Flares Injure Mars Odyssey

Henry writes "The BBC is reporting that NASA's Mars Odyssey has suffered a hit from the recent solar flares. Apparently, the instrument which measures radiation levels has been shut down; it is not known if the damage is permanent."

Comments

Re:So what?

[Vellmont]

You're right that it's not a terrible loss, but if it's permanent, it's unfortunate. Having all the instruments function can be often usefull. For example, if a instrument whose name I forget were still working on Voyager II, we'd know for certain when Voyager II has left the solar system.

The inhospitability of space

[G4from128k]

It's events like this that make one realize how hostile space really is and how primitive our tools are. We are really still in the calamity-prone early stages of an age of space exploration that is not unlike the often hazardous voyages of discovery in the 15th to 17th centuries.

It seems to me that space exploration will only succeed once it becomes so cheap or reliable to send stuff out, that nobody worries about the loss of intruments or even whole spacecraft.

Re:The inhospitability of space

[Wardish]

Hostile, Yes indeed! But the major problem and the reason it's still so very very hostile is that we've never commited to being there.

Explorers are always risk takers and so they should be but if we want things to be safe we need to start sending people who aren't risk takers. Colonists who want to go but will work there tails off to reduce the risk because they are THERE and the risk is personal! And by personal I mean thier and their kids hides.

As for cheap and reliable, those are adjectives that will be appropriate when it is common. They generally don't come first.

You want cheap, give someone the task of moving 50 megaton's of mass to L4 for a set price. I garruntee that they will find ways to make things much more cost effective because every 5 bucks saved is somone's martini.

Reliable, we are back to people risking their hides. That and public opinion after some disaster. And have no doubts... Disasters will happen. It's a time to buckle down and solve problems but not at the expense of not getting the job done.

Ok, I'm done ranting, Mod me down as necessary, I'll go take my medication now...

Re:The inhospitability of space

[penguin7of9]

Hostile, Yes indeed! But the major problem and the reason it's still so very very hostile is that we've never commited to being there.

We have had a pretty much unbroken presence in space since the 1950's. Not, it hasn't been a manned presence, but so what? Putting people into space is unnecessarily risky and has little reward.

Reliable, we are back to people risking their hides.

No, we are not. Unlike the age of exploration, we don't have to go ourselves anymore. We can simply lean back while ever cheaper robotic probes explore our solar system (and possibly beyond).

Re:The inhospitability of space

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a pretty darn ignorant point of view. You obviously have no idea how nasty the space environment is beyond the safety of the Earth. You suggest that if we were really serious we would just start sending people into the deadly radiation environment because, hey, you expect a few losses at first. We're not at the stage where the Europeans were when they sent out huge ships on discovery (almost all of which stayed within sight of shore). Comparitively speaking, we have dinghys, not sailing ships.

Not only is it at present prohibitively expensive, it would be suicide to send people out on lengthy space travel without knowing how to protect them. Particularly since we don't know the environment well where they would be going. The explorers that set sail across the ocean had the confidence that they could survive on the resources when they reached their destination. We don't even know that at this point. You want expensive, start sending out floating coffin after floating coffin and see what kind of progress you'll make.

We have a lot more robots we need to send out before we even think of going to Mars. Maybe it will happen in our lifetimes, and maybe not. You can't bend the schedule just to fit your impatience.

Re:The inhospitability of space

[Wardish]

We have never HAD to go ourselves. We've always had the choice of not going, and many of us have availed ourselves of that choice. But to get back on point.

I'm in no way advocating going for no reason. Or even going for the sake of knowledge. As a matter of fact I agree that robotic's, telepresence and various other technological apendages are very useful.

However. I've been in the business of making things work reliably for a long time. One might say system reliability and survival. And the single item that will doom a system in the long run is having single point of failures.

This planet may seem to be a very large place, but only if your context is a very small pond. In the scheme of the universe we are quite small. I think the comet strike on Jupiter a few years back illistrated far better than any doomsayer how very simply and quickly all that we are could become a footnote in a history we don't share.

So while I agree that for knowledge's sake it is much safer to send the electronic critters, in the long run for our own sake we need to expand away from here. And that means going and doing in person, permenently and in quantity.

Re:The inhospitability of space

[Wardish]

"That's a pretty darn ignorant point of view. You obviously have no idea how nasty the space environment is beyond the safety of the Earth. You suggest that if we were really serious we would just start sending people into the deadly radiation environment because, hey, you expect a few losses at first. We're not at the stage where the Europeans were when they sent out huge ships on discovery (almost all of which stayed within sight of shore). Comparitively speaking, we have dinghys, not sailing ships."

*chuckle* Ignorant, certianly. I'm reasonably well informed as to the knowledge currently available about that enviornment but I certianly don't think I know it all or even most.

I "suggest" that you've missinterpreted my words. I in no way suggested that we send people because we expect losses. Which is quite different from understanding and yes expecting losses because we send people. You may think that a simple matter of semantics but I consider it a considerable difference in concept. For a comparable understanding in risk vs. results I would suggest some study in military tactics. They have a firm understanding of the concepts of goals, and risks when human lives are part of the equation. They are of course the example all the way in one direction. But every large construction project has a similar understanding. There isn't a major construction project that hasn't cost people their lives and those who manage and create such projects factor that in.

Your sailing ship example is a bit out of context, but lets see if we can make it fit a bit better. Please examine a comparison of the Pinta and a modern cruise liner. Comparitively speaking I think I know which will apear to be a dingy. And I certianly can attest to the safety and comfort of the liner's. But if we had waited until such ships were available to safely explore away fromt the european coasts, well, things would be a bit different.

"Not only is it at present prohibitively expensive, it would be suicide to send people out on lengthy space travel without knowing how to protect them. Particularly since we don't know the environment well where they would be going. The explorers that set sail across the ocean had the confidence that they could survive on the resources when they reached their destination. We don't even know that at this point. You want expensive, start sending out floating coffin after floating coffin and see what kind of progress you'll make."

There is a difference between sending someone up without air and sending someone up with not only air but tripply redundent backup systems for every conceivable system. I'm by no means advocating sending anyone into danger without and understanding of the dangers and reasonable precautions to protect them from the dangers. keep in mind that I said " Colonists who want to go but will work there tails off to reduce the risk " This group is unlikely to volunteer for suicide missions.

As to your statement about past explorors... You may want to do a bit of remedial reading. While they "had the confidence that they could survive", this confidence was based on misinformation and ignorance of the real facts. A certian Mr. Columbus thought he was sailing to India. It's a lucky thing they bumped into those unexpected islands or they would have been a simple addition to the list of lost ships. But that time they had no choice on turning around, the winds were against them and their supplies were far to low if the accounts I've read are correct. I doubt if that was an isolated case. I suspect some of those missing ships weren't quite so fortunate.

I want expensive? Floating coffin after floating coffin?... Your obviously much more familiar with my thoughts than I am. Good thing I guess as I hadn't even noticed either of those floating through my head.

Impatience, Guilty I guess, it's only been 30 years since we walked on the moon so perhaps I am a bit impatient.

Enough of this foolishness, Putting words in

Re:So what?

[Nutrimentia]

It's the solar wind instrument that failed on VII, but its working on Voyager I which is about a year behind VII on its journey out of the solar system.