Phoenix Headed for Martian North Pole in 2007

jschuur writes "After narrowing down the selections to 4 finalists, NASA has chosen the Phoenix Mars lander design for its 2007 Scout Mission to the planet Mars. Phoenix, a joint project between the University of Arizona and Planetary Laboratory was designed after the doomed 1999 Mars Polar Lander and recycles much of its design and instrument ideas. A staggering $325 million grant was awarded to the University of Arizona for the project, which will also include Canadian participation. Phoenix is scheduled to land on Mars in May of 2008."

Comments

Stupid joke

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean the Firebird Mars Lander?

Re:Stupid joke

[acehole]

Shhh! you wanna get sued?!

Re:Stupid joke

[Kethinov]

Yeah. Besides, the name "Phoenix" should have been reserved by NASA, or rather by Zephram Cochrane, for the name of the first starship with warp drive.

Of course, this isn't supposed to happen until after the third world war so I'm sure that all records of Mozilla Phoenix/Firebird and all the conflicts will have been lost by then, seeing as how a nuclear holocaust can easily facilitate such a loss of data.

wuh?

[selfabuse]

obligitory "they're sending a browser/database to Mars?!" comment

Re:wuh?

[DiscoDave_25]

The next instalment of the file sharers plot to dodge the RIAA: Our servers on Mars - subpoena that!

Re:wuh?

[slyckshoes]

Obligatory quote or not, I did almost decide to download the Phoenix browser after reading the headline just to see why they'd want to send it to Mars. Was it because Microsoft wouldn't let them send Internet Explorer unless they included a licensed version of Windows XP?

tracking

[DaHat]

... please let this one incorporate better tracking so they can monitor it all the way to the ground... just in case this like a few other notable Martian craft go plunging into the ground at around 300 mph... we can at least see where and how it hit.

Re:tracking

[Rogerborg]

>notable Martian craft go plunging into the ground at around 300 mph

mph? What's that in bushels per hectare? How ironic that you sneer at impacting craft when you can't even be bothered to write metres per second.

Re:tracking

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

Bah, I pour scorn on your criticism when you can't even be bothered to promote the use of attoparsec per microfortnight as a measure of speed!

Re:tracking

[fiftyfly]

notable Martian craft go plunging into the ground at around 300 mph
mph? What's that in bushels per hectare? How ironic that you sneer at impacting craft when you can't even be bothered to write metres per second.

I guess it's a good thing they've got the (metric) Canadians then eh?

Re:tracking

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

attoparsec n.

About an inch. `atto-' is the standard SI prefix for multiplication by 10^(-18). A parsec (parallax-second) is 3.26 light-years; an attoparsec is thus 3.26 * 10^(-18) light years, or about 3.1 cm (thus, 1 attoparsec/microfortnight equals about 1 inch/sec). This unit is reported to be in use (though probably not very seriously) among hackers in the U.K

Re:tracking

[Rogerborg]

Explain how the Millennium Falcon made the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs then. ;-P

Re:tracking

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

Easy - Solo moved the finish line before he started the run ;)

Either that or George Lucas just grabbed the nearest-sounding bit of astophysics jargon and hoped that nobody would start asking awkward questions....

Re:tracking

[computechnica]

That can be difficult considering the Latency of IP address to Mars. It can range from 5 to 20 light-minutes depending on the time of the year. Unless the Sun is in the way then you just get a 504 Error. ;^)

Re:tracking

[ncc74656]

Bah, I pour scorn on your criticism when you can't even be bothered to promote the use of attoparsec per microfortnight as a measure of speed!

My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I like it!

(OK, so it's mileage instead of speed...)

Re:tracking

[fiftyfly]

Or Mr. Ford simply found a very effecient (smuggler's) route through a (presumably) complex mess of bodies moving in (at least) three dimensions?

Re:tracking

[hesiod]

> considering the Latency of IP address to Mars. It can range from 5 to 20 light-minutes

Umm, time to nitpick, 'cuz I'm an ass.

A light-year & light-minute are measurements of distance, so latency would not be measured in light-minutes. Not to take anything away from the joke itself, which is humorous. *har har, hee hee* :)

Re:Recycling code too?

[in7ane]

metric even

The Pheonix rises from the ashes

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if that's deliberate or, given NASA's recent history, if it's appropriate, funny, or just plain sad.

I guess it's a bit of all that.

Re:The Pheonix rises from the ashes

[KewlPC]

Yes, it's deliberate. Read the Phoenix website.

The lander itself is not a rehash of the Mars Polar Lander, but a re-use of the Mars Surveyor Program's lander (whose 2001 mission was cancelled) with some of the instruments that were originally built for Mars Polar Lander but ended up not being used until now.

Sample Return

[Anonymous Coward]

When are we going to see a sample return mission?

That will be a big advance...

Re:Sample Return

[kubrick]

The big advance I'm waiting for is the Martian mission to Earth.

"Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!"

Re:Sample Return

[mikerich]

When are we going to see a sample return mission?

Phoenix was chosen ahead of a sample return mission. I haven't seen what the exact reason was, but I imagine the tight $325 million cap would have precluded a viable sample return mission.

ESA is thinking about a sample return mission at some point around 2011, but funding really depends on the success of Mars Express/Beagle 2.

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:Sample Return

[hesiod]

> The big advance I'm waiting for is the Martian mission to Earth.

You missed it by 2 million years.

just for a change...

[iainl]

Rather than make a firebird gag, lets point out that they are delivering it there because the martians called and requested it.

Yes folks, they placed an "Order of the Phoenix".

B'dumph T'sssh.

Re:just for a change...

[error502]

Yes folks, they placed an "Order of the Phoenix".

Not only that, but they were actually willing to pay 325 million dollars for shipping.

Re:just for a change...

[Tackhead]

> > Yes folks, they placed an "Order of the Phoenix".
>
> Not only that, but they were actually willing to pay 325 million dollars for shipping.

Actually, the shipping was only $20.00. The $325M was just insurance against the shipment being burninated en route by the Martian Air Defense's Tactical Regiment Of Guided Dragons On Recon.

Re:just for a change...

[hesiod]

> Martian Air Defense's Tactical Regiment Of Guided Dragons On Recon.

If it was instead a regiment of "Linux Losers" or something similar, the acronym would be MADTROLL.
Oh yeah, my tuition money was really well spent.

..one GIANT flight for mankind

[Whitecloud]

Does anyone have a decent estimate of when we will launch a human expedition to Mars? I mean how far off are the space craft from a feasible mission?

Re:..one GIANT flight for mankind

[perly-king-69]

One of the points of these unmanned probes are that they can do much of what a human mission can complete, but at a fraction of the cost and time.

Re:..one GIANT flight for mankind

[Rogerborg]

To what end though? Do we need to go to Mars? It's essentially an illogical folly, so it we're going to do it, let's do it right and let astronauts get back to being explorers rather than truck drivers.

Re:..one GIANT flight for mankind

[perly-king-69]

Really. Because it's there. To satisfy human curiosity.

It would certainly be a dull place if we weren't allowed to engage in illogical follies once in a while.

Re:..one GIANT flight for mankind

[Whitecloud]

exactly my point: because its THERE!!!

Re:..one GIANT flight for mankind

[MagPulse]

There are countless plans to go to Mars. I remember the talk about Bush saying we would go to Mars by 2015 or 2020 and the ensuing discussion about if it was possible. I think it would be if we put the same amount of effort in to it as the Apollo missions. But when we go to Mars, I want us to go to colonize, not visit once and leave. In order for that to happen we need to make it cheap enough to send tens of thousands of people to Mars with the equipment to survive there their entire lives. I don't know of any plans to do that in my life time, but I'm keeping my eye out for it.

This month's Discover Magazine has an amazing article about building our first starship. It starts out saying we'll probably detect our first Earth-like planet as soon as 2007 or definitely by 2015. By then we could have technologies like hot fusion or even anti-matter engines (not holding my breath), but even if we don't we could probably get to Alpha Centauri in my lifetime with a laser sail. Back here in the Sol system we'd set up a big solar collector that would focus a laser at the ship, pushing and powering it all the way to nearby stars. This to me is a lot more exciting and probable than Mars colonization.

Re:..one GIANT flight for mankind

[Paulrothrock]

However, they are still hampered by the fact that they are essentially "dumb" implements. They can't say, by themselves anyway, "Hey, that mountain over there looks like a good place to look for fossils. Let's hop in the rover and go take a look." No, they have to wait for human operators to decide for them, then tell them exactly how to get there, all with a 40 minute round trip communication time. Most of the time in a robotic Mars mission is spent sitting on the surface, waiting for orders.

Humans can, should, and will go to Mars. Hopefully in my lifetime, but definitely in my children's. Anyone who's read The Case for Mars knows how easy and cheap it can be.

Someone once said "Once you're in orbit, you're halfway to anywhere." We've been halfway to Mars for almost 50 years. Let's get there.

Re:..one GIANT flight for mankind

[Paulrothrock]

All great colonizations started with explorers. Columbus, Hudson, Ponce de Leon. We should follow the Mars Direct plan and put outposts on the Red Planet, complete with 100KW nuclear reactors and greenhouses. This will prove our technology and provide a beachhead for the impending colonization.

Howeever, I disagree that a mission to a new star system is more probable than a Mars mission. Congress would never approve the funding, even though their constituents want it.

Re:..one GIANT flight for mankind

[perly-king-69]

Doubtless, our own stupidity will have killed us all by then

Re:..one GIANT flight for mankind

[I8TheWorm]

We really need to leave this planet someday. Not tomorrow, but better be prepared to leave, coz neither will the earth nor the solarsystem last forever. :-)

That's right! Hasn't anyone read Asimov's The Last Question?

Re:..one GIANT flight for mankind

[pir8garth]

Although I don't have a time table, the project to send humans to mars IS currently being worked on. My sister is an environmental engineer working for NASA on waste managment/recycling issues for a trip to mars, and she routinely has meetings where numerous national research teams meet up to discuss progress towards this goal.

Re:..one GIANT flight for mankind

[mikerich]

We really need to leave this planet someday. Not tomorrow, but better be prepared to leave, coz neither will the earth nor the solarsystem last forever. :-)

Even the most pessimistic predictions of Earth's habitability give it another 1 billion years before the Sun's ever increasing energy output cooks the oceans. 1 billion years is a long time; 1 billion years ago there were no multicellular organisms on the planet. Almost certainly there is not a species alive today that existed a billion years ago.

Why should we be different?

And let's not bother with the asteroid problem, we could deflect any asteroid threatening Earth at a fraction of the cost of a manned mission to Mars.

And even if we went there, what is waiting? A bitterly cold, frozen, toxic, radiation baked, airless ball of rock.

There is nothing out there waiting for us. Earth is all we've got, perhaps we should look after it? If anyone goes to Mars it will be a political stunt, like the rest of the manned space program. It will be the quickest way of burning billions of Dollars for no conceivable gain yet imagined.

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:..one GIANT flight for mankind

[mikerich]

There are countless plans to go to Mars. I remember the talk about Bush saying we would go to Mars by 2015 or 2020 and the ensuing discussion about if it was possible. I think it would be if we put the same amount of effort in to it as the Apollo missions. But when we go to Mars, I want us to go to colonize, not visit once and leave. In order for that to happen we need to make it cheap enough to send tens of thousands of people to Mars with the equipment to survive there their entire lives. I don't know of any plans to do that in my life time, but I'm keeping my eye out for it.

Why? What is there that we can't have better and cheaper on Earth? Mars is a rock, frozen day and night, baked by solar radiation; its atmosphere, what little there is of it, is poisonous, the soil is just plain weird - why would we want to live there? It would make Antarctica look appealing.

Back here in the Sol system we'd set up a big solar collector that would focus a laser at the ship, pushing and powering it all the way to nearby stars.

And how much would this cost? When the US is tanking a $400 billion deficit this year and every other country is running c. 3% fiscal deficits who would pick up the bill.

Perhaps a tiny fraction of the expenditure you are calling for would be better spent on reducing our addiction to fossil fuels which is going to end up killing us. Not as sexy as going to the stars, but it is one real problem that we have to confront now - the stars will always be there waiting for us, a habitable world back here on Earth might not be.

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:..one GIANT flight for mankind

[Henry V .009]

Interesting how your post gives me less faith, not more.

Re:..one GIANT flight for mankind

[Paulrothrock]

And they could sit there for months or years whilst we make up our minds. Not like the astronauts who would be dependent on their air supply. The lunar explorations were always curtailed by the fragility of the men.

What if they could make all the air and fuel they'd ever need? Mars Direct calls for the production of methane, oxygen and water on Mars, as opposed to taking it all with us. The exploration of the world would probably never had happened if they had to bring everything they needed with them.

We've done the easy bit. We haven't done the bit that involves spending months in microgravity, slowly cooking in solar radiation before attempting to live on a planet with a radically different environment.

The amount of radiation, barring a solar flare or coronal mass ejection is well within tolerable limits. Russians have spent years in orbit, and though they were not able to function, we're only talking about three months tops. This is, of course, not including the possibility of using a tether to create gravity. And the environment on Mars is much more temperate and friendly than the environment on the moon, and we've been to the moon.

If we only did what was easy, none of us would get out of bed in the morning.

It's a sales book, of course it says it will be cheap. My Windows XP manual told me that my life would be much easier after installation. Experience of all high tech projects shows the opposite.

Even if we TRIPLE the cost of the proposed plan, it's still less than what we just spent on a war. ($150 billion.) And that gives five 1.5 year missions covering thousands of square km of the surface, establishing outposts, making discoveries, and learning about how to survive there.

We must take the initiative to go to Mars and stop fearing what might happen.

Re:..one GIANT flight for mankind

[Paulrothrock]

Oh boy! Meetings! "One small step for management, one giant leap for management kind."

Re:..one GIANT flight for mankind

[Paulrothrock]

I don't have the time to go around and around on this, so this will be my last reply.

Fortunately, they could be pretty sure that they would have fresh air, water and food in the New World. None of those are found on Mars, you are reliant on the technology you bring with you to keep you alive.

The processes that would be used to generate the materials needed for life support have been in use by industry since the 1800s. The reactors proposed are based on the ones used in nuclear naval vessels. Both are durable, reliable, and rugged.

Other systems, such as door seals, would only encounter one different element; dust. If we have all the water we could ever need, this won't be a problem because the seals could be cleaned very easily. They will not be exposed to a hard vacuum, but an atmosphere similar to the one that the SR-71 and U-2 fly in.

Not the same at all. The Soviet long endurance records all took place within the Earth's magnetosphere where they were protected from the majority of solar radition. The Apollo missions were so short that they are hard to extrapolate from and they all took place during times of low solar activity.

Then launch at low levels of solar activity. At any rate, microgravity is nothing we have not experienced before.

Mars astronauts would be exposed to solar radiation both during the transit to Mars and whilst on the surface.

In transit, yes. On the surface, no. While there would be higher levels of UV radiation than on earth (which have been dealt with in LEO), other harmful radiation is blocked by Mars' atmosphere. A simple solution would be to cover the top of the hab with sandbags to shield out almost all of the radiation.

There is a difference between doing something worthwhile that is hard and something that is pointless and hard. IMHO exploring Mars is firmly in the latter category.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point. I feel that exploring space is key to the future of the human race, and that technologies developed in the exploration of space have great uses in terrestrial life.

So for $50 billion I could get 150 Phoenix missions (probably more once mass production cuts in), explore vastly more of Mars, land in places that are too risky for manned missions, spend far longer looking and not risk anyone's lives.

Let's assume for a minute that Phoenix can explore an area of 10 square meters. Let's also assume that you can get 500 missions for the cost of 5 manned missions. Let's also assume that, with the help of a pressurized rover, the manned missions have an effective range of 1000km (possible, there are cars that can go that far). This means that the probes can explore 5000 square meters, or 5 square kilometers. The manned missions can explore 5 x 3.14 x 1000km x 1000km (5 times pi times radius squared). The manned missions have an effective exploration area of 1.5 million square km, or about 300,000 times the area of the probes. Of course, that assumes that all they do is drive around. However, I think that each mission is capable of exploring both geologically and archeobiologically 10 square km (50 km^2 total), meaning that they still have 10 times the effective exploration capacity of 500 Phoenix missions. The very fact that the human crews can travel to newer and more interesting places as opposed to waiting six months for another mission to get there and having the added risks of 500 launches.

That is also not counting the value of the experience from living on Mars, the establishment of outposts on the planet for future colonization, and the increased amount of science able to be performed by humans because of their ability to act on their own to solve problems and explore new developments further.

Like I said, I can't go around and around on this. If you disagree, then we'll just have to leave it at that.

Re:..one GIANT flight for mankind

[barawn]

Why? What is there that we can't have better and cheaper on Earth? Mars is a rock, frozen day and night, baked by solar radiation; its atmosphere, what little there is of it, is poisonous, the soil is just plain weird - why would we want to live there? It would make Antarctica look appealing.

There are two questions here:

1: Why should we, humanity, go?
2: Why should anyone, as a single person, go?

The answer to the second one is easy. Because no one else has. No one else has seen the sky thousands of different shades of pink that we've never dreamed of on Earth, or walked in one-third G, or seen valleys so wide and vast that you can't see the sides because they're under the horizon, or an escarpment as high as Mount Everest. Don't forget, people live in extremely hostile environments all the time, and explorers go just about everywhere for the thrill of it. Earth is just as much of a rock as Mars is.

And hell, it'd kick to see Earth in the sky at night. Now *that'd* be beautiful.

So why would we want to live there? Well, for one, because it's not Earth. It's different. From a purely practical perspective, ignoring the radiation issues (which are not as bad as people think - bad, yes, and you'd have to take precautions, but not impossible), Mars is a healthier place to live, fundamentally, because of the lower gravity. It's just less of a strain on bones and your heart. Yah, you can't return to Earth. So?

The answer to the first one is a little more complex, but it's fundamentally the same as the second. We want to go to Mars because it's not Earth. Let me put it to you this way.

Take a hypothetical teenager, or very young adult.
Why would they want to leave their parent's house? They have everything they want there - shelter, a private space to themselves, and it's cheaper: don't pay for rent, utilities, food. It's perfect. Living on your own looks like hell in comparison. But they do it - why? Because 1) they know they have to, just like we have to get off this rock. Have to. Humans have to keep expanding, have to keep moving, have to keep learning. It's what makes us human - what makes us us, and 2) because fundamentally, in the long run, it's better for them. They learn more (how to manage a household, how to fix things), develop more, and grow extremely quickly. Again, likewise - it's better for us to go to another world, like Mars. We'll learn more, really quickly. Like how to survive in heavy radiation. Like ecology engineering, and closed-systems engineering, which we have no need to learn here on Earth, but we could DEFINITELY use the technology! Like automated factories, robotic construction equipment, atmospheric engineering. The list goes on. Yah, we could do it here on Earth - but we don't need to, and so we won't do it. Necessity is the mother of invention, and all that. How many examples in human history do you need to justify that?

Perhaps a tiny fraction of the expenditure you are calling for would be better spent on reducing our addiction to fossil fuels which is going to end up killing us.

This is the beauty of pure science. Go to Mars! Guess what? There are no fossil fuels there, so we'll learn really quickly how to live without fossil fuels real quick, and export that knowledge back to Earth.

Humans are getting lazy and complacent - things are too easy. "Well, we could reduce our dependence on fossil fuels... but why would we? There's no real need..." You have to keep pushing. Have to keep moving. Have to keep learning.

Re:..one GIANT flight for mankind

[barawn]

And they could sit there for months or years whilst we make up our minds. Not like the astronauts who would be dependent on their air supply. The lunar explorations were always curtailed by the fragility of the men.

Point to the robots I think.


You're joking, right? The rovers on Mars have always been so incredibly limited in what they could do because they have little power, and very little time to do what they want before dust covers over the solar panels or the batteries just fundamentally bite it from the extreme cold swings.

Yah, humans might not seem as robust as robots, but for some reason, we just can't seem to build a self-perpetuating self-repairing autonomous robot yet, now can we? Granted we wouldn't hold up long natively in Mars's environment, but in order to make a more "hospitable" environment, it's going to be more complex, which means more chances for failure unless a human is there to think quickly.

Our knowledge of the Moon increased so many times over from the Apollo missions it's not even funny - and it's *not* just because of the rock samples. It would've increased more had the Apollo astronauts actually been scientists rather than military personnel.

We've done the easy bit. We haven't done the bit that involves spending months in microgravity, slowly cooking in solar radiation before attempting to live on a planet with a radically different environment.

Oh, please. Name one person who's ever died from space radiation exposure. Oh - wait - you can't. Is it bad? Yes. Would you have to take precautions? Sure, of course. Is it tremendously more dangerous than being on a nuclear submarine? Not really.

Anyway, just because something's hard doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. In fact, we should do it because it's hard.

Re:..one GIANT flight for mankind

[mikerich]

You're joking, right?

No I'm not.

The rovers on Mars have always been so incredibly limited in what they could do because they have little power, and very little time to do what they want before dust covers over the solar panels or the batteries just fundamentally bite it from the extreme cold swings.

We have put one - count it - one rover on Mars, and that is it. For experience of long-term rover operation, you have to look at the Soviet Lunokhod remotely operated vehicles which trundled round the Moon in 1970 and 1973 respectively. Lunokhod 1 operated for 11 months, rolled over 10km and conducted over 500 soil tests. Lunokhod 2 worked for only 4 months but covered over 37km.

Yes there are problems with dust getting into mechanisms and onto solar collectors, but they're probably less difficult to resolve than the problem of keeping men alive on Mars.

Oh, please. Name one person who's ever died from space radiation exposure. Oh - wait - you can't. Is it bad? Yes. Would you have to take precautions? Sure, of course. Is it tremendously more dangerous than being on a nuclear submarine? Not really.

Ahem, no one has been outside the Earth's magnetosphere for long periods, so they haven't been exposed to the energy of the Sun. You can't expect to see symptoms of acute radiation exposure.

As for the radiation risk, most estimates put it at 50 rem for a mission to Mars. The maximum dose permitted for members of the public (excluding those receiving radiotherapy) is 170 millirem. A person living in the area of Chernobyl during the explosion and fire would have received around 43 000 millirem - still less than a Mars mission.

Still so sanguine?

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:..one GIANT flight for mankind

[mikerich]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point. I feel that exploring space is key to the future of the human race, and that technologies developed in the exploration of space have great uses in terrestrial life.

I agree that we'll probably not agree, but I think that most of the spin-off benefits of space travel will be produced by unmanned space travel.

Let's assume for a minute that Phoenix can explore an area of 10 square meters. Let's also assume that you can get 500 missions for the cost of 5 manned missions. Let's also assume that, with the help of a pressurized rover, the manned missions have an effective range of 1000km (possible, there are cars that can go that far). This means that the probes can explore 5000 square meters, or 5 square kilometers. The manned missions can explore 5 x 3.14 x 1000km x 1000km (5 times pi times radius squared). The manned missions have an effective exploration area of 1.5 million square km, or about 300,000 times the area of the probes. Of course, that assumes that all they do is drive around. However, I think that each mission is capable of exploring both geologically and archeobiologically 10 square km (50 km^2 total), meaning that they still have 10 times the effective exploration capacity of 500 Phoenix missions. The very fact that the human crews can travel to newer and more interesting places as opposed to waiting six months for another mission to get there and having the added risks of 500 launches.

To an extent, yes I have to agree, a group of people can probably go further than a single probe. (We have too little evidence to say how far a rover could go, Lunokhod 2 holds the record at 37km). However, the numbers are still on my side.

If I may use an analogy.

We send some people to Mars. They touch down in one location and rove around it. Now they won't be able to risk the truly treacherous terrain, so they'll land somewhere flat.

It would be like sending a group of backpackers to - ummm let me see, Wichita, Kansas. A nice place I'm sure. We'll give our backpackers regional bus passes (no cars allowed, they have to return to the motel (read the landing site) to sleep, refuel and so on). Our backpackers can go out each day and learn all there is to know about Wichita and the surrounding region, but they are tied to the landing site. They can learn a lot about Wichita - but not much about the rest of Mars. If Wichita turns out to be very dull, tough, you're committed to learning all there is to know about the prairie.

Now my 150 Pathfinders, for which I will substitute 150 backpackers which I will drop all over America. Some of them will land in dull places, but some will land in interesting places. I can afford to drop some of them in treacherous places such as the polar caps and the canyons (which are inaccessible to manned missions) since a: I know I have more, and b: I don't care if I lose a few (sorry, I'm heartless like that). Each backpacker can only report back on their immediate surroundings, so some of them will be VERY dull, but some will find out something interesting.

So what is the result? I could have learned a lot about Wichita - which may or may not be an interesting location, or I could learn smaller amounts from 150 widely spaced locations right across the United States.

I think the big picture would be more interesting.

Your mileage might vary.

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:..one GIANT flight for mankind

[barawn]

We have put one - count it - one rover on Mars, and that is it. For experience of long-term rover operation, you have to look at the Soviet Lunokhod remotely operated vehicles which trundled round the Moon in 1970 and 1973 respectively. Lunokhod 1 operated for 11 months, rolled over 10km and conducted over 500 soil tests. Lunokhod 2 worked for only 4 months but covered over 37km.

Yah, yah, I meant probes + rovers, not rovers alone. They all have the same problem. And don't use lunar rovers to compare with Mars rovers. Luna is heaven compared to Mars: no dust, no atmosphere (so perfect solar coverage!) so no problems. Mars isn't so easy. Don't switch celestial bodies to try to justify the point - the longevity of things on Mars's surface sucks. I could, of course, say that the longevity of planetary probes in general is terrible - just look at Venerean landers - but, Venus is much harsher than Mars. Likewise, the Moon is much more forgiving than Mars is.

Yes, it's true - if we sent down all the support equipment humans need, the rovers MIGHT last longer. The problem is that humans self-repair. Real easily. Rovers/probes do not.

Don't discount the dust so easily. It's not an easy problem - not at all. The dust is really, really fine, and very pervasive. It's not as easy to work around as you think.

As for the radiation exposure, the public allowed dosage is really bloody low (and from the documents I've seen, it's 0.1 rem/week, 0.5 rem/year from natural causes). The medical effects aren't so nasty, though: 60 rem adds about 1% risk of fatal cancer to a 35-year old woman, and 80 rem adds 1% risk of fatal cancer to a 35-year old man. So is 50 rem okay? No. It's not good at all. But it won't immediately kill people, which is what you were making it sound like.

More importantly, it's the trip that causes the highest radiation dosage. Mars itself does provide partial shielding (plus you can always just use rock). Mars during solar max (yes, solar max - the greatest threat is from cosmic rays, which are suppressed during solar max by solar modulation). So Mars isn't threatening - it's the trip (and the fact that the trip is so long).

The radiation dosage isn't fundamental. You can shorten it with shorter trip times (the 50 rem count is for 0.7 year one-way) which we can do with known technology, or reasonably expectable technology in the near future. A space elevator would shorten the trip time to Mars by a factor of two or more (gotta love Earth's rotational speed) - cutting it down to 25 rem or less.

And would I take a 1% additional chance of fatal cancer to go to Mars? In a heartbeat. Estimates have to be conservative, for one, and two, I can always be optimistic. It's much nicer to say there's a 99% chance that you won't get a fatal cancer, after all.

Besides, one other thing to consider is that if a mission to Mars was planned, that would definitely spur treatment for radiation poisoning research, which means that the risk would likely be significantly less by the time the mission was launched.

I'm not saying you don't have a point: what I am saying is that a lot more people made a trip just as dangerous a few hundred years ago (I'd bet more than 1 out of 100 people died crossing the Atlantic in the 1500s and 1600s!), and yet now we're worried about a 1% chance? Jeez. Half of the preservation of food and malnutrition effects we know of we know because of the problems with sailors. Same deal here.

Re:..one GIANT flight for mankind

[mikerich]

Yah, yah, I meant probes + rovers, not rovers alone. They all have the same problem. And don't use lunar rovers to compare with Mars rovers. Luna is heaven compared to Mars: no dust, no atmosphere (so perfect solar coverage!) so no problems. Mars isn't so easy. Don't switch celestial bodies to try to justify the point - the longevity of things on Mars's surface sucks. I could, of course, say that the longevity of planetary probes in general is terrible - just look at Venerean landers - but, Venus is much harsher than Mars. Likewise, the Moon is much more forgiving than Mars is.

Yes, it's true - if we sent down all the support equipment humans need, the rovers MIGHT last longer. The problem is that humans self-repair. Real easily. Rovers/probes do not.

Don't discount the dust so easily. It's not an easy problem - not at all. The dust is really, really fine, and very pervasive. It's not as easy to work around as you think.

Ooops we're in danger of agreeing on something shortly.

I used the Lunar rovers of an example of what can be done. Sojourner was not a real rover in any sense of the word, the two going to Mars at the moment are much more realistic examples.

Lunar dust is a problem for machines on the surface as the Soviets found out. It gets everywhere, shows some electrical conductance and is extremely abrasive.

The same applies to Mars, except that the dust appears to be even finer - around the size of smoke particles. Yes these will cause problems for machines, but likewise they will affect the machines that would be keeping people alive. It would clog filters, get into their electronics, into the bearings and seals in their suits, and perhaps most worryingly, get into their lungs. We know the consequences of breathing fine particles are serious.

So dust is a problem for whatever lands on Mars.

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:naming problem

[borgdows]

no, it's a database!
</fud>

doesn't matter to me

[selfabuse]

heh, I never liked Arizona anyway.

Not so staggering

[PaschalNee]

A staggering $325 million grant was awarded to the University of Arizona

I don't see what is so staggering about this amount. For example, I'm guessing hundreds of millions of $ are spent every year designing cars. Cars that are never more than a few miles away from a local garage. If your sending a device a few million miles away you'd want to be pretty sure it's going to work. Not a inexpensive proposition. There are no Pep Boys on Mars

Re:Not so staggering

[nadador]

http://www.dailystar.com/star/today/30805MARS.html

Its a staggering amount because its the largest research grant ever awarded to the University of Arizona, and because it will have a huge effect on the local economy. Oddly enough, the Phoenix Project will be built in Tucson, AZ, at the U of A, instead of ASU in Phoenix. Tucson is a whole lot smaller, and this is a big deal contract around here.

Re:Not so staggering

[darkpixel2k]

I tried to use the store finder you linked to, and ran into a problem.
What is the zip code for Mars anyways?

Re:Not so staggering

[th77]

It's not so odd that it'll be in Tucson. U of A has a premier Planetary Sciences program which includes the Lunar & Planetary Laboratory. In an alternate universe where I tried a bit harder, I was admitted to their graduate program and am now involved with the Phoenix Project. :^p

Ohhh, I get it: it's "odd" that the *Phoenix* Project will be in Tucson and not *Phoenix.*

Re:Not so staggering

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

The amount must be huge. I am not familiar with the US university system but I haven't heard of too many cases where universities get $300m+ for one project.

Also, you can't really compare it to cars. Cars are a PROVEN commercial product. Meaning that you will get guaranteed profits (in the billions) once you have built the car, especially with the market cornered by 5 or so companies. A space exploration project has no commercial "benefits" so it is tough to sell that to the capitalists. In addition, there is no guarantee it will succeed. The probability of this project failing is FAR HIGHER than a new car.

I guess the best comparison is to compare money spent on space to the money spent on early cars (in the early 1900's). Did anyone spend hundreads of millions back then (adjusted for inflation)? Nope. If anything they probably spent $10-$20million rather than $200 to $300 million. It's just like the X prize right now, which is a commercial endeavour. The companies competing are spending less than $25m. Granted the competition limits the costs but even if they were free to spend, I doubt anyone would spend more than $150million on a project with no commercial money-making prospects...

This amount is HUGE... Only other govt projects (like military projects) ever give out this much to unproven missions...

Planetary Collision

[Captain Large Face]

There was I thinking that Phoenix, AZ and the Martian North Pole were going to collide. Damn those Martians and their gravity ray!

Re:Unit system

[KillerHamster]

How about Volkswagens? Works for mass, distance, velocity, power, price...

It's funny, laugh

[Rosyna]

They are sending something from Tucson (that's "Two Saun", not "Tuck Sun") to Mars and calling it Phoenix. It's not a jab at ASU because that's in Tempe (That's "Tem pee"). Hey, we name our cities with fine names here in AZ. It's 5:32 AM in Phoenix and only 89 degrees so far.

Re:Recycling code too?

[Rogerborg]

Yeah, that would have been a lot funnier without the typo, but kudos on being only the tenth of a metric assload of people to make that joke.

Re:Unit system

[Salsaman]

Hmm, strange. I always thought the units of measurement were the double-decker bus and the football pitch.

Manned Missions

[CastrTroy]

I think they should really be shooting towards a manned mission. Having actual people on the ship makes mission completion that much more important. Do you really think they would have tried that hard to get Apollo 13 back to earth if there was no people on it? Apart from spontaneous shuttle explosions such as columbia and challenger, they would do everything they could to make sure the mission was a success. It seems that people don't care when billions of tax dollars of spacecraft are lost. However, if a few astronauts die, The world comes to a standstill. Having people on the missions would probably make them have a much higher success rate.

Re:Manned Missions

[MobyDisk]

The problem with this is that it is very difficult to get people back. This is why it makes sense to have a one-way manned mission. It would be a very worthy trade-off to lose a few lives to gain more information about Mars. Unfortunately, American culture is such that this type of mission is not acceptable, no matter what the cost-benefit is.

Re:Manned Missions

[afidel]

I wish we were doing a manned mission right now. Mars is the closest it will be for 60,000 years, what better time to try then when the launch cost is lowest?

Re:Manned Missions

[mikerich]

I think they should really be shooting towards a manned mission. Having actual people on the ship makes mission completion that much more important. Do you really think they would have tried that hard to get Apollo 13 back to earth if there was no people on it? Apart from spontaneous shuttle explosions such as columbia and challenger, they would do everything they could to make sure the mission was a success.

That's thinking backwards. If you don't have astronauts to worry about you don't have to worry about the mission succeeding come what may. You do everything you can to make the mission a success - but if it doesn't - oh well, switch it off, learn a lesson and do it again.

The simple economics are in favour of unmanned missions, Phoenix will travel to Mars, touch down on another World, and perform useful science for less than half the cost of a single Shuttle launch to take water to the white elephant currently circling the planet.

Yes let's have more exploration, but let's leave Roger Ramjet back on Earth. The manned space programme has been a drain on America's coffers and NASA's resources for far too long. It's time to put it to rest.

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:Manned Missions

[Anonymous Custard]

The problem with this is that it is very difficult to get people back. This is why it makes sense to have a one-way manned mission. It would be a very worthy trade-off to lose a few lives to gain more information about Mars. Unfortunately, American culture is such that this type of mission is not acceptable, no matter what the cost-benefit is.

If you're American, why don't you volunteer?

If you're foreign, and just blasting America, why don't you get your country to develop a space program and send your own kids on a suicide mission?

Re:Manned Missions

[Paulrothrock]

Doesn't work that way. We'd have to launch the rocket towards where Mars is going to be, not where it is right now. Ideally, we would have launched 60-90 days ago, making the communcation round trip tip the minimum (about 6 minutes) during the most difficult part of the trip; landing.

Re:Manned Missions

[Paulrothrock]

In "The Case for Mars," Zubrin talks about the court bureaucrats in China. The emporer had opened up china in the late 1300s and sent treasure fleets to Indonesia, India, Arabia, and even the west coast of Africa. They had seven masts when European ships had at most two.

Then the emporer died. The bureaucrats though he had wasted funds on a folly of an idea (exploration) when more important things needed to be done at home, like irrigation projects. They ordered the fleets destroyed just as they were about to enter the Mediterranean, and China was subjugated by Europeans who had the will to explore and the courage to accept the risks.

Why do I bring this up? Because it's ideas like yours that poison exploratory programs. Instead of grand gestures, you want small cheap steps. You speak of needs at home when they can be solved by innovating for the world. Material hyper efficient fuel cells and computers, inexpensive access to fusionable materials, and cheap metals and chemicals are all available in space. We must have the courage and conviction to simply reach out and grab them, and this can be done for a small percentage of the GNP. Merely increasing NASA's budget to the same percentage of the federal budget as it was during the Apollo era and providing a lofty goal will be enough for NASA to land several humans on Mars and more (like develop an economical heavy-lift launch vehicle). We simply have to want it enough.

Re:Manned Missions

[mikerich]

Then the emporer died. The bureaucrats though he had wasted funds on a folly of an idea (exploration) when more important things needed to be done at home, like irrigation projects. They ordered the fleets destroyed just as they were about to enter the Mediterranean, and China was subjugated by Europeans who had the will to explore and the courage to accept the risks.

Perhaps Zubrin should read his history a little more carefully before extrapolating from it. China was not overrun as a direct consequence of failing to explore the World. Its descent from a pre-eminent power started in the late Qing Dynasty which was in 1840. China had become decentralised, its bureaucracy was corrupt and their was a prevalent belief in an impending apocalypse. Note the lack of international reasons for a decline in Chinese power - these were internal structural problems. China had been through them before - but this time there was a difference...

China ran up against the newly emergent European superpowers, who were expanding their influence in the region. Britain was a more powerful country - China declined.

Zubrin's example is doubly flawed in that he extrapolates from a situation (albeit badly) where there is a clear winner and a clear loser to a situation where it is impossible to see what could be gained. Mars could never be an economic benefit to Earth, it has nothing of use, its too far away and its too hostile.

Material hyper efficient fuel cells and computers, inexpensive access to fusionable materials, and cheap metals and chemicals are all available in space.

None of them are on Mars, none of them require manned exploration, many of them probably don't even require space travel. Cheap metals are available on Earth (commodities and bulk chemicals are continuing to fall in price). There is nothing out there that we need to grab.

Saying we've got to go and get it when we have no need nor any conceivable need for it (whatever it is) is the economics of the British Empire (or more recently, the Pentagon). It's always someone else's money after all.

Why do I bring this up? Because it's ideas like yours that poison exploratory programs. Instead of grand gestures, you want small cheap steps. You speak of needs at home when they can be solved by innovating for the world.

And its that attitude of the seizing the Last Frontier that has produced white elephant after white elephant, whether it is the Shuttle, Concorde, BAM, NMD, fast breeder reactors - you name it. People are so busy convincing themselves that these things will be vital in the future, they forget to ask one question - why?

We simply have to want it enough.

Easy question then? Why do you want to send humans to Mars?

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:Manned Missions

[Paulrothrock]

Mars has lots of raw materials, such as iron, aluminum, platinum-group metals, as well as lots of volatile chemicals. Imagine if we had access to the planet Earth before all of the major mineral deposits had been taken, how much material that would constitute. And then imagine that we're not destroying a biosphere to get at them. That sounds like reason enough for me to go there.

Mars also provides a perfect environment for carbonyl forging. (I think that's what it's called.) This process works by disolving metals in a carbon dioxide liquid and then spraying or pouring that into a form. Then the CO2 is evaporated and the metal is left, making strong, lightweight and easily produced high quality manufactured goods. This could very well be the first export of a Martian colony.

Why do I want to go to Mars? Because I want to forge a new world. I want the challenge of building something out of nothing. It has natural resources that can be used for further space exploration without having to divert them from terrestrial necessities, provides an environment less hostile than any other near planetary body, and is a far superior launch point that Earth, due to its more distant orbit and lower gravity. I want to go to explore and to increase human knowledge. Above all, I want to go to ensure the survival of the human race. Should a large body collide with Earth, we may very well be wiped out. I don't want to lose our contributions to the Universe.

Re:Manned Missions

[hesiod]

> why don't you get your country to develop a space program and send your own kids on a suicide mission?

Or just get some Palestinian children and tell them that Allah is waiting for them there.

At least they get to live a good bit longer and don't have to blow up with a roller park.]

Re:Manned Missions

[roystgnr]

Its descent from a pre-eminent power started in the late Qing Dynasty which was in 1840.

Yes, but that descent was probably hastened because for some reason China had been completely economically and politically cut off from the millions of Chinese colonists who had beaten the Europeans to the Americas back when China had been a pre-eminent power along with the European empires.

What's that you say? There were no such colonists? Well, that explains a little more then.

Re:Manned Missions

[Mooncaller]

Maybe YOU should read some history befor you post. On the other hand, it probably won't do you much good. More data won't fix your faulty capability to use logic.

Declining China lost to superpower Europe.

China was in decline because of isolationism.

European nations became superpowers because they were engaging in exploration.

So what was the point you were trying to make?

England did not become a superpower because of the wealth created by its explorations, but by developing the technology to do that exploration. The monitary reward was just an incentive that added some positive feedback.

The value of a manned misson to Mars is not just the scientific data or any short term economic benifit. The true value lies with the massive exansion of the capabilities of mankind that would result in attempting such a mission.

Re:Manned Missions

[mikerich]

Yes, but that descent was probably hastened because for some reason China had been completely economically and politically cut off from the millions of Chinese colonists who had beaten the Europeans to the Americas back when China had been a pre-eminent power along with the European empires.

So where are the great flourishing Chinese colonies in the areas they discovered before deciding to turn their backs on the rest of the World? Where are the Chinese colonies in India and East Africa? Why is evidence of Chinese influence actually quite hard to find?

Simple, because the Chinese were never colonists like the British or the French. They preferred to trade with the locals, taking raw materials back to China. They did not build colonies in the image of the mother country.

China was always a highly centralised economy, it saw a homeland which was defended by strong borders, beyond that was a World that was most definitely NOT China. Trade there - yes, but live there?

Most of the ethnic Chinese around the Pacific are descendents of labourers and traders brought by the British and German Empires. They are not ancient colonies.

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:Manned Missions

[mikerich]

Mars has lots of raw materials, such as iron, aluminum, platinum-group metals, as well as lots of volatile chemicals. Imagine if we had access to the planet Earth before all of the major mineral deposits had been taken, how much material that would constitute. And then imagine that we're not destroying a biosphere to get at them. That sounds like reason enough for me to go there.

Earth has plenty of all three, iron and aluminium prices are in decline due to their over-production. Platinum, well it fluctuates a bit, but its currently trading at about $680 an ounce. You'd need a hell of a lot of platinum to pay for missions to Mars.

We've hardly even scratched the mineral reserves on the Earth, we've started running out of the really nice stuff, but the only things that are starting to look decidedly finite are helium and oil - neither of which are on Mars.

And let's be careful about predicting that Mars has no biosphere, it may well have some life (I doubt it), but if any bugs survive there, all bets are off.

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:Manned Missions

[jvervloet]

I think they should really be shooting towards a manned mission. Having actual people on the ship makes mission completion that much more important.

As I see it, manned missions to Mars will create a lot of extra problems, because I'm not sure that people can handle such a journey psychologically.

I think that you need to be a very strong person to deal with the fact that your home (Earth) is only a little dot far in the sky, and that returning takes at least some months...

Re:Manned Missions

[MobyDisk]

I would gladly volunteer. Unfortunately, I am not even close to qualified. However, if/when I get a degree in physics/engineering, I will do that. Is there a reason that you assumed I would not? Or are you demonstrating the very bias against sacrifice that I was trying to point out? If you were qualified, would you not volunteer?

Re:Manned Missions

[Anonymous Custard]

I'd have to be pretty sure that my going on a one way trip to mars would really help out humanity more than if I stayed around and instead dedicated my life to a more tried-and-true cause, such as providing aid to poor countries in need.

I believe there's nothing we'd find on mars that we couldn't find with unmanned missions.

It's similar to why I haven't joined the armed forces here in America. If I'm going to put my life on the line, I'd better be damned sure that it's for a noble and just cause. I am not so sure that the current administration has the right idea, and I could never work wholeheartedly to something in which I don't believe.

Top 10 Reasons to Send Phoenix to Mars

[AtariAmarok]

10. That old 1981 pontiac is now so rusty that even the junk yards won't take it.

9. Cyclops and Wolverine have been fighing over her for 26 years no. Enough is enough, get her out of the picture.

8. As part of the deal for acquiring the Phoenix Suns, the Martian sports magnate had to buy the whole city.

7. The NHL Phoenix Coyotes got tired of all the ribbing about having a hockey team where there is no ice. The Martian poles way outfreeze Canada. Put that in your back-bacon, Maple Leafs!

6. They wanted to keep those 133 degree summer temperatures. All they have to do now is replace the "+" with a "-".

5. It's part of a plot by Scottsdale to take over the state.

4. "Project Phoenix" wants to shut down by finding Phoenix as the example of life on another planet.

3. It's punishment for the city name violating one of J.K. Rowling's book title trademarks.

2. Get rid of it already, it is too confusing to remember whether or not the O goes before the E.

1. "Because it blocks my view of Tucson".

Re:Top 10 Reasons to Send Phoenix to Mars

[The OPTiCIAN]

Nice one. Also "because there's already a BIOS on earth called that" and "because there's already a hacker on earth called that" and "because there's a microsoft internal project called that" and "because it sounded too similar to McGuyver's employer for us to let it hang around"... (etc)

Is phoenix the most overused wanna-be-cool codename ever, or what?!

People! It's been done! Find some new words!

Re:Top 10 Reasons to Send Phoenix to Mars

[Cackmobile]

I thought Phoenix was a dodge! as i recall the early '60s ones were push button autos. Weird!

Re:Top 10 Reasons to Send Phoenix to Mars

[MImeKillEr]

It was a Chrysler, but I believe the Pontiac Phoenix was the Pontiac version of the Chevy Nova.

Re:naming problem

[Bob McCown]

Its a floor wax AND a dessert topping!
</shimmer>

Was this better than alternatives?

[adlai]

Personally, I think there are a couple of things worth noting regarding this decision. 1st -- although $325 million is a bit "staggering", it's interesting to note that this is the first mission competition that really was a winner take all competition. 30 proposals were submitted, 4 made the finals, and then one winner was picked. I have to think NASA will be doing a lot more of this, since it's got to be more economical in the long-run.

2nd, one of the losers was the extremely cool ARES Martian Airplane proposal. I'm biased because some of the people in my lab were on the science team for that proposal, but I think it would have pushed both the scientific and engineering envelope more than Phoenix will. Was NASA being too conservative (like I think), or simply prudent? I think it's probably hard to tell right now. I sure hope ARES has a shot in 2011 if they run another Scout competition, since I think it'll remain a cool idea even then...

See this story in the Hampton Roads paper if you are more interested about ARES' s rejection/want to see a picture of the prototype.

Re:Was this better than alternatives?

[DrinkDr.Pepper]

What advantage does a airplane have to an orbiter? Were they just trying to get a closer look? What kind of remote-sensing coverage could an airplane get on the planet when Odyssey's GRS can see the entire planet? How many instruments could be loaded up on an airplane? How could you fly it remote control with a 20 minute lag?

It seems to me that an opportunity to actually land on the planet, where GRS shows there to be water and perform wet chemistry experiments is a lot more interesting. This is a step in the right direction. Of course, I'm biased because I work at LPL for Bill Boynton (think GRS, TEGA).

Re:Was this better than alternatives?

[amightywind]

Perhaps no one told you. The surface pressure on Mars is equal to that at 100,000 feet on Mars. I have never seen gliders fly that high. Might be a better idea on Venus.

Re:Was this better than alternatives?

[adlai]

There are several measurements that are essentially impossible from orbiters that ARES would have attempted to make, I think, including: (1) atmospheric measurements (2) high-resolution measurements of the magnetic anomalies seen in the Martian highlands, and (3) regional-scale imaging. From my perspective, the most interesting of these would be #2, especially since its hard to conceive of another way to get such a measurement. (I'll admit right off the bat that I find atm. measurements pretty dull).

In terms of remote control, I'm pretty certain that the plane's path would be established before the mission, for better or worse.

I'm not trying to suggest that Phoenix is worthless, I'm just bummed that ARES didn't win, since I'm more interested in regional geology/geophysics than the interesting H2O chemistry on Mars...

Re:Was this better than alternatives?

[adlai]

I assume you mean 100,000 feet on Earth...Check out this for a discussion of the 103,500 ft. test flight of the ARES prototype. Damn cool, huh?

Re:Was this better than alternatives?

[amightywind]

I did mean 100,000 feet on Earth. The point remains. You have 3500 feet of altitude margin above the Martian planetary mean. Mars topography varies by at least 150,000 feet (bottom of Hellas basin to the top of Olympus Mons). Furthermore, Martian surface pressure is highly seasonal. In southern hemisphere winter, surface pressure drops a further 40% because of the condensation of CO2. Your aircraft would be occupied with collision avoidance much more than exploration. There is no margin. Gliders work poorly in thin air. Sorry for hitting you with a clue stick so early in the morning.

Re:Unit system

[jandrese]

My question is how many LoCs[1] it will have in storage.

[1] Library of Congress

Pay attention:

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope they haven't recycled the imperial to numeric conversion code.

Um, they are recycling Mars Polar Lander, not Mars Climate Orbiter. The unit conversion omission occurred on MCO, not MPL.

MCO was already recycled and has been performing flawlessly... its reincarnation is known as Mars Odyssey.

You got a score of five because people thought you were saying something insightful about the spaceprogram. Actually, though, you don't know shit about it.

Re:Pay attention:

[hesiod]

> Actually, though, you don't know shit about it.

I suggest you do some research into a little-known field of study among /.ers. It's called "ease the fuck up, man."

Recycling of prior mission components

[laetus]

Maybe the fact that they are recycling components from a prior mission had something to do with the decision. Remember, the startup to completion time is drastically reduced if you can use components which are already on the shelf.

If I'm not mistaken, one of the current ESA missions to Mars uses components and planning from a previous European space mission, drastically decreasing cost and time to flight. Maybe someone can find the link on that.

Proof of alien life...

[pir8garth]

Proof of alien life was captured on film; much to the surprise of the people at NASA, a careless martian forgot to throw away his bottle of Aquafina...

You REALLY overestimate the constituents.

[StarKruzr]

At least half the people in this country don't even know that Mars is another planet like ours, much less that you could actually GO there. You expect them to know why we should be sending people there?

Explain any of it to these people and I guarantee their response will be "but we have to take care of our problems here in the Fertile Crescent, I mean Europe, I mean Earth, first!" </sarcasm>

search again...

[mblase]

There are no Pep Boys on Mars

No, but there are several very close by.

Re:Unit system

[Rogerborg]

Dyslexic moderators, or just unable to concatenate unit and arian?

Why not a Blimp?

[BeowulfSchaeffer]

I don't understand why they do not send a mylar blimp, (folded of course) that they could activate (inflate). I am sure that they could come up with something to operate in the thin atmosphere, but stay aloft with little effort.

Re:Why not a Blimp?

[Anonym1ty]

I don't understand why they do not send a mylar blimp, (folded of course) that they could activate (inflate). I am sure that they could come up with something to operate in the thin atmosphere, but stay aloft with little effort.

How much different is that concept from the Balloon The've been already talking about?

What? No snappy. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

"Battle of the Planets" references?

I'm surprised at you people! And we gave you T-Shirts and everything!

-FL

Such a great car name

[AtariAmarok]

Isn't it a great idea to name a car after something that gets destroyed in a fiery blast?

(Yes, it can be resurrected, but only after you pay Pep Boys $$$$$)

In 1979, GM came out with the X-Cars. One was the Pontiac Phoenix, another was the Chevy Citation (another ill-fated name, taken from the main Edsel model), and the final-sounding Olds Omega.

Re:Recycling code too?

[darkpixel2k]

What's the conversion ratio for a metric assload from system international to US? ;)

Canadian comment

[SoVi3t]

What is the big deal about Canadians helping out (I'm Canadian, btw). We already help out most of the time, with Canadarm and such, albeit on a different level I suppose.

Lunar and Planetary Laboratory

[DrinkDr.Pepper]

Phoenix, a joint project between the University of Arizona and Planetary Laboratory was...
That should read:

Phoenix, a proposal of the University of Arizona's Lunar and Planetary Laboratory was...

Re:Recycling code too?

[jaavaaguru]

"system international to US" - that just doesn't sound right. It's either a US thing or an International thing.

Unthaw Stallone...

[djcatnip]

I smell a sequel!

Re:Recycling code too?

[QuantumFTL]

Dislaimer: I write software for Mars missions, including the 2007 Pheonix mission.

I hope they haven't recycled the imperial to numeric conversion code.

I must say I'm really tired of hearing about this every time there's an article about a mars misson. I mean, no one says "I hope they haven't recycled those overflow errors" every time an Ariane 5 rocket is lauched! Was it a stupid problem? Yes, however people seem to forget how rediculously hard it is to successfully launch a mission like this. Yes it's very easy to prevent a single mistake, but thousands of potential mistakes? Our track record with Mars probes is twice as good as the nearest competitor (Russia) and it's looking to continue that way.

Somebody want to contribute an open source alternative to them?

Look. The people working at NASA know how to write this stuff. That's not the problem. The problem is that on large scale projects like this, it's entirely possible for things like this to be overlooked... People tend to worry about the "hard" stuff rather than the easy stuff. And as for why they even have to convert units, as far as I understand NASA generally uses metric, it is the american aerospace companies that generally insist on using imperial units.

Also, Open Source is *NOT* the catch-all answer for everything! The development team I'm on uses linux for our development, and our software will be running on a lot of linux (and windows) boxes during the mission. We love open source, and even use some open libraries (such as castor) in our code as allowed (we are not allowed to link to GPL code of course).

However, I would cringe if the flight software was some open source deal... I mean, looking at the linux kernel sources, (some say it is the gem of open source) I wouldn't want to have to depend on anything written like *THAT* to handle flying in space. Great for on the ground where we can fix/replace/patch if there's a problem but... It's not cleanly designed and implemented like, say, QNX, etc. Few people alive have experience writing software for spaceflight systems, and I expect they they know just a little bit more about it than even the best of linux hackers do.

I guess I just don't understand why the parent post was modded insightful. Nothing personal, in7ane, but really!

Re:Unit system

[Anonym1ty]

For us Americans:

• Football pitch == Soccer Field
• Football pitch != Footbal Field
• Double-Decker Bus == 2(Bus) where bus is over bus
• Double-Decker Bus != Faster Data Transfers

Not again!

[amightywind]

It is good to know that the same people that peppered Mars' south pole with spacecraft debris will be doing the same in the north! There is a place for them on the shuttle management team. I have a suggestion. Use metric units this time.

Re:tracking Descent Imager included

[Anonymous Coward]

This will provide 50 Mb of images on descent, and will provide (I think) telemetry.

This is simply the Mars 2001 lander, the twin of the 1999 Polar Lander, with some new instruments, and repairs to items that likely failed on the 1999 firm landing (lander probably came down intact, may have contacted MGS, but not sufficiently to save the lander as it likely did not deploy the solar power panels (we -need- rtg on Mars!) and the batteries ran out.

Flight hardware was already built and paid for

[Anonymous Coward]

This -is- the 2001 lander that was mothballed after we lost both the orbiter and polar lander in 1999.

So it is cheap to send, as the lander is already built. It will of course be updated, some new instruments, a descent imager and an optical microscope (finally! I've been lobbying for that for years on usenet). I certainly hope that the landing gear mechanism and their deployment software, as well as the final retro burn software have been fixed, or will be, between now and 2007, but this is a mothballed bird that was already paid for.

The other Mars Scout options, many of which are quite useful - a seismic net would be -very- helpful, for instance - can still be propose for future funding starts.

Re:Recycling code too?

[justins98]

I assume that as part of your software testing, you guys run the code through a simulator, right? In other words you run a test so that the software is receiving the exact sensor signals it would be receiving during an actual atmospheric entry/landing, and you can observe the output to make sure it does the right things at the right time.

What I don't understand is why such testing doesn't uncover almost all of these types of problems. It seems like you'd be able to watch the output and say, "Whoa, parachute detatched at altitute 2000m, that's bad," for example.

Is such testing not done, or is it that these unit problems are outside the scope of such tests (i.e. the actual physical sensors send feet when meters were sent by the simulated sensors)?

I Dont Buy It

[dave1g]

I still don't believe the different units explanation for the former probes death. NO scientist on earth should be using customary units... if they did they should have all been shot.

Re:I Dont Buy It

[KewlPC]

The problem wasn't the scientists. The problem was the aerospace companies, which still use Imperial units of measurement.

Re:I Dont Buy It

[dave1g]

Oh, ok that makes alittle more sense. But damn there should be a law against that or something... Of course if it were up to me I would move the US to SI units to bring us up to speed with the rest of the world...

And I'm not even a scientist I would just love to have the simpler conversion tables that SI provides between their units. simply powers of ten, and 1cm^3=1ml of water things like that you can memorize much easier than 36 inches in a yard, I dont even know how many teaspoons,tablespoons,quarts,pints,and cups there are in a gallon... I did in like 1st grade when I learned it but not anymore...

Re:I Dont Buy It

[KewlPC]

I dont even know how many teaspoons,tablespoons,quarts,pints,and cups there are in a gallon...

Not many people know all of it. I know that there's something like 2 pints in a quart, 4 quarts in a gallon, 12 inches in a foot, and 3 feet in a yard, but that's about it. Aside from being so entrenched, the only reason people still use the Imperial system is because things are evenly divisible by 2, 3, and 4, and because they are easy to measure (not with 100% accuracy, but a close estimate) without some sort of measuring device: 1 Imperial foot is approximately the same length as the average person's foot, the Imperial inch is about the same length as your index finger from the tip to the first knuckle, the yard is about the length of the average person's stride, etc.

Re:I Dont Buy It

[dave1g]

I think that is only because like you said it is so intrenched so we have come up with easy ways to estimate the measurements. If we were using SI you would develope the same tricks, yard and meter are about the same. Liters would be easy to pick up based on sodas.

Everyone else was intrenched too...even England, and they switched succesfully.

Re:I Dont Buy It

[KewlPC]

I think that is only because like you said it is so intrenched so we have come up with easy ways to estimate the measurements. If we were using SI you would develope the same tricks, yard and meter are about the same. Liters would be easy to pick up based on sodas.

Actually, IIRC, those easy measurements were what the Imperial system was originally based on (length of the king's foot, etc.).

As good as the metric system is (easy to convert between units, decimal-based, internationally used, etc.), the Imperial system is not without its merits.

Re:Recycling code too?

[QuantumFTL]

Well the software I write (as mentioned in my previous comment) runs on ground computers, and is used by the scientists. We don't need a simulator for it, because we have the actual computers here we can test on.

But yes, the flight software is tested on simulators. My officemate wrote the motor simulations for MER for testing the flight software... He says their testing methods are almost paranoid in their coverage of possible issues... In fact, they are still testing madly right now in case they find a problem, it might be able to be worked around.

Simulations are only so good. There's no way the simulations can take every little detail into account, at least with the computers we have today. It's truely amazing how many different ways hardware can fail. And don't forget cosmic rays cause random bitflips now and then...

Yes testing can uncover a lot of issues but certainly not everything.

Good question though.

Re:Recycling code too?

[RKBA]

Hi QuantumFTL,

I wrote the firmware for the Meteorological subsystem (MET) of MPL (known at the time as Mars Volatiles and Climate Surveyor - MVACS). It was quite depressing when MPL crashed after myself (and many others) had worked on it for so long - particularly since the MET package never even got powered on! :-(

It looks like you've substituted a scanning LIDAR for the Tunable Diode Laser (TDL) Spectrometer that we flew (or intended to fly) on MPL, and I assume (and hope) you are using a different microprocessor than we did. The UT69RH051 (the UTMC rad hard version of the 8051 microprocessor) has a very serious design flaw that we didn't discover until after flight testing had started, that causes dropped interrupts if the serial port is used in full-duplex mode. If you do happen to be using that same microcontroller, you should be aware of this advisory issued by UTMC:

UT69RH051 Microcontroller PCA & Serial Port Interrupt Flag Anomaly

If you would like to contact me for any reason, you can email me at: "SlashDot_at_spamex.com" (substitute "@" for "_at_").

Best of luck on a successful mission, and may the Phoenix rise from the ashes of MPL! :-)

-- Ron

P.S
No operating system at all (neither open source nor closed source) was used in the meteorological subsystem of MPL. The firmware I wrote was a single program that ran on the "bare metal" of the processor board, and used interrupts to effect time slicing (in effect, it was its own operating system).

As an Arizona State University Grad....

[Colonel Blimp]

I have to laugh, University of Arizona is in Tucson, a town that has a huge inferiority complex towards Phoenix. I expect outrage, and I plan to employ my evil laugh!

Re:Recycling code too?

[in7ane]

OK, my comment was intended to be funny, along with the typo, and the os suggestion. I have no idea why it got moded insightful, but c'mon people... Anyway, sorry that I struck a nerve.

I do realize how difficult it is to setup a system that will be flying millions of kilometers away and will not be easily debuggable. All while the development of the space program gets a fraction of the funding for the development of databases to track [insert security concern of the day here]. Anyway, best of luck with this and future missions.

As for the open source suggestion, I'll even contribute the first few lines of code:

double meters_to_feet(double meters)
{
return (meters / 0.3048);
}

double feet_to_meters(double feet)
{
return (feet * 0.3048);
}

By the way, those Ariane 5 overflow errors have been recycled and successfully implemented in my code, so there :P

Re:Recycling code too?

[QuantumFTL]

Well if you intended it to be a joke, I agree it's pretty funny.

Once again, a case of moderators on crack.

But the same mods modded me up... hmmm... maybe I ought not insult them? ;)

As for your code suggestion, there's no objects, there's no assertions, and most importantly no over-engineering! There's no way NASA will use it like that! ;)

Re:What are the changes over Mars Polar Lander 199

[KewlPC]

I thought it was the MCO (Mars Climate Observer) that crashed and burned, and that the MPL (Mars Polar Lander) landed OK, but for some reason couldn't open its solar panels so it died when the batteries ran dry.

IIRC they were sent as part of the same package or something like that. Or am I just way off my rocker on this one?

OT: Working on Space Projects

[turgid]

Just as a matter of interest, how did you and your colleagues get to be working from NASA? What sort fo career path have you had? I'm not looking for a job or anything, I'm just interested. :-) Did you, for example, start out doing research at a university? Thanks.