. Adding sensors and other computing power does not have to be integrated into the bot itself, but structurally seperate addons.

I hope someone can give me a really good reason why development of this sort isnt feasible, beyond dust, which can and have been overcome (i.e. the current rovers).


[all spelling and gramatical errors are due to lack of sleep. Going on 33 hours as of 9:30 am central *sigh* damn insomnia ]

Re:Rovers on Mars

[mikerich]

Apart from that you are introducing complexity into a design for very little gain...?

The current rovers have been designed to survive the forces of the launch, the baking and freezing imposed by the journey to Mars, the impact of the solar wind, the forces imposed by re-entry, deceleration and impact, the constant UV flux and the highly reactive Martian surface.

AIBO was designed to get around a flat, friendly living room, it would fail all the above tests. It doesn't lift its legs very far to walk, nor does it recognise walls or drop-offs so obstacle avoidance isn't present.

Not to mention that AIBO is smaller and lighter for the simple reason he has no instrumentation onboard. He wouldn't be very useful.

You could add extra computing power to the system, but either that would be present on a lander, which would reduce the weight for actual science, or you'd have to send all the commands back to Earth for processing - which would be painful.

You could have a walking robot on Mars, but the benefits seem somewhat elusive. And if legged robots do go to Mars, I think they'll owe more to the likes of Genghis than to AIBO.

AIBO is great, I have two, but he's no explorer.

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:Rovers on Mars

[wulfhound]

"It would obviously have to be "hardened""

That's the tough part. And not just hardened a little bit, either. It's kinda the same situation as "industrial" strength laptops (and even those are probably not space-ready). I don't know the exact requirements for space-hardening, but if it were easy then at the current $4000/lb or so it costs for LEO launch, some rich geek would surely have already put a small laptop-size server in orbit.

Building batteries, electronics and mechanical parts that work over a massive temperature range, harsh radiological conditions, and alien gravitational and atmospheric conditions, is always going to be difficult and expensive, and is bound to lag behind mainstream robotics by several years (btw, I doubt the average interplanetary probe has even Pentium II-class processors for their onboard computers :)).

Not to mention you have really strict power requirements on a vehicle that has to run for several weeks in an environment where power either has to be taken with you (batteries are heavy; nuclear sources - which offer much more energy for weight - either do not scale down small enough (reactors) or do not have a high enough output per hour (hot isotope sources)) or you have to run on solar power which on Mars is going to be pretty marginal for a self-propelled system.

One option would be a larger fixed solar installation that a robot can return to to recharge, but that means more complexity and more to go wrong, and again you have to have a rechargeable power system that will work reliably and predictably across a wide temperature range. Not easy.

Then there's communications.. I believe the current generation of Mars landers will relay messages to Earth via the various Mars orbiters, but you have a -huge- round-trip time for commands (several hours, possibly > 1 day).. it's not like having a radio-controlled robot! That's why NASA is doing a lot of research on autonomous UAVs for the next-generation "Mars flyer" craft.. actually "flying" the thing manually would be completely impossible.

I'm not saying that I think a walking rover is a bad idea, mind you, but to suggest that a "slightly modified AIBO" would do the job is way off beam.

Re:Rovers on Mars

[FreakyDeaky]

OK I have a question Why don't we just freakin send a human. don't say the risk becuase i think i would go.I'm sure others would also.

Re:Rovers on Mars

[wulfhound]

The problem is not so much sending a human - getting someone to Mars alive is not that difficult, apart from radiation shielding issues. At least, not that much more difficult than a. keeping someone alive on the Space Station for 6 months, or b. getting a man to the Moon and back. One problem is keeping someone alive once they get there, but the worst problem is getting them back:- once you land on a roughly Earth-sized planet, you need an Earth-sized rocket to get you off again. The big reason for looking for large water supplies on Mars is not for keeping humans alive - though it would obviously help - but as a ready source of hydrogen with which to produce rocket fuel via solar electrolysis. So, first you have to get a Soyuz-size rocket, albeit unfuelled, off the Earth's surface and safely down to the surface of another planet, along with suitable gear to produce tens of gallons of hydrogen an hour from water and solar or nuclear energy (otherwise you'll be waiting literally years for your rocket to fill up). Then once you get it on to the planet's surface, you have to hold out 'til it's got enough fuel to launch succesfully, and then launch the thing with a crew of perhaps 6 men and women, not the hundreds of technicians that would attend a normal Earth launch. The reason the Moon was relatively "easy" is that its gravity is very weak and hence it only takes a relatively small amount of energy to escape it - small enough that we could send the escape vehicle there ready-fuelled atop a Saturn rocket. Mars has a gravitational field not much less than Earth's, and so the escape vehicle has to be big and powerful.

Competition is good

[Wolfier]

Good thing that the rest of the world is putting up a good fight against US space dominance.

I can't wait to see the Europeans make another important scientific discovery before US does.

Re:Competition is good

[VanillaCoke420]

I can't wait to see the Europeans make another important scientific discovery before US does.

Yes, for example such as the discovery of America :-)
Joke aside, I think that competition as well as cooperation is good. And here, I kinda see both.

Re:Competition is good

[bm_luethke]

This is modded interesting?

Who give a flying fuck!

I want to see advances - I don't care if the US or Afghanastan does the advances - let them happen and share them. If the US can't deliver, then let the Europeans, if they can't then let the US or any other country.

This is just US bashing at it finest, just as if you swap the US and Europe it would be Europe bashing.

NASA has done a pretty good job of sharing info in the past, so has Europe as a whole. Lets all be for the advancement of science, not some sort of jingoistic look at the world.

Re:Competition is good

[btakita]

Seems like Europe is more application oriented (cheaper satellites) and the US is more research oriented (Mars, scientific fanfare, etc.).

Another question, can the US match Europe's space business model?

Re:Competition is good

[the_bahua]

It would be very nice to see some more space activity conducted in the private sector. They tend to get things done a little more effectively than the feds.

Drax had a point. :)

Re:Competition is good

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we can, and should, learn from each other.

Re:Competition is good

[nametaken]

After all the anti-business sentiment around slashdot nowadays, I'm surprised to hear someone say that! Maybe someday soon we'll have astronauts on slashdot complaining about the fat cats at the top taking bonuses while the astronauts get laid off. :)

Re:Competition is good

[Timesprout]

I agree with your point but with the away things are at the moment how long will it be before the European Space efforts become a 'threat' to US national security or some such nonsense and we all find ourselves in totally bizaar situation.

Re:Competition is good

[CptChipJew]

This was modded down most likely because if the bad attitude.

But it brings up an interesting thought I think. Would the space program advance further if the space-going countries worked together, or would competition drive each respective company to reach farther, faster.

If you look at the Cold War, we went from failed rocket launchers to man on the moon relatively quickly (That is, if you choose to believe the man on the moon thing really happened).

Re:Competition is good

[eurostar]

it's already the case:

U.S. 'negation' policy in space raises concerns abroad

Re:Competition is good

[pkunzipper]

Do you care to emphasize on "Europe's Business model" Just because they are pooling money from all nations to compose a united space program does not imply a business model. Structured research perhaps?

Re:Competition is good

[Anonymous Coward]

There is not (too much) competition. For instance: The american rover can use the Mars Express for comunication with Earth and the Beegle can use the american probes in case of problems.
The programs are complementary (well, the japanese one is a little less complementary, but only because is arriving four years later..).

Re:Competition is good

[Roto-Rooter Man]

Yeah, and as for the results of international cooperation in space, look at the space station. Late, bloated budget, possibly useless.... cooperation just doesn't work.

Re:Competition is good

[FreakyDeaky]

I don't think either governments had any seriuos goals for that. I think it was more political then anything. they would still rather see their own individual space program do better then the joint one. besides the U.S.'s and the Russian's sapce programs are sooo different i don't think it was a bad thing for a first try.

Re:Competition is good

[FreakyDeaky]

why don't we do it in the public non government sector. Let everybody who wants a piece of the pie get one. we could have a place where everbody was equal and we could commune together so we can communicate more with in the community. we could call our new social structure happy happy fake land that would never work, btu is fun in theory!

The payload

[Anonymous Coward]

The science payload's page is on Cornell's site here.

Imagery

[dekashizl]

I think it would be great to see some real color 3-D imagery from beyond Earth. They say human-eye height panoramic camera, but how about having two lenses to capture a 3D image? I'd pay $10 for a little View-Master with real 3D pictures from Mars, wouldn't you?

Re:Imagery

[mph]

I think it would suffice to move the camera a couple of inches between exposures.

Re:Imagery

[dew-genen-ny]

Nice idea....

Just wait a few seconds and take another picture!

Why don't they do that back here on earth?

Re:Imagery

[mph]

Why don't they do that back here on earth?

I assume that someone has, at some point. But on earth, if you're shooting stereophotographs with any frequency at all, it's probably worth it to buy a matched pair of cameras and a rigid mount. But when you have to get that mass to Mars, it's a different story.

But if you want to use the moving-camera method on earth, this may come in handy.

Re:Imagery

[dekashizl]

Well it's a fine idea except that it doesn't work consistently in practice outside of a thought experiment or an impossible lab environment. Why? For a couple of reasons.

1. Because things move: wind, dust, heat distortion, light changing, etc. Even more when there is organic matter around (pollen, insects, animals, shadows, etc.). Your brain is good at tricking you into seeing stereoscopically. But all these subtle distortions would break that pipeline. It's like your internal 3D driver is optimized for a specific test case, and then the situation changes. You'd see flickering and geometry popping when it shouldn't, and it won't feel right. Just ask nVidia. All of this could be manually filtered out, but then it's not a real image any more, and it's subject to somebody's interpretation of what things were "supposed to" look like.

2. Because it's actually easier to take two simultaneous pictures with fixed-position mounted lenses than it is to move a single camera a specific distance in a short amount of time and then take another picture. Why add a risk-prone mechanical engineering task to the problem? Just to save on the cost of a second lens/CCD? Come on, the fuel to get out there costs a bit more, and the weight of the mechanics to move and sense position is heavier than a second lens/CCD anyway.

Re:Imagery

[mph]

Because things move: wind, dust, heat distortion, light changing, etc.

Without actually seeing examples of these effects, I'm not convinced that they are a significant problem. Stereographs already mess up the pipeline and "don't feel right" in my experience; most obviously, your eyes only have to focus on the fixed plane of the image, instead of re-focusing as you look at different objects in the scene. It's not clear to me that the effects you mention will have any greater disruptive effect.

Why add a risk-prone mechanical engineering task to the problem? Just to save on the cost of a second lens/CCD? Come on, the fuel to get out there costs a bit more, and the weight of the mechanics to move and sense position is heavier than a second lens/CCD anyway.

Uh, it's a rover. It already knows how to move. Point the camera perpendicular to the direction of motion and tell it to move a few inches. And, the key point: Returning sterographic images is just for fun. Why would you spend money and grams of mass on such an endeavor? It seems clear to me that this is a "do what you can with what you've got" task, not an "incorporate it into the mission profile and engineer a solution" task.

Re:Imagery

[corleth]

There is a stereo camera on Beagle 2. There were also two cameras on Mars Pathfinder which were used to produce stereo panoramas.

Re:Imagery

[mijok]

There's plenty of that already. IIRC all of the landers have had such cameras. This is one link and this is another to such images but there are plenty more (Google is your friend...). What I'd really like to see is, however, more than still images - ie. some movement by the rovers and so on. However, I assume that the scientific value of that wouldn't be much higher than that of high resolution still images and thus doesn't justify the amount of data that needs to be transferred.

Re:Imagery

[Anonymous Coward]

Suffice it to say that the rover will be taking stereographic images, with two cameras, and will be using the information on board.

Re:Imagery

[Parys]

MER has a Panoramic Camera on top of the arm.

The Pancam Mast Assembly (PMA) allows the cameras to rotate a full 360Â to obtain a panoramic view of the Martian landscape. The camera bar itself can swing up or down through 180Â of elevation. Scientists will use Pancam to scan the horizon of Mars for landforms that may indicate a past history of water. They will also use the instrument to create a map of the area where the rover lands, as well as search for interesting rocks and soils to study.

The Pancam cameras are small enough to fit in the palm of your hand (270 grams or about 9 ounces), but can generate panoramic image mosaics as large as 4,000 pixels high and 24,000 pixels around. Pancam detectors are CCDs (charge coupled devices). These devices form the image, just as film does in a film camera.

As far as selling images go, well, you'll probably be able to download some next January, keep your fingers crossed for some sort of stereoscopic ones...

Re:Imagery

[Eight 01]

Not exactly a ground-breaking idea. Just shift your camera a few inches to the side and take another picture. I used to do this all the time.
To view in stereo, just hold the prints side-by-side and cross your eyes until the images overlap.

It works very well, although it isn't as nice as a dedicated 3D viewer.

The biggest problem with doing this on Earth is that almost everything moves at least a little in a second or two. A tree's branches shift in the wind. A car moves a little. Your friend's smile shifts a little. All of these things cause problems.

On Mars it would probably work fine, unless there is a dust storm going on.

I'd guess that is would be cheaper and more reliable to just put two cameras on the mast instead of some kind of moving mount and controller.

Re:Imagery

[QuantumFTL]

The panoramic camera does indeed have stereo vision. I happen to be a student helping with the development of Science Activity Planner which is the primary program used by the scientists to analyse data and plan mission sequences (final analysis of data is done by other tools, but for tactical planning SAP is used).

Anyways, there is a public version planned which includes the ability to not only make 3-D images using your graphics accellerator, but also to take two 2D images taken by the pair of pancams and color them so that 3D glasses (red/blue) reveal the terrain. It's actually a very cool feature (I've tried it out while at JPL) and should hopefully be easy to use on the public version.

Not quite as good as a View-Master, but close enough.

That said, the public version of SAP should also let you create your own "missions" using the same tools the scientists do. The data distribution will be immense, however, and we are considering using bittorrent. We need a bittorrent client that Joe User can install easily however.

Any suggestions?

Re:Imagery

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude! its a *STEREO* camera, it will be in 3d!!!!!! :)

Re:Imagery

[ch-chuck]

Um, actually I just did that a few weeks ago. While playing around with my 3D LCD shutter glasses I found this program and actually got a very good 3D shot of my room, just by snapping a pic, moving over a few cm and snapping another pic. I put the camera in a frame to keep it aligned in the other directions (your right, a 1 deg rotation will spoil the effect, but 3D Combine software is supposed to compensate for that) and it turned out great. Also, while looking for 3D photos to download I found one guys collection of European castles - One German castle, which also comes out ok, obviously used the same single camera technique since you can see off in the distance a road that has a car on it in one eye, but not in the other! Fortunately it was way off (small) and didn't spoil the scene. So, try it, the single camera method is quite easy for fairly static subjects!

Also, I'm not saying it's good for mars missions either ;)

Re:Imagery

[pyrrho]

I think that's what it do have.

Hey, this isn't a regular article you don't have to read. This is space exploration where you are expected to read all the links, including technical schematics, if you are a real geek. Now please! :)

Re:Imagery

[GileadGreene]

I believe that MER does have two lenses for the PANCAM. Worked on MER for about a year and a half, but moved on to other stuff a little over a year ago and so my recollection of the specifics of the PANCAM assembly is a little hazy. Certainly the navigation cameras are stereoscopic, and they're mounted on the same mast as the PANCAM. As I recall, the only difference between the PANCAM and NAVCAM is that the NAVCAM has a much tighter field-of-view, so you could build a panoramic view from NAVCAM images by panning the NAVCAM around (although obviously anything moving would not be captured in the same way as with a real PANCAM image).

More rovers!?!

[MonkeyPaw]

Oh dear. More cute rovers buzzing along the surface only to be abandaned later.

I felt sorry for that one a few years back. Kind of like leaving a puppy when you move.

Re:More rovers!?!

[flyingdisc]

I felt sorry for that one a few years back. Kind of like leaving a puppy when you move.

Part of the intention of having 2 rovers is that they can assist each other. This should make it more difficult to get a rover irreversibly stuck by a rock (as happened last time). If this happens the other rover can now be manoeuvred to nudge the stuck one free of any obstcle.

NASA is under a lot of pressure for a successful Mars mission after the recent failures on the red planet and having 2 rovers minimises the risks.

Re:More rovers!?!

[flyingdisc]

I retract that comment. This was part of the original sales pitch for the 2 rover launch but from reading the launch details it looks like they have gone for 2 seperate landing sites. They are going for prospect of data from two sites over the need to mitigating rover failure by deploying both at one site.

I'd be interested in what caused this change in plan?

Re:More rovers!?!

[photonic]

Considering that the two rovers will land on opposite sites of the planet, it is highly unlikely that they will help each other when they get stuck. I guess it was never even considered either.

I think the reason behind sending two rovers is the potential for getting almost twice the science for a very modest investment since you only have to do your R&D once. A rough guess for sending one rover would be ~1B$ and adding a second would only add 200M$.

Re:More rovers!?!

[BugMaster ChuckyD]

The 2 rovers are going to different landing sites, they are not intended to assist each other.

Re:More rovers!?!

[Anarchofascist]

Part of the intention of having 2 rovers is that they can assist each other. This should make it more difficult to get a rover irreversibly stuck by a rock (as happened last time).

Wrongo x 2. The rovers will be landing on completely different parts of the planet, one in a flood plain and one in a crater. They will never see each other. The last rover was stuck on a rock for two days because the controllers had to be damn sure that they didn't overturn it.

The point of two rovers is redundancy; if one fails, you always have the other. You square your chances of total failure. If it's a one in five chance of failure per rover, it's only a one in twenty five change of both rovers failing.

The value of unmanned missions

[fridzappa]

In the past, I would have been adamant in defending the shuttle program/ISS, but lately I've been wondering why so many billions have been spent on manned missions when that 500 million (USD) per launch could have been better spent (IMHO) on space probes.

FYI, these probes cost about 400 million (USD) each, and promise to return more science value than
all Shuttle missions combined (IMHO).

Granted, it was said of the very valuable (scientifically speaking) Apollo missions that 90 seconds of human-on-alien-world visual observation was more valuable than weeks or months of robot observations.

Still, given their cost and advancing robotic/computer technology, I would be very disappointed if NASA continued to spend so much on manned space "exploration."

Re:The value of unmanned missions

[HornyBastard77]

Granted, robotic/computer/AI tech has advanced and is advancing at a very decent rate, but IMHO it still hasn't reached a level where manned missions can be given up alltogether. I doubt that projects like the ISS can be undertaken without the human element being on hand to oversee the robotic/computer/AI elements.

In any case, future of space exploration does ideally lead to human settlements on other planets; giving up manned space exploration only delays that goal.

Re:The value of unmanned missions

[I don't want to spen]

I think you need to balance manned and unmanned missions. And don't forget, if the science you are interested in is studying the effect of spaceflight on the human body - well, I don't see an unmanned probe achieving much in this field!

And while I know the situations are very different, the old cliche about what the world would be like now if the explorers of 500 years or so ago had felt the same way still holds.

Perhaps the next reality TV show should be set on the space station?

Re:The value of unmanned missions

[Anonymous Coward]

Your assumption is that manned missions are being implemented in a cost-effective manner.

I've recently read some articles about the history of the space shuttle and ISS. The feeling I came away with was the problem of inexpensive manned space flight doesn't have anything to do with engineering but with politics, pork barreling and typical inefficiency caused by a lack of competion.

Re:The value of unmanned missions

[tmortn]

I don't begrudge expensive manned space expeditions... but I would preffer if they actually spent that money to explaore rather than bore holes in the sky up in Earth orbit. Read Zurbin or go to www.marsdirect.com and read about how we could easily head to the red planet with those rovers easily withen the current space budget for manned exploration.

Quick Facts (from PDF)

[Anonymous Coward]

Quick facts (from the PDF in case you can't read PDF's, or don't RTFA's)

Spacecraft

Cruise vehicle dimensions: 2.65 meters (8.7 feet) diameter, 1.6 meters (5.2 feet) tall
Rover dimensions: 1.5 meter (4.9 feet) high by 2.3 meters (7.5 feet) wide by 1.6 meter (5.2 feet) long
Weight: 1,062 kilograms (2,341 pounds) total at launch, consisting of 174-kilogram (384-pound) rover, 365-kilogram (805-pound) lander, 198-kilogram (436-pound) backshell and parachute, 90-kilogram (198-pound) heat shield and 183-kilogram (403-pound) cruise stage, plus 52 kilograms (115 pounds) of propellant
Power: Solar panel and lithium-ion battery system providing 140 watts on Mars surface
Science instruments: Panoramic cameras, miniature thermal emission spectrometer, MÃssbauer spectrometer, alpha particle X-ray spectrometer, microscopic imager, rock abrasion tool, magnet arrays

Rover A Mission

Launch vehicle: Delta II 7925
Launch period: June 8-24, 2003
Earth-Mars distance at launch: 105 million kilometers (65 million miles)
Mars landing: Jan. 4, 2004, at about 2 p.m. local Mars time (8:11 p.m. Jan. 3 PST)
Landing site: Gusev Crater, possible former lake in giant impact crater
Earth-Mars distance on landing day: 170.2 million kilometers (105.7 million miles)
One-way speed-of-light time Mars-to-Earth on landing day: 9.46 minutes
Total distance traveled Earth to Mars (approximate): 500 million kilometers (311 million miles)
Near-surface atmospheric temperature at landing site: -100 C (-148 F) to 0 C (32 F)
Primary mission: 90 Mars days, or "sols" (equivalent to 92 Earth days)

Rover B Mission

Launch vehicle: Delta II 7925H (larger solid-fuel boosters than 7925)
Launch period: June 25-July 15, 2003
Earth-Mars distance at launch: 89 million kilometers (55 million miles)
Mars landing: Jan. 25, 2004, at about 1:15 p.m. local Mars time (8:56 p.m. Jan. 24 PST)
Landing site: Meridiani Planum, where mineral deposits suggest wet past
Landing time: Approximately 1:15 p.m. local Mars time (8:56 p.m. PST)
Earth-Mars distance on landing day: 198.7 million kilometers (123.5 million miles)
One-way speed-of-light time Mars-to-Earth on landing day: 11 minutes
Total distance traveled Earth to Mars (approximate): 491 million kilometers (305 million miles)
Near-surface atmospheric temperature at landing site: -100 C (-148 F) to 0 C (32 F)
Primary mission: 90 Mars days, or "sols" (equivalent to 92 Earth days)

Program

Cost: Approximately $800 million total, consisting approximately of $625 million spacecraft development and science instruments; $100 million launch; $75 million mission operations and science processing

Re:Quick Facts (from PDF)

[jericho4.0]

Dear Mr.AC,
Not only have you taken the time to post the contents of a link to /., and posted it as AC(the only proper way), you have taken the time to take this info from a pdf.
You, sir or madam, are among the best /. has to offer.
Posting as me, with my karma bonus, so all the karma whores can get a clue.

will they land successfully?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear NASA specifically designed these new rovers to make a beautiful plume of dust when they crash into the Martian soil due to unforseen programming errors.

Earthbound telescopes should all be trained to the heavens to catch this marvelous use of taxpayer money.

Re:will they land successfully?

[yuri82]

someone get taco bell to sponsor another free taco promotion based on where these will crash...

Re:will they land successfully?

[switched4OSX]

No, but they did specifically design this:
"Rock Abrasion Tool (RAT)"
Sounds like a million dollar scraper to me.

Re:will they land successfully?

[eurostar]

your taxpayers money goes into supporting Boeing
and friends (ex. recent aircraft "sales" to poland,
and poland's recent "economic aid package")

IMHO a lot of countries would rather see the US using their taxpayers money for peacefull uses.

Re:will they land successfully?

[Anonymous Coward]

It probably will make a nice dust plume. It's going to bounce around on "air bag"-like cushions until it's finally landed, much like the '97 landing.

Anti-europeanism

[mark2003]

Comment with a story about the European space programme.

A lot of money is going into rocket technology also; with this and the 'European version' of GPS are we heading towards a future conflict across the Atlantic?

Why the diferent spin for European vs. American space programs on Slashdot? Why does this project not lead to conflict?

I never had you guys down as nationalist but I have been disapointed by many of the recent comments on /.

Re:Anti-europeanism

[JanneM]

I never had you guys down as nationalist but I have been disapointed by many of the recent comments on /.

You never saw americans as nationalist? You must already have been on Mars for the past few years then.

Re:Anti-europeanism

[mark2003]

I always had American's, in general, down as far too patriotic, usually bordering on nationalistic. But most of the posters on this site seemed to be pretty intelligent and cycnical individuals, not your average blue collar chaps, who are generally pretty nationalist in any country (look at the crap printed in the Sun for an example in the UK).

Re:Anti-europeanism

[Xrikcus]

The Sun's an extreme example. It's one of those places where you have to search page by page to find something that isn't crap and when you do it's usually the page numbers.

Re:Anti-europeanism

[fantomas]

An extreme example maybe but The Sun is the mostly widely read paper in the UK (highest circulation figures). Most Europeans have distinct reservations about the UK press and its opinion forming effect on the UK populace.

Re:Anti-europeanism

[mark2003]

Tough enough to be abusive AND anonymous?

Re:Anti-europeanism

[switched4OSX]

Highly intelligent response

Re:Anti-europeanism

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you and the other people making anti-American comments ought to get off Slashdot. If you're going to post flamebait, don't whine when you get flamed. That's the way things work here. Anti-American posts and other flamebait is just as obnoxious, if not more obnoxious, than the flame you're complaining about. If you're going to be a racist, then accept the negative comments and flames you attract. It always amazes me how you liberal and supposedly tolerant Europeans are so hateful and racist against Americans. Now before you complain about abuse, maybe you ought to stop being a racist against Americans.

Re:Anti-europeanism

[mark2003]

I was simply pointing out that the last few times an article on European space technology has been posted it has been acompanied by comments about trans-Atlantic conflict, whereas this post of an article about American space technology was not.

The implication is that America going into space is great in all respects, whereas Europe going into space is antagonistic.

Am I being racist for pointing out this nationalist implication on /.?

Anti-American posts and other flamebait is just as obnoxious, if not more obnoxious, than the flame you're complaining about

So being anti-American is worse than being anti-European? Personally I am of the opinion that both are equally ignorant and obnoxious, and that is why I am disapointed that the people running this site have let bias creep into their postings.

Re:Anti-europeanism

[hachete]

Of course, the Sun is owned by Murdoch who owns - wait for it - Fox. Now that the FCC regs have been relaxed, watch out for the US version of the Sun.

I've seen the Fox website and it's pretty much in line with what the sun is doing (modulo the semi-naked women). So I guess Murdochs MO is to drive up sales by harping on nationalist feelings. In the UK, this can get pretty extreme so I'd say he's playing with fire here.

Clearchannel were running pro-war rallies during Gulf II. I expect more of these in the future.

What has this to do with Mars missions? These things tend to have a large slice of dick-waving involved just to pump up the budgets - in some cases, just to get the budget in the first place.

Notice that the Beagle II - part of the Mars Express mission - is totally privately funded. Blur [1] and Damien Hirst [2] were involved and they helped to raise funds. Is there an equivalent on the US missions?

h.

[1] A popular modern upbeat combo, apparently
[2] A purveyor of dead sharks and multi-coloured spots in a post-modernist manner.

Re:Anti-europeanism

[mark2003]

This must be like some kind of online fight club thing then, with me as Edward Norton's character...

What really upsets me is when I catch myself out though...

Re:Anti-europeanism

[VanillaCoke420]

We're racist? Against what race exactly?

Re:Anti-europeanism

[mikerich]

Notice that the Beagle II - part of the Mars Express mission - is totally privately funded. Blur [1] and Damien Hirst [2] were involved and they helped to raise funds.

Sorry, there is no private funding of Beagle 2. It has been paid for as a consortium by the Department of Trade and Industry, ESA, the Wellcome Trust and PPARC. The involvement of Damien Hirst and Blur has been on a volunteer basis - both for their contributions and for the publicity they can give the project.

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:Anti-europeanism

[Anonymous Coward]

There are subtle differences in types of nationalism though...I think alot of people miss that. Most Americans don't dislike Europe or resent Europeans having pride in their homelands...actually quite the opposite. We really rather like it if they are happy too.

When it comes to things like this however...think of it more as a sibling rivalry. Sure...we want to show each other up when we can - but that doesn't mean we take pleasure in the failure of the other.

There are ALOT of childish Euro's and self loathing Americans on slashdot these days...it's really kind of sickening.

Re:Anti-europeanism

[hachete]

The wellcome trust:

"The Wellcome Trust is an independent research-funding charity that aims to improve human and animal health."

I guess that counts as private. But the "totally" is overstated...doh!

h.

Truly a life defining moment...

[arcite]

A previous generation had the Apollo moon landing as a life defining moment, for me it was the Mars rover. I distinctly remember being glued to the life tv broadcast, watching the first images of mars being beamed back to earth, in full colour, high-res, 360 degree glory. Is there anything else that has come closer to bring humanity closer together than the wonder of space exploration? I don't think so. I hope for success for all the landers and probes. We need them to succeed if we are to achieve the next stage of humanity. You know, the Startrek stage. ;)

Re:Truly a life defining moment...

[chmod000]

We need them to succeed if we are to achieve the next stage of humanity. You know, the Startrek stage. ;)

<wibble>

Please don't do that in here again. It frightens the children.

Re:Truly a life defining moment...

[Eight 01]

Do you mean Mars Pathfinder? That had a rover, but was 25 years after Viking returned all those beatiful color pictures of the surface.

Re:Truly a life defining moment...

[ashitaka]

A previous generation had the Apollo moon landing as a life defining moment..

That was MY generation!

(sigh)

I feel old.

Re:Truly a life defining moment...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there anything else that has come closer to bring humanity closer together than the wonder of space exploration? I don't think so Bring humanity closer together? Most people couldn't care less about space exploration. Perhaps if we wish to unify humanity we can start by dealing with some of humanities desperate problems, like AIDs, or there not being enough clean water to go around. I'm not against space exploration - hey, it's interesting. But let's not mistake it for the things that are really important.

Ask Slashdot: stowaway on board a spacecraft?

[lingqi]

A long time ago, people used to hide on ships thats headed for various places, for one reason or another.

My question is: does anybody think it would be possible (let's assume one can get past the security, etc) to be a stowaway onboard the mars-bound spacecraft, if I don't plan to come back?

I mean, a spacesuit + a oxygen + urine/feces bag + yourself does not weight THAT much; and the acceleration won't kill you going up anyway.

So... what y'all think? haul ass to Mars, dig a shallow grave, and write in really big letters nearby: FIRST HUMAN HERE, BIATCH!

(i am not trolling, btw - in philosophy this would be considered a "thought excercise")

Re:Ask Slashdot: stowaway on board a spacecraft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you would probably die of radiation poisoning before even getting close to the red planet, but hey, its the thought that counts right? :)

Re:Ask Slashdot: stowaway on board a spacecraft?

[JanneM]

No, it won't weigh much - as long as you discount the one and a half metric ton of food and water (assuming you have equipment to recycle your urine) and the air purifying system you need to survive to the end of the trip. That will be _really_ easy to sneak aboard. And, of course, with a launch and propellant system that dimensioned down to the pound, adding close to two tons of extra cargo may have a slight effect on the success of the mission...

Re:Ask Slashdot: stowaway on board a spacecraft?

[richie2000]

There is one way: Die and have someone cremate you and hide the ashes in one of the experiments. That's the only way to get light and small enough to not be noticed, or indeed to find room at all.

Sorry about the big letters part. You could always move out into the desert and dedicate your life to digging mile-high letters in the sand, spelling "FUCK YOU" for the next shuttle crew that passes by. ;-)

Re:Ask Slashdot: stowaway on board a spacecraft?

[johannesg]

No, for a number of reasons:

- Security around spacecraft security is very tight, especially on a launch site. It is hard to get to them, and they are inspected constantly (not for stowaways, but one would be detected quickly enough).

- Spacecraft tend to be rather small, and filled with equipment. Certainly Mars Express (the european spacecraft) is far too small to contain a human being. I have not seen the american spacecraft but I'd guess they are not much bigger.

- The weight of the spacecraft is known with high accuracy, and verified before launch.

- The center of gravity of the spacecraft is known. Changing it (by tagging on extra weight) will cause maneuvring to fail, sending the thing to the wrong location.

- The trip takes a significantly long time (many months). You'd be long dead by the time you arrived (from lack of oxygen, radiation, etc.).

- The launch may very well kill you: not every launcher is human-rated, and some produce vibrations strong enough to kill a human passenger.

Finally, I don't want to discourage you but as far as I know noone has ever been able to make a picture of one of the moon landing sites proving there was something there. Your grave would most likely suffer a similar fate.

Re:Ask Slashdot: stowaway on board a spacecraft?

[danro]

You could always move out into the desert and dedicate your life to digging mile-high letters in the sand, spelling "FUCK YOU" for the next shuttle crew that passes by. ;-)

I really hope people get this reference...

Re:Ask Slashdot: stowaway on board a spacecraft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope - care to explain?

Re:Ask Slashdot: stowaway on board a spacecraft?

[danro]

The best issue ever of the comic Preacher...
After being nuked, not to mention physsicaly assaulted by God, Jesse Custer meets a very odd character in the desert.

Two probes from NASA, one from ESA.

[Zayin]

ESA launched their Mars probe on June 2nd. So, in about half a year there will be three different probes landing on Mars if everything goes as planned.

Re:Two probes from NASA, one from ESA.

[Anonymous Coward]

And hopefully the japanese mars probe will finally arrive soon, too.

Re:Two probes from NASA, one from ESA.

[flyingdisc]

There are actually 4 missions. Nozomi which is launched by the Japanese, and will reach martian orbit at a similar time to the mars express.

The amusing thing about nozomi (meaning hope) is that it was launched in 1998 - but used too much fuel and was unable to reach mars in that window - it's been bouncing off various planets including a swing by earth again to realign it with the current mars window. So there will be a japanese martian orbiter as well - just 4 years late.

Re:Two probes from NASA, one from ESA.

[corleth]

So, there are seven:

MER 1 - NASA lander, launched soon
MER 2 - NASA lander, launched soon
Beagle 2 - ESA lander, launched recently
Mars Express - ESA orbiter, launched recently
Nozomi - ISIS orbiter, on route
Mars Odyssey - NASA orbiter, already there
Mars Gloabl Surveyor - NASA orbiter, already there

Quite an impressible armada, don't you think?

Re:Two probes from NASA, one from ESA.

[oobar]

As I'm sure others have pointed out, the armada of recent Mars missions is due to its orbit lining up with Earth's such that the two are particularly close to each other. This happens about every 50,000 years, so I suppose it's good to take advantage of it while we can. Not like we'll be around for the next one...

Re:Two probes from NASA, one from ESA.

[cheekyboy]

How much closer can it get? 100M miles, vs 120M miles? whats an extra week in travel time, its not like we had mars mission capability in 1923 did we.... its just NASA got slack/sidelined after 1973 ..... 93 With all those billions wasted on Shuttles/ISS

Martianzilla

[malia8888]

From the NASA webpage The robotic arm will be capable of movement in much the same way as a human arm with an elbow and wrist, and will place instruments directly up against rock and soil targets of interest. In the mechanical "fist" of the arm is a microscopic camera that will serve the same purpose as a geologist's handheld magnifying lens. The Rock Abrasion Tool serves the purpose of a geologist's rock hammer to expose the insides of rocks.

Then the Martians will come up (practical jokers that they are) and put silly putty in the robotic hand and some lady Martian's thong underwear on the robotic arm.

Why Marsbots?

[jabbadabbadoo]

Instead of 400 000 000 USD Marsbots, why not 400 000 000 worth of research into more economic spacecrafts?

Re:Why Marsbots?

[GeoGreg]

To send people to Mars? People are heavy, expensive to maintain, and don't hold up well in low-gravity environments. I've seen Robert Zubrin (author of The Case for Mars) speak. I've also read arguments against a human Mars mission (e.g. in Robert Parks' Voodoo Science). While sending people to Mars would be cool, I don't think we are at a point yet where it's worthwhile. Maybe we will be someday, or maybe we won't. Unlike some, I don't believe that human expansion beyond the earth is necessarily feasible (or desirable). Again, maybe someday, but I'm not holding my breath.

Faster, Better, Cheaper, Smarter

[btakita]

NASA really needs this to be a success, especially after the Columbia.

Given the past performaces of Mars expeditions, NASA is taking a big risk.

Of course, technology has improved, but is this a prudent bet for NASA?

Re:Faster, Better, Cheaper, Smarter

[QuantumFTL]

I'm a student who happens to work for the head of the mission Steve Squyres (he's the Principle Investigator).

I've heard much about the politics etc that allowed this particular mission to be chosen, and it's quite an amazing story. One of the big deals about this mission is that it's a SCIENCE mission. Unlike pathfinder, whose mission was to test mars lander/rover tech, this mission is all about accomplishing as much science as possible. The mission was designed basically by looking at the pathfinder delivery system and figuring out how much rover they could cram into it.

I have much faith in the mission because the pathfinder system works, and it works well. There may be issues with the heaver weight etc, however I don't think we're going to see something like the polar lander happen to these guys.

I hope at least :)

Re:Faster, Better, Cheaper, Smarter

[f97tosc]

Given the past performaces of Mars expeditions, NASA is taking a big risk.

Of course, technology has improved, but is this a prudent bet for NASA?

The rovers and the mission have been in development for years. It is true that it is risky, but most of that risk has already been taken in the development of the rovers; it is a sunk cost.

Cancelling the mission at this point will not remove the risk, it will just guarantee a failure.

Tor

Competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

YES!
Now it will be very soon we'll have certainty about life on Mars: reall competition (ESA+Rusia vs. NASA) :-)

Ps. I'm not a fundamental capitalist; in a few instances competition is bad. But this is one of the many good examples imho.

Re:Competition!

[flyingdisc]

I'm not challenging you assertion that competition is good or bad, but you are fundimentally misreading the current state of space research if you see it as a competition. Anyone involved in space science will know that we are currently seeing unprecedented levels of collaboration not competition.

There is no point in inventing the wheel 3 times. We all gain from pooling scientific data. Previous mars missions inform the current ones. The current ones inform future ones. The different missions compliment each other, scientificially at least.

Re:Competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, I must admit that I'm not aware of the details of the missions.

Hmm, their planning team needs work

[toddhunter]

If their estimates for launches in this month include the 15th of July.

Re:Hmm, their planning team needs work

[shaniber]

to which the submitter replied, "D'oh!"

I read the usenet posting first, which said that "[the] second rover mission, bound for a different site on Mars, will launch as soon as June 25". (sci.space.news, Message-id: bbll9j$1kb$1@nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov).

Should have double checked my wording before hitting submit...

But raw, unmitigated bile is bad.

[nurightshu]

Why does it really matter who makes an important discovery? Is the world scientific community somehow enriched more because Uwe in Vienna or Piet in Den Haag made the discovery before Steve in Alamogordo? Or is it more accurate to say that you hate America?

Your first sentence seems to lean toward the latter explanation, as you seem to be upset about U.S. "space dominance," despite the fact that a look at the STS mission crew bios is more multicultural than a Rainbow Coalition rally. Aboard the ill-fated Columbia mission, for the first example that comes to mind, we had the first Israeli in space; I believe his name was Ilian Ramon (although I could be wrong about his first name). Additionally, Kalpana Chawla was born in India. Granted, she was a U.S. citizen at the time of her death, but I'd still say that on the whole, the goodwill extended by NASA in offering to take up scientists of so many nations stands as an eloquent counterargument to your belief in some sort of American doctrine of "Manifest Space Destiny." Were I you, I'd worry more about my own demagoguery than the perceived dangers of American astronautical hegemony.

In my travels to Europe, South America, and the Pacific Rim, I've met hundreds of intelligent, friendly, and generally cool people. I can only hope that when they read such ill-informed and sneeringly smug commentary as yours, that they are as horrified as I am when I see an American behaving rudely towards someone from another country.

Re:But raw, unmitigated bile is bad.

[Saeger]

Why does it really matter who makes an important discovery?

Because people are still very tribalistic / nationalistic (same thing really) at genetic & memetic levels.

Us Vs. Them is just part of human nature, and until Them=Aliens it's the rare person who counts the entire human race as his "tribe".

--

Re:But raw, unmitigated bile is bad.

[pkunzipper]

Why does it really matter who makes an important discovery? It matters very much. Different scientists produce different results in research, and politicians then choose which one suits their goals best. Take for example the fishing industry. The NFI (National Fisheries Institute, Inc.) in a recent study on coastal marine life and sustainability produced figures very favirable to the industry and the fishing companies (large-scale). These were proved to be very different from the research posted by other groups and the opinions of the actual fishermen themselves were in harp contrast to the of the NFI. Yet members of government, in drafting policy, choose to ignore those results that are will steer them away from campaign contribution and reelection. The point is, scientists, in some matters, dominate the Capitol. On many global issues, including Antarctica, and soon Mars once more substantial research from several sources is available, scientists will be the deciding force in how to deal with resources, what to do about certain discoveries etc. Do not dilute this with the issue of cloning, as that involves morals beyond the scope of this discussion.

Re:But raw, unmitigated bile is bad.

[Wolfier]

Holy batman calmdown.

Maybe I misplaced a word. Try to replace "dominance" by "monopoly". You'll get my idea.

Do I hate the US? Hell no.
Do I hate its space policies? Fuck yes!

Look at what happened to Columbia, what happened a few years back to a probe that was the result of not using metric.

Look at what the pentagon is trying to do when Europe is planning a GPS alternative.

There are enough reasons for at least me to not like what US is doing with its space program, and calls it the "pinnacle of human technology". Bah.

Re:But raw, unmitigated bile is bad.

[mbrod]

"Is the world scientific community somehow enriched more because Uwe in Vienna or Piet in Den Haag made the discovery before Steve in Alamogordo?"

Actually I think it is. Sad fact of space exploration is it currently needs tons of money to do. Right now governments are the prime source of this money and getting it involves a lot of politics.

Current administration in the US doesn't seem to be pushing the envelope in this area very heavily. I don't hear them really speak for or against it.

So getting a good jump start to this area would be most easily politically sold if the US started getting beat in the area. It will be very easy to scare the people with the defense money into spending it on space when China and the EU have more advanced systems and are working with the Russians on it.

Re:But raw, unmitigated bile is bad.

[GeoGreg]

Look at what happened to Columbia, what happened a few years back to a probe that was the result of not using metric.

To be fair, that was basically an isolated bug. One constant somewhere in the code used for landing the vehicle was in the wrong units. Unfortunately, it apparently was a rather critical constant.

Don't forget, the French had to blow up their first Ariane 5 rocket when it went off course due to a float-to-integer conversion overflow. They had used Ariane 4 code ("It's tested!") without feeding it simulated Ariane 5 data. Turned out that the Ariane 5 data had larger numbers, causing the overflow. So, the USA is not the only country to have experienced a mission failure due to poor software engineering.

Re:But raw, unmitigated bile is bad.

[hesiod]

> they are as horrified as I am when I see an American behaving rudely towards someone from another country.

As rudely as Americans are treated you mean? I, personally, have never been to Europe (not for lack of desire, but money), although I know a few friends who have. Most of them have said it was a great place, except that they were treated horribly by a small percentage of the populace, just because they were American. It's not just a U.S. problem, it is a human problem, with everyone guilty of generalizing, regardless what side of the planet they live on.

Re:But raw, unmitigated bile is bad.

[Wolfier]

True that.

However, I'll remain sceptical towards US space policies until I see Galileo (the EU GPS alternative) up and running without kowtowing to Pentagon pressures based on unfounded fears.

Re:But raw, unmitigated bile is bad.

[pyrrho]

scientific competition is healthy... much better than killing or ruining economies. For one thing, we all benefit, the glory is in the bragging rights "I brought a moon rock back for Earth..." and the real value is shared.

Best if we could funnel our national pride (aka virulent jingoism) into things like scientific progress. Last one to the moon's a weenie!

Re:But raw, unmitigated bile is bad.

[FreakyDeaky]

I agree with the statement that it does matted who does the advancement but not for the exact same reason. I know I'm a victim of the United States' propaganda machine but no matter how much you say everybody loves each other and space exploration is purely that space exploration. I won't believe it. If some country nto friendly to the U.S. sets a platform in space similar to the Star Wars idea (lots of nukes in space for easy blowing up) I wouldn't be all that comfortable. I think the U.S. and most european countries have proven that their goal is to maintain peace and not destroy it for national gains. I'd rather see England go to mars then Syria (don't take this like I'm racist or something my family comes from the Middle east) it's just that what i've seen from too many nations is that they like moer and more power and if they have the power to make the entire globe shake in fear then i doubt they would say "o yeah here now that I've done it here is how you can build your own doomsday device." This statement is not accounting for money constraints of third world countries it is purely theoretical.

Re:Or Helping Other People

[nurightshu]

Probably because throwing money and/or food at a Third World country doesn't help raise the standard of living (except for the standard of living of the fatuous oligarchies in power in most of them). I submit Somalia as an example of how the entire world can get behind a relief effort, only to watch it fail miserably because they're trying to cure a symptom and not the disease.

Ever look at the banana republics with their {brutally oppressive right-wing juntas|criminally inept left-wing politburos} and thought, Hey, maybe the crap living conditions in Absurdistan are a function of having a fscked-up governmental system, and not the other way around? You can't really do much for a country in the throes of terminal governance. There's a hell of a lot to be said for a free press, too -- I believe it was anthropologist Amarta Sen who noted that there hasn't been a famine in any country with a truly free press.

You really want to help the hell-holes of the world? Go down to one and start teaching the people about the importance of property rights, rule of law, freedom of expression, and circumscription of government behavior. The payoff from that would be worth a whole air wing of B-2s.

Of course, it's entirely possible that you think that my proposal is just another Terrible American(TM) trying to force his eeeevil Western values and culture onto the people of Southern Trashcanamunda.

Us vs Them

[btakita]

Isn't this the typical tribal human instinct?
We like ourselves and our tribe.

Maybe things are different on the other side of the pond, but isn't there the same thing in Europe?

It's sad that most of what I hear about the EU is they are America's competitors. (I live in the US btw).

Is this true? Is collaboration possible?

Are American's really seen as crazy in Europe (especially France)?

I'm just curious b/c I don't really know any Europeans.

Re:Us vs Them

[JanneM]

Of course collaboration is possible; the bickering and acrimony we see is possible precisely because we already are so intertwined. It's like family squabbles - they can get so bad precisely because the participants have so much in common.

What I think people in europe react to (at least here in Sweden - no idea about France), is that american nationalism and patriotism is so over the top. It's "My country, right or wrong", and any kind of critizism or attempt to set facts straight, no matter how correct or warranted, is taken as a personal attack. I also think europeans may be more sensitive to that sort of thing because we've been there, done that, got the memorials. Nationalism was a continent-wide sport for several hundred years here, with the world wars just the last and most emphatic disasters that resulted. We know what results this sentiment can bring, and are pretty wary of it.

Am I

[Timesprout]

The only person who thinks this is a terrible thing to do to a couple of doggies. poor things. Just give them a smack and lock them outside for a couple of hours, theres just no need to send them into space.

Re:Or Helping Other People

[btakita]

I'm also an American. I agree that throwing food at the problem doesn't do much other than make us feel better.

I'm just talking about Afganistan. About $500 million has been apportioned to Afganistan. Why not improve their infrastructure or give them some strategic aid to jumpstart their economy?

Other countries should do more to help also.

I also understand that a region needs stability to really help the people. Hopefully the U.N. grows teeth and makes dictators and other human rights abusers accountable to their actions. I mean by action instead of lip service.

The two go hand in hand

[nounderscores]

In the original space program when cost was no object, the idea was that you launched unmanned missions to see what there was to see and then send humans only when there was glory and really difficult science to do.

Maybe we should just scale up the programme - we're back in the unmanned phase and are going to send out swarms of probes until we find something to investigate that the probes CANNOT examine properley (ie we find life, or a big oil deposit, or a ruined city) and then and only then send people.

Hey, maybe if we sent enough small light probes we could have a scenario like the one in this online comic - everybody controls a probe of their very own as if it's a webcam with 20 min lag.

Hmmmm...

[TheOrquithVagrant]

Trying out for the Most Sensational Darwin Award Ever, are we? I mean... you wouldn't just ensure that you could never pass on your genes, but your actual DNA and even the base elements its made up from would largely be removed from the planet earth! Now that's what I call a _thorough_ Darwin.
Go for it! 8)

Re:Hmmmm...

[Tackhead]

> Trying out for the Most Sensational Darwin Award Ever, are we? I mean... you wouldn't just ensure that you could never pass on your genes, but your actual DNA and even the base elements its made up from would largely be removed from the planet earth! Now that's what I call a _thorough_ Darwin.

Assuming there's no life currently on Mars, and assuming he did this near a source of water ice, (or better yet, a geothermal, er, areothermal energy source, if one exists) he may have leaked biomatter over a few hundred square meters by the time he dies. (And especially the 2-3 square meters where he falls when he dies!)

600,000,000 years later, Martian scientists will send probes to Earth, and wonder why the hell their DNA shares the same genetic sequences as the plankton that is Earth's dominant lifeform. They'll probably conclude that Earth life started as Martian bacteria that hitched a ride on Martian rocks that got blasted off Mars' surface by asteroid impacts. I mean, any other explanation would be preposterous, right?

"Darwin" Award indeed :-)

Re:My advice

[Kurt Russell]

Don't bring any foam!
Bad joke..
Which level of hell do you belong on.

Re:Or Helping Other People

[nurightshu]

Even though I'm American, I use Terrible American(TM) myself, mostly to refer to those tourists I see when I'm overseas who "go someplace different, and then complain because nothing's the same." (Apologies for not attributing the quote, because I can't remember from whom I'm stealing it.)

As far as Afghanistan goes, I'm all for helping them out: the first thing we should do is sit down with their government leaders and help them draft a constitution incorporating at a bare minimum the four points I mentioned above. Then we should give any company who does business (above a certain threshhold, say USD 10,000 a year) in Afghanistan the full amount of their profit, no taxation on the earnings. Construction companies and surveying teams should be permitted to have, say, two years' worth of tax freedom for rebuilding infrastructure in the nation, as well.

Finally, there ought to be incentives to promote a high-tech revolution in Afghanistan (cue up the Junis jokes, kids). Singapore saved itself with its electronics manufacturing; Afghanistan could do the same. Frankly, I'd love to see the Khyber Pass become the next Silicon Valley (I know the terrain is not analogous, but you get the gist).

Your last point brings up some thorny and controversial thoughts too -- we tried that with Saddam Hussein, but when we told the U.N. "put up or shut up" on UNSCRs 891, 1441, and all the other chart-topping hits between them, well, you saw what happened. Sometimes unilateral action's gotta happen.

Which means...

[nounderscores]

ROBOT WARS!

Beagle-2 has Rover-A up against the pit! Beagle-2 is charging!!!!

Oh that's got to hurt! Rover-A is ducking out of the way and giving Beagle-2 a quick whack with the rock abraision tool!

The cocky brit recovers but the solar panel is cracked. Yes that's right folks, the beagle-2 solar panel is definitely cracked, and has lost some of its power generating capabilities.

But wait! what's that under the ground??? the mole probe from beagle-2 is ripping up Rover-A's aluminium rocker bogie wheels!

Oh the humanity! they're joined together! they're rolling into the pit!

Where's the ref bots???

it is a bad joke

[nounderscores]

Especially since the Rovers A and B will be bringing foam.

See the bit about hubcaps.

Why not help yourself?

[meadowsp]

I hear there are quite a lot of people in the USA without medical cover, why not spend the money on that?

Re:Why not help yourself?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a good idea in principal. The problem is that as soon as you offer any universal coverage, people demand total coverage for everything, and this becomes very expensive.

Soon you have tax payers paying for breast implants, experimental brain-transpant surgery, and then the $500 Million lawsuit awards against the doctor who performed the brain-transplant surgery.

Pretty soon every lowlife is on the take, and the government is bleeding money.

The solution is to limit medical coverage, but then you are labeled some kind of Nazi.

Using nationalism to futher science

[Nice2Cats]

It shouldn't matter, but if you don't mind the moral question, rampant nationalism works wonders for space exploration.

Just let us assume for one moment that the European Mars Express with its Beagle 2 lander does find something they claim is a sure sign of life on Mars. It would mean that the first European planetary mission ever finds something that NASA has been looking for for decades. Somebody in Congress is going to take that as a personal insult and push the space program some more -- while the Europeans will find funding their probes a lot more interesting. More space exploration for all...

But this is just chicken feed. Can you imagine the U.S. watching China build and man a moon base? Even having Chinese astronauts ("taikonauts", I believe they are called) walking on the moon will make them nervous enough to push funding.

There is nothing like space exploration for a nation's scientific prestige. This hasn't been apparent for the last few decades because the U.S. and the Soviet Union both decided not to get into that kind of arms race again, and after the fall of communism, the U.S. has had a monopoly. If that is challenged, it is a good thing -- certainly better than trying to build the largest navy, the most atom bombs, or some of the other things we've had in the past.

Re:Using nationalism to futher science

[Call Me Black Cloud]

Can you imagine the U.S. watching China build and man a moon base?

Sweet! Ever have that astronaut ice cream they sell at the Smithsonian Air & Space museum? Blech...if the Chinese get there first we'll be able to get take out and have our space suits pressed and cleaned.

Re:Using nationalism to futher science

[malsdavis]

I agree, space exploration has never been the same since the USSR's space program fell through. Back then there was lots of talk of space stations, moon bases, nuclear powered rockets and the rest. Back in the 70's and 80's for example several spacestations were put up there (skylab, mir, almaz etc.) Nowadays, they can't even build a space station, its obvious why, with no evil empire to compete against governments seem to prefer to spend money on stupid things, like blowing up 3rd world countries that lack armies.

Why not!?

[L0J46K]

Why send one when you can send two at twice the price! I guess they figure this time if one crashes they have a backup.

They have missed their chance..

[Mr2cents]

Mars???? It's already June!!!

At least....

[Cackmobile]

They are doing something smart. Mars is going to be crowded place. I imagine that when we do finally get to mars we will be tripping over all the old landers.

Go NASA/ESA/Whoever else. I wanna goto mars or at least the moon.

Discovery fuels superiority

[nounderscores]

Actually, what would happen if somebody finds a mineral on mars that say can remember shapes, learn behaviours, and be formed into terrible weapons?

Yes it would increase funding, but ultimately all competition is about power. And some believe that power shared is power lost.

Heck the ability to land a person gently on another planet means that you are already a longtime member of the club that can launch spy-eyes into space and land bombs quite hard into major cities.

I say, tone down the rampant nationalism first and then when we discover a super-resource like bio-metal we can use it to make spaceships and not starfighters.

Either that or we'd better discover a peaceful planet to invade fast, so that we'd stop fighting amongst ourselves.

Re:Discovery fuels superiority

[Saeger]

when we discover a super-resource like bio-metal

Eh. Not likely. Anyway, materials science will make the greatest leaps right here on Earth in the next couple decades as nanotech matures. So happens uniform materials are one of the easier first apps.

Either that or we'd better discover a peaceful planet to invade fast, so that we'd stop fighting amongst ourselves.

How 'bout instead we learn how our brains tick, and remove that nasty old bit of evolved jungle psychology? (sadly, killing==GOOD still serves our genes well).

--

Stereographs from Mars at the Lomaxes

[nounderscores]

"Mom! this stereograph doesn't work! there's a rock in the middle that doesn't pop up."

"Hmmm... Well junior, that's because in the second photo that rock has grown little legs and moved to over there... Hey!"

Why RealPlayer??

[edgrale]

Why is it that every space agency is using RealPlayer? Just the other day ESA was broadcasting using RealPlayer and now NASA!

I don't want to install that crappy pos player. Is there a nother player that can play the RealPlayer codec?

Re:Why RealPlayer??

[corleth]

Xine and Mplayer on Linux can theoretically at least use the RealPlayer codec.

The reason for RealPlayer is that there are native players available for Windows, MacOS and Linux, and that RealPlay data streams are well compressed (so that the Slashdot effect doesn't hurt too much). Many in the space industry use Unix almost exclusively, and so aren't keen to view on Windows or Mac.

Re:Why RealPlayer??

[dew-genen-ny]

Doesn't MPlayer ???

Mplayer - the movie player for linux.

Re:Why RealPlayer??

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to install this pos crappy linux ;p

Re:Why RealPlayer??

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry. You probably aren't smart enough to do so, anyway, Trollboy.

Re:Or Helping Other People

[CausticWindow]

Other countries should do more to help also

Percentage of budget of US foreign aid: 1.0% (dead last among western nations).
Percentage of that dedicated to military aid to allies: ~50%
Percentage of total aid that comes directly back to US companies: ~70%
Percentage of people polled that think we spend too much on foreign aid: 75%
Average response to the question, "how much should we spend on foreign aid?": 8.4%

With all the rovers, soon to be on mars...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldnt be at all be surprised to have NASA showing us a few creatures with 6 legs and 2 backs.

Woof!

NEW WAY TO MESS UP MARS Expedition

[rodney dill]

As if mixing up metric and english conversion is not bad enough, NASA has found a new way possibly mess up a Mars trip. The potential for collision is probably miniscule, but with trying to achieve optimal paths the chance always is there for a collision with each other or with the EU attempt. In either event it would be a significant gaff.

Help! I'm looking for a funny picture about this

[mijok]

I remember once (long time ago) seeing a very funny drawing with too Martians smiling and holding up a picture of an empty surface with a few craters in front of a rover camera (so that we Earthians would think it's uninhabited). Has anybody else seen this? I'd love to find it since it was so funny so I'm sure the moderators will give you a +5, Funny if you can post a link :)

Re:Help! I'm looking for a funny picture about thi

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is zour link

woohoo!

[gohai]

Finally my name and the name of 3,551,644 other people will be sent to mars (on DVDs on board of the two landers, more details here)

I hope E.T. will check this out soon :D

Re:woohoo!

[PortWineBoy]

Unfortunately, I signed up to have my name delivered on the Mars Polar Lander. I guess my name did make it to Mars, as a teeny-tiny collection of letters.

Re:woohoo!

[JaredOfEuropa]

"Finally my name and the name of 3,551,644 other people will be sent to mars (on DVDs on board of the two landers, more details here) I hope E.T. will check this out soon :D"

He will.... and he will send you and those other 3,551,644 people a great big fine for littering!

Re:woohoo!

[mikerich]

Oh they will,

In six months time you will be getting email offering surgery-free tentacle enlargement, low-low rate Mars Express credit cards (ahem) and cheap inkjet refills.

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:woohoo!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you check the site, the DVD looks like its going with 3 pieces of Lego! Lego on Mars!

Ah, the classics -- "Love it or leave it"

[ianscot]

Maybe you and the other people making anti-American comments ought to get off Slashdot.

Maybe if you can't handle a tiny bit of back and forth on a public message board, you should steer clear of, say, Usenet groups and slashdot. Things aren't as controlled here as they are on Fox. Too bad.

The comment was that Americans are nationalist -- delivered with a wry grin. "Nationalism: a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups." You'd be proud to call yourself a nationalist, wouldn't you?

I'm not sure where the "racist" part of that comes in... Get a grip.

Why the fuzzy date when the NASA site has the time

[Anonymous Coward]

The NASA website (http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mer/mission/launch_e.htm l) gives the *current* projected times and dates. I am going to drive down (not far from there) on Sunday...

Mission: MER-A
* Launch Date: June 8, 2003
* Launch Time: 2:05:55 p.m. or 2:44:07 p.m. EDT
* Launch Vehicle: Delta II
* Launch Pad: 17-A

* Mission: MER-B
* Launch Date: June 25, 2003
* Launch Time: 12:38:16 a.m. or 1:19:19 a.m. EDT
* Launch Vehicle: Delta II
* Launch Pad: 17-B

Re:Why the fuzzy date when the NASA site has the t

[Anonymous Coward]

p.s. They also have more details here:
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mer/mission/launch _e_wind ow.html

Measurements...

[pergamon]

So is "human height" 5 feet or 5 meters?

Re:Measurements...

[VanillaCoke420]

5 meters would probably be "tall martian alien height".

Re:Measurements...

[king_penguin_05]

I'm gonna say 5 feet . . . unless you know people 15 feet tall.

Imagine, for a moment...

[mraymer]

Imagine this far-fetched scenario.

One of these rovers discovers an advanced, humanoid civilization on Mars that has been previously overlooked.

The aliens are advanced enough to contact us via "primitive" radio signals and learn several of our languages in a few days.

Then we decide to meet. This would be the conversation:

Earthlings: So yeah, you should come here! That would be so cool.
Martians: ...right. So, how about you just come here instead?
Earthlings: Well, uhh... could we meet on the moon perhaps? About 30 years ago if possible?
Martians: No, we'd rather have you come here, it is much nicer than the moon or earth. How can you stand earth with all that oxygen?
Earthlings: Yeah, well, that's part of our problem with going there...
Martians: What?! You mean you can't even get here, and you can't genetically alter your bodies so they are suitable on other worlds? God, no *wonder* we've been ignoring you hicks for so long...

OK, sorry I have too much free time. ;)

Re:Imagine, for a moment...

[sdack]

> ...
> Martians: No, we'd rather have you come here, it is much nicer than the moon or earth. How can you stand earth with all that oxygen?

Response should really be:

Earthlings: Yeah, well, we are working on it. See, we need your planet since we ruined this one and we thought we could simply hop onto the next one ...

Martians: *deep breath* Why don't you follow one of those probes we saw flying by?? I believe they were heading off to some new _territory_ - one even crash landed in a populated area.

Earthlings: Oh, that's where they've gone! ... Wait, our President wants to speak to you ...

Bush: How are the negotiations going? ... Hmm, that's not good. Did we equip those rovers with our new mini nukes? ... Keep them busy until we got the command sequence ready!!

Martians: *click*

Sven

"The road to the stars is paved by space-debris."

Europeans beat Yanks to Mars!

[peter303]

The European Space Agency successfully launched theirs last Monday on a Russian rocket. Theirs cost $80 million compared to the US $400 million per craft. The Euros just have a robotic arm, while the Yanks use artificially intelligent rovers.

There is a low fuel (cheap) path to Mars in a two month window every 2.5 years. So this is why you see a flurry of launches. With a 40% success rate over the decades- 41 of 66 Mars craft didnt make it- hopefully at least one of these three will succeed. Lots of interesting craft planned for 2005 and 2008 launches.

Land on the Face

[WC as Kato]

I want a raw, live webcast. If "alien-made" objects show up, I want to see it! Demand that they land on the Face of Mars! Whoever lands on the face first wins.

Re:Land on the Face

[Anonymous Coward]

I think my girlfriend just won. ;-)

Cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

The rovers have a hell of a lot of cameras on them. (Most of them are for navigation.) The cameras on the Pancam mast are paired stereoscopically.

Ummm....

[Anonymous Coward]

There was no change in plan. The rovers were never intended to operate near one another. They've always been intended to operate on almost opposite sides of the planet.

NASA has understood the constraints on the rovers operation (Deep Space Network communication time, day-night cycles, etc.) from the start, and intended for them to operate very independently.

You might be thinking of the moon rovers a company is considering launching... they were talking about having them operate near one another.

Space exploration is not a sports game

[jkauzlar]

I can't wait to see the Europeans make another important scientific discovery before US does.

Space exploration isn't a football game (or soccer for the europeans, or ping-pong for the chinese :) )! Haven't we learned a lesson from Clarke's 2001 series with the Russians & Americans working together? Lets hope they pool their knowledge and are able to get the world's space program up to speed where it should be, instead of wasting time and money with dumb politics & wars. (Ok, this is starting to sound like a folk song...)

Re:Space exploration is not a sports game

[Roto-Rooter Man]

Instead of learning lessons from fiction, how about learning some from real life. Look at the International Space Station. This is the kind of product you are advocating when you advocating internation cooperation in space. Let's see. Right now it's $5 billion over its US budget. And how many years behind its schedule?

Re:Space exploration is not a sports game

[jkauzlar]

Well... ok, that is a better example, but its not a very inspirational one. However, in defense of the space station, I really don't think we should make decisions based on budgets and schedules when 'charting new territory.'

And it definitely should not keep us from further exploration.

And it DEFINITELY should not keep countries from working together on future space projects. Where would any science be without the cooperation of Europe and the US and China and whoever else?

First person on Mars has to clean up

[sdack]

Who wants to go?

Re:Or Helping Other People

[Anonymous Coward]

Our percentage is low only because our GNP is so big. Other countries (European) think that just because they are poor (likely from being Communist/Socialist) and they can't afford any foriegn aid, that:

The U.S. should pay for everything

The U.S. should be blamed for putting it's interests first since it is paying for everything.

It's a mac! :)

[init 6]

The computer in each Mars Exploration Rover runs with a 32-bit Rad 6000 microprocessor,
a radiation-hardened version of the PowerPC chip used in some models of
Macintosh computers, operating at a speed of 20 million instructions per second.
Onboard memory includes 128 megabytes of random access memory, augmented by
256 megabytes of flash memory and smaller amounts of other non-volatile memory,
which allows the system to retain data even without power.

That's show the Europeans who's boss

[Vinnie_333]

. . . of space.

I hope they land

[Anonymous Coward]

somewhere near the "face" on Mars so that we can finally shut up Richard Hoagland ....or prove him right.

Going to Mars? That's SOOoooo 1976

[Uosdwis]

I hope this two missions take place, mainly because I want to get the project I work on off this stinky dirty ball. They took our rockets because of planetary restriction which we don't have.

If you can stream, checkout a video feed of the 17A/B pads which hold the Rovers A & B resp. Plus it has the countdown!

Re:Going to Mars? That's SOOoooo 1976

[Uosdwis]

Oops, the video feed needs /elv/ since it is on a Delta II which is an Expendable Launch Vehichle.

Healthy competition and not

[f97tosc]

Yes, perhaps some competition is a good thing. The real harm is done when

a) The parties are secretive against each other and do not share their discoveries (like during the cold war)
b) When the parties build duplicate versions of the same expensive thing (Gallileo/GPS comes to mind).

Why not stake out challenging and different goals for EU, the US and China. "We challenge you that we will have a man on Mars before your moon base is operational!".

Tor

Celestia: Follow MER-A and MER-B to Mars

[Gruuue]

If you have a decent 3D graphics card and an interest in unmanned space exploration, you should download Celestia:

http://www.shatters.net/celestia/

It runs on Windows, Linux, and OS X . . . Then, install one of the many spacecraft add-ons here:

http://homepage.eircom.net/~jackcelestia/

Images are here:
http://homepage.eircom.net/~jackcelestia/browseima ges/mer.htm

One add-on features a detailed model of the Mars rovers in interplanetary cruise configuration, together with two proposed trajectories for each rover. Add a high-resolution (8k x 4k) texture and bump map for Mars, and you'll have a very detailed and accurate simulation of the Mars missions. We're still trying to get trajectory data from the ESA so that we can make an add-on for the Mars Express mission.

--Chris

Re:Or Helping Other People

[Keebler71]

You neglect to point out that although the US doles out the smallest PERCENTAGE of its GDP, it still gives out more actual CASH than any other country in the world. Go ask a starving family in some third world country if they want 5% of the GDP of Luxemburg or 1% of the GDP of the US.

Assist each other?

[rk]

I hope you're being funny, because if not, you're woefully misinformed. One rover will be near the Gusev crater and the other will be at the Terra Meridiani hematite site, which are on opposite sides of the planet.

Re:Or Helping Other People

[CausticWindow]

So.. poorer countries spend a larger portion of their (relatively smaller) wealth than the US on foreign aid. It hurts them even more, but they still do it.

What's your point?

oooh...

[pyrrho]

I tremble to behold, the beautiful Anonymous Karma Whore in it's natural habitat. ooooh, she's a beaut, ain't she

People

[turgid]

NASA knows how to put people into space, they also have nuclear technology, and more importantly, nuclear rocket technology. Why don't they just go right ahead and put people on Mars? The Chinese are going to put a base on the moon...

One rover is metric the other imperial!

[Anonymous Coward]

...so NASA has a 50% chance of getting it right this time!

Where they land

[Roy Ward]

The website indicates that they will land on opposite sides of the planet ... presumably, this is to prevent the first traffic accident on Mars.

The rovers DO have stereo vision

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the do have two cameras, separated by something like six inches, on top of the camera mast. Collecting stereo images is a basic part of their since goals.

Stereo is also important for navigation, since depth perception helps a lot in avoiding rocks!

The real question...

[Joey7F]

Will it have a high quality camera so I can get a bitchin wallpaper?

Take all the humidity, temperature, and chemical tests you want. but I want to see red mountains cool rocks and a three eyed green man walking around!

--Joey

Re:Or Helping Other People

[cheekyboy]

There is another way to help/fix those counties

1. CANCEL ALL DEBT
2. CANCEL ALL FOREIGN AID, so that the dictators can get no money.
3. The people will prosper for having no debt to pay.

(btw this slow down cowboy rules sux, it should be active only after the 3rd message, not the first one)

*waits for 1 minute....., wheres this DHTML stuff to count down and let me know when its ok!??!?!?!?!*

why not Model-T ford the sats/probes...

[cheekyboy]

Lets just go for it , and make 10-50 small 500lb probes which are major miniarized and have the max intruments,comms,minitelescope,everything it can fit, which 'ports' for upgrades/extra specific addons.

That way you can spend $5b on 50 things, and launch them with cheap ICMBs, and do like every planet 3 times over.

Have a permanent probe land on asteroids.

And these rovers should have longer lifetimes, why not place a damn WINDSCREENWIPERS, on the solar panels to get rid of the dust?

Re:why not Model-T ford the sats/probes...

[FreakyDeaky]

why don't we take all those probes equip them with terraforming equipment(whatever that is) and send them to Mars, then in 30 years we will have a whole nother planet to colonize, or a brand new Penal colony. HURRAY!!!

It's not the distance

[XNormal]

It's the delta-V.

With chemical rocket technology a huge proportion of the launch mass is propellant. The rocket equasion is pretty unforgiving - the cost of each extra m/s of delta-V is exponential.

On a close pass like this you can send a lot more mass to Mars for less money.