Spirit's First Mars Images
An anonymous reader writes "First panoramic and overhead polar views of Mars, a quarter billion miles away are available. Some spectacular examples and accompanying commentaries are at NASA's Astrobiology Magazine, and JPL."
No matter how many space missions are made, this stuff still puts me in awe. I know that quite a few NASA guys lurk on /., and all I can say is: good work!
None of them. It's probably an X server with some lightweight window manager they've been using since the 80s.
In case anyone of the NASA guys is reading /. (I know some are), I'd like to express my congratulations on an excellent job. I really enjoy following each step of the mission.
Sigged!
This question comes up frequently with the whole moon landing skeptic/debunk arguments. In addition to Ada_Rules' comment, keep in mind that Mars' atmosphere is quite different from that of the Earth. The differences in atmospheric density, levels of sunlight, and the effects of those things on the refraction of light make for "distorted" images as viewed by eyes trained to see in Earth-perspective.
Or, in layman's terms, "Objects on Mars may be further away than they appear."
--
Rate Naked People (not work-safe)
the average broadband connection is (probably) 1.5mbit/s. I think 24mbps is a lot fast than that.
Shuttle program vs. No shuttle program. Pretty easy to not have any casualities when you don't put anyone in space.
I don't really see the point of sending people to mars. What can they discover that the robots can't? Sure, they can say "Hey! It looks different and there is less gravity!," but we knew that anyway. It is far simpler to send robots. Sending people requires food, life support, oxygen etc., whereas a robot needs solar panels.
The price and inconvenience of sending people far outways any reason to send people over there.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
do you not use any of these social programs? and is this what you teach your daughter?