Slashdot Mirror


ESA Aiming for Martian Probe in 2011

allanj writes "According to the BBC, the ESA is set to send a robotic probe to Mars around 2011. They apparently want to return samples of Martian soil with the probe - cool idea if it works better than Beagle 2 did..." From the article: "They still require a great deal of further detail and the agency's member states will also have to sign off the mission. Ministers will have their say when the Esa Council meets in December."

131 comments

  1. Late Breaking News: by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    Today the Council of Elders confirmed the rumours that the sinister blue planet third from our star is planning to send yet another one of its mechanical invaders.

    K'breel, speaker for the Council, stressed that there was no cause for alarm:

    "While it is true that the blue planet is sending another invader, we are confident that we can deal with the situation. This particular invader seems to be of the same design as the one we destroyed over one standard year ago, so it should be vulnerable to the same tactics. Even failing this, it should be no problem to isolate the invader and keep it from any contact with citizens...a policy we have developed and upheld ever since the blue planet initiated hostilities."


    When questioned whether the rumours that the blue planet was almost covered in poisonous, corrosive di-hydrogen oxide, as many independent scientists have asserted, had any validity, K'breel declined comment.
    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Late Breaking News: by Orgazmus · · Score: 1

      Thanks, you made my day

      --
      The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
    2. Re:Late Breaking News: by bonch · · Score: 5, Funny

      In related news, local heretic Kal-El was arrested once more for conducting scientific experiments to determine when, as he believes, the planet will explode.

      "If we don't fix this now, I have to fire my son through space at the blue planet, and I don't want my son living in a world of Clippy and BSD-is-dying jokes."

      K'breel of the Elder Council denied rumors the planet was going to explode. "When has an Elder Council ever denied rumors of inevitable disaster, only to have it come true?" he laughed.

    3. Re:Late Breaking News: by skyman8081 · · Score: 2, Funny

      If I hadn't spent my modpoints in Atlantic City, Vegas, and that one Indian Reservation. I'd mod this up, right about..... now.

      --
      Two Roommates and a Boyfriend, updates Monday, Wednesday, and Friday
    4. Re:Late Breaking News: by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Funny

      "When questioned whether the rumours that the blue planet was almost covered in poisonous, corrosive di-hydrogen oxide, as many independent scientists have asserted, had any validity, K'breel declined comment."

      Moments later, the phrase "I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle" mysteriously drifted across the chamber where the Elders met. Before Earth could send another one of its mechanical invaders, all life on Mars was exterminated when war broke out...

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    5. Re:Late Breaking News: by commodoresloat · · Score: 1
      One Martian newscaster had this to say:

      I, for one, welcome our new Earthling overlords!

    6. Re:Late Breaking News: by mmortal03 · · Score: 1

      Actually, that would be Jor-El that you were thinking of.

      Kal-El is Superman, Jor-El is his father.

  2. Dig in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the BBC article they want to dig in. We already know how to do it on earth. Now all we need is to ship all that to Mars and get Lenny Kravitz to sing along.

    1. Re:Dig in by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 3, Funny

      They proved that with the beagle 2 they are pretty good at digging in on Mars too.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    2. Re:Dig in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      We had the best teachers

      Thank you, yankies

    3. Re:Dig in by willgott · · Score: 1

      I think it's ridicules to tease other space agencies about their past failures. I didn't giggle when Mars polar lander crashed. It was a sad loss - not something to poke fun at. Secondly; when will the slashdot-crowd finally get it? Beagle 2 was an all-British probe - not a ESA-project.

    4. Re:Dig in by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Awww, somebody needs a hug. Quick, somebody hug him.

      You must have not been around here when NASA fucked up that standard to metric shit. We laughted then. Remember when China launched their first astro dude? Remember the spam in the can jokes?

      Nobody died. Yes it is funny, pull the stick out of your ass and laugh with us.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

  3. Re:Zonk, STOP DELETING STORIES! by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    FFS - the slashdot editors can't win either way.

    Either they ignore us and post articles, or they remove them because they are blatently redundant.

    Give them a break.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  4. cool, and when some martian babe claims her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    orifices were probed by aliens, will the other martians believe her?

  5. DON'T DO IT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They will bring back some horrible virus from a civilzation that has been destoryed for centuries!! JUST LIKE OFF OF THE OUTER LIMITS.

    1. Re:DON'T DO IT! by aussie_a · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I'd hardly call a bunch of scorpions a "horrible virus." Besides, I hear that particular scientist whose prone to thinking of himself as god has been taken to the Stargate program. Apparently the ga'oulds didn't respect O'Neill.

  6. sharing by sfcat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    why does NASA and the ESA (and other space agencies) have to each send their own probes. Due to the cost of space missions, wouldn't a more sharing of resources be useful. For instance, one agency pays for the ground control, another for the rockets, another for the actual probe. Sharing of costs and resources would allow for more missions and less parnoia about how one nation uses space.

    --
    "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    1. Re:sharing by Orgazmus · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sir, are you or have you ever been a member of the communist party?

      --
      The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
    2. Re:sharing by John+Seminal · · Score: 5, Insightful
      why does NASA and the ESA (and other space agencies) have to each send their own probes. Due to the cost of space missions, wouldn't a more sharing of resources be useful. For instance, one agency pays for the ground control, another for the rockets, another for the actual probe. Sharing of costs and resources would allow for more missions and less parnoia about how one nation uses space.

      Different ideas, different builds. Why do we have Windows and Linux when the programmers could work together? And the ESA and NASA are very different. I remember in Industrial Psychology we studied different systems of buisness. In Europe, they work as a team and are credited as members of a team. In the USA people get credit for outstanding work individually, not a team. So it is interesting to see how this plays out. The motivations are different, the dynamics are different, and the probes that are built will be different. I think there is something to be learned here.

      Plus, if it was just NASA, we would have a space shuttle that never changes. Maybe some new ideas would make NASA reconsider their designs.

      --

      Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    3. Re:sharing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to stop watching so much Star Trek. Space exploration isn't some noble goal for the advancement of mankind. It's about showing off to the rest of the world who smart and technically advanced you are. The only reason governments fund space exploration is for bragging purposes. Besides, look at how wonderfully the ISS turned out when we tried to share stuff.

    4. Re:sharing by mikael · · Score: 1

      But if you had more missions, you would end up sending more probes anyway.

      For the most part, they do seem to share resources; different countries/universities can install their experiments onto whatever device is being launched. And there is collaboration on the use of radio/optical telescopes - there are early warning networks for important events like supernova.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    5. Re:sharing by NoseBag · · Score: 2, Informative

      You might check out the details of the Casini/Huygens probe (US mothership/UK Titan probe daughtership), telemetry transmission of the Mars Rovers via the EU Mars Surveyor(?), and others. This (sharing of resources) has been going on for a while. Oh, yeah...and the space station. Seems everyone has a piece of that puppy.

      Good idea though.

      --
      Cloned foods give the statement "We had that last week!" a whole new meaning.
    6. Re:sharing by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Err... didn't America agree to build a bunch of stuff and then back out when they couldn't afford to? I'm sure the ESA and the Japanese space agency could reliably help each other out.

      Yes, I do have Karma to burn.

    7. Re:sharing by molo · · Score: 1

      Great, just like ISS, the biggest boondoggle yet.

      -molo

      --
      Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
    8. Re:sharing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see the arguments now.
      I say METRIC!
      No way, you cheese sucking pansy! We're goin' US!

    9. Re:sharing by MDGordon · · Score: 1

      To tell you the truth, it's probably a good ides that this occurs. I will try not to reiterate what others have said in response to your post. In my opinion, the more probes sent, the better the chances of getting good data. In other words, if they got together and made one probe, and it crashes (no matter how well-built it was, it's still possible), both parties lose out on a significant investment and data opportunities. On the other hand, if they each do their own thing, the one that succeeds can share the data from the sample with the other and each can draw their own conclusions based on that data.

    10. Re:sharing by ToshiroOC · · Score: 1

      That would be telemetry through Mars Express (MEX), which is ESA. It worked fine because they're both communicating with the Proximity-1 protocol.

    11. Re:sharing by drachton · · Score: 2, Informative

      Cassiny/Huygens isn't a US/UK mission, it's a work of collaboration between NASA and ESA, and it says here that the European contribution is led by Alcatel Space, a French company. You can find more details regarding each agency's contribution here.

    12. Re:sharing by marevan · · Score: 1

      The very thought of sharing is impossible, since from every nations leaders' point of view, the space exploration is simply politics and race against other countries. I'm sure the scientists would love to co-operate on every level, but since the goverments fund the projects...

      Also the "private/corporation funded space exploration" (no, nothing pervert in that, just your imagination, Sonny) doesn't help much since then we propably start to see spaceshuttles and probes filled with ads and get to see which celebrity gets to space first.

    13. Re:sharing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The resources are always shared. The administration (project management) is either European or American, always including members from other Agencies. The components for the probes are being built by contractors around the world. The probe in question now will complement the probes already on mars with new set of tools that they lack. The Agencies do co-operate in planning phase too; the needs of the international scientific community are carefully evalued and the scientific objectives are the priority, not nationalistic.

      For example, the telescopes now in space cover certain frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum. Part of that spectrum is covered by European telescopes (which have components made by US, Japan, etc), and part is covered by American telescopes (which have components made in EU, Japan, etc..). So, the resources are being shared, because that's naturally the wisest and most cost-effective thing to do.

    14. Re:sharing by notherenow · · Score: 1

      Since when do Americans share in glory?

      --
      We all dance, we all sing.
      -The Streets
    15. Re:sharing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problems in sharing (different measurement standards and other things) are a factor. But even in the good old USA sharing is not practiced between competing space agencies. The Hubble had many problems that could have been prevented by sharing of low risk classified engineering used in spy satelites. But no the Hubble, now called a success, was one frigging disaster after another. Read "The Hubble Wars" and see what a total bunch of ego maniac secretive lunatics that run our space programs on the public dime.

      I think that robotic missions are good, that the public should pay, but the public must have access to the data and the management must be transparent.

  7. You obviously don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They tell subscribers they can alert them to dupes, but when subscribers do, they're often ignored. Yes, they're ignoring the people that PAY THEM REAL MONEY.

    If they dupe, then they should suffer all of the comments about the dupe. They not, under any circumstances, delete a story after it has gone live and people have commented on it. It's not just gone from the front page, it's completely inaccessible.

    All of the comments made are gone, too, yet they remain in people's profiles. Slashdot used to claim (and the FAQ still does) that they won't delete comments unless facing legal action. Well, there was no legal action here and Zonk just deleted several dozen comments.

    1. Re:You obviously don't get it by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Do subscribers REALLY want to waste however many page impressions reading page after page of "dupe - teh stupid editors are da b0mb"

      Better to get rid of a worthless article than moan about it.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:You obviously don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      How does it waste any more pages? If a dupe appears, we see it, we email the editors, and they take it down. No page views wasted.

      Subscribers that report dupes are trying to help the editors do their jobs (the ones they get paid for).

      And, I'll say it again, Slashdot should not EVER delete a story with comments because it deletes the comments, too. That goes against Slashdot's supposed policy outlined by CmdrTaco.

  8. Is this it? by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is our current level of technology the end state for space probes? It seems we hear about a new mission every week built with the same old technology. I mean, SMART-1 was a different story, it was new technology and the mission was simply to test fly it. That's what we should be doing isn't it? Flying new technology so we can get to Mars in two weeks instead of two years.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Is this it? by bonch · · Score: 0

      Personally, I wonder if these things are just public fronts. It wouldn't surprise me, judging on how closely NASA and the government are intertwined these days (in fact, most people are unaware they were ever seperate), if they've already been conducting experiments we haven't even dreamed of. They know they can slip in a "new probe launched" in between news reports of the Jackson trial on the evening news and keep people thinking they're relevant and working on stuff, when meanwhile, they're working on the real stuff secretly.

      Maybe we've already been to Mars, or at least orbited it. You never know these days. Wouldn't it be nice to tour a secret underground government lab and find out everything they've been working on that sci-fi writers are just now thinking of?

    2. Re:Is this it? by Bad+D.N.A. · · Score: 1

      "Maybe we've already been to Mars"

      Mod parent up as Funny

      "or at least orbited it"

      My bad... Mod parent up as Troll.

      --
      "Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations"
    3. Re:Is this it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't you see I'm trying, I don't even like it...

    4. Re:Is this it? by fsh · · Score: 1

      Getting to Mars in two weeks would require godawful amounts of fuel, first for accelerating to such a ridiculous delta v (squishing any live occupants into gooey puddles, and requiring ridiculous tolerances for all hardware), then for decelerating for Martian orbit capture.

      The main reason it's done the way it's done now has nothing to do with technology and everything to go with the laws of gravitation and economics.

      --
      fsh
    5. Re:Is this it? by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Umm no. If you accelerated as 9.8 m/s^2 to the midpoint between earth and mars and then decelerated the same until you got to mars the entire trip would take *hours* not weeks and the human occupants would experience a standard gravity.. much more confortable than zero gravity. And yes, it would take vast amounts of fuel to do this with existing space propulsion technology.. but that's the whole point of my post! We should be testing new technologies. For example, something we could do right now with today's technology is essentially a nuclear submarine in space with an ion drive instead of a propeller. Use a nuclear fission engine (that the navy has years and years of experience running) to heat plasma and you'd have no problems completing the above scenario. And to think, that's not even harnessing the energy rich environment of space to propel our craft. Using an electromagnetic plasma bubble it's possible to capture the solar wind to propel our craft. You don't even need fuel to power the sail once it gets going.

      But all this is speculation until you actually get up there and fly it. A magnetosphere solar sail might be something that a university or commercial interest can flight test, but a nuclear powered ion engine is something only the government can launch.. and is therefore clearly what NASA should be working on.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    6. Re:Is this it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASA's New Millennium Program test-flies new technologies all the time. There have been 2 "Deep Space" missions (missions that go beyond Earth Orbit, the first one tested ion propulsion and the second failed as it was piggybacking on the Mars Polar Lander), 3 "Earth Observing" missions, testing out new technologies for Earth observations (such as new radar systems, etc.), and right now there are a few people who are working just a couple cubicles away from me who are working on Space Technology 8, testing new technologies like better and cheaper heat dispersion systems and cooling systems. And there are a few people a couple buildings away who are already working on plans for Space Technology 9.

      These "new technology" programs exist, they just don't get the press coverage they probably deserve.

    7. Re:Is this it? by fsh · · Score: 2, Interesting
      If you assume that you're going from Earth's orbit to Mars' orbit (1AU to 1.5AU) straight out (about 75 million km), then it would indeed take about 48 hours the way you describe.

      In the real world you also have to get out of Earth's gravity, fight against the Sun's gravity, and then push against Mars' gravity to avoid crashing.

      You also have to consider that when leaving Earth, you still have Earth's tangential velocity, which is much greater than Mars' (via Kepler's third law). The best way to go from Earth's orbit to Mars' orbit is a Hohmann transfer (about 400 million km). Say an object in orbit needs to go to a higher orbit. You don't fire your thrusters against gravity, you fire them in the direction of your orbit. Of course it's impossible for a chemical rocket to fire that long; the heat buildup would destroy the engine. That's why all current missions get the necessary velocity in one quick push.

      And of course the new technologies will be better, but they either don't exist or they are being tested (SMART-1 had several problems in it's 14 *month* journey to the moon). While NASA hasn't launched an ion-drive mission they most certainly *have* tested such engines, as well as the nuclear thermal propulsion engines. The problem is, as I said, economics. There's absolutely no reason to get a scientific mission to mars in a two week timeline.

      Finally, when you say We should be testing new technologies, you make it seem like we aren't testing new technologies. For a list of just the projects that NASA is funding, check out the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts That page shows projects working on all of the propulsion technologies you mentioned. Other independent researchers are looking into all of the concepts you mentioned, and more.

      --
      fsh
    8. Re:Is this it? by X43B · · Score: 1

      "While NASA hasn't launched an ion-drive mission they most certainly *have* tested such engines" You wouldn't call Deep Space 1 a mission? That is pretty harsh. I don't know if you are playing semantics and call that a test, but I consider it a mission even if it have experimental technologies on board.

    9. Re:Is this it? by FireFury03 · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you accelerated as 9.8 m/s^2... ...in space with an ion drive

      Unfortunately current ion drives are *nowhere near* powerful enough to do this (Wikipedia mentions accellerations in the order of a milli-G). So the current ion drives are a really efficient way of moving stuff very slowly, but a lot of work needs to be done improving the amount of thrust they produce. Ion drives are certainly well worth thinking about for interstellar missions though since they are efficient enough to be run pretty much non-stop instead of chemical rockets which you fire at the start and the end of the trip and leave turned off for the rest of the time. (When you're talking about missions in the order of several years then leaving a milli-G thrust running non-stop would get you there faster than just a brief (but violent) accelleration.)

      Use a nuclear fission engine (that the navy has years and years of experience running) to heat plasma and you'd have no problems completing the above scenario.

      Nice in theory, but if you try and launch something the size of a submarine reactor into space and something goes wrong you could end up scattering an aweful lot of fissable material over a large area. I guess since the reactor will be brand new the vast majority will be Uranium (a lot less toxic than Plutonium) but it's still not a good thing.... Of course I have absolutely no idea how the amount of energy required to run a reasonably powerful ion drive would compare to the amount of energy required to run a submarine.

      Using an electromagnetic plasma bubble it's possible to capture the solar wind to propel our craft.

      I haven't been able to find any figures suggesting what kind of accellerations might be possible with this technology - how does it compare with (current) ion drives?

    10. Re:Is this it? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Is our current level of technology the end state for space probes? It seems we hear about a new mission every week built with the same old technology.
      There's two reasons for that:
      • 1 - Most real world technology isn't driven by the must-beat-xcompany paradigm that drives the IT and consumer electronics world. (And many technological 'advances' are just marketing hype anyhow, especially in IT.)
      • 2 - It takes a long time to qualify new stuff for use in space. Since the old stuff works just fine, there's less impetus to spend the money to qualify the new stuff. (Again, the real world work differently than the consumer world.) Thus it takes longer for the new stuff to become visible.
      That's what we should be doing isn't it? Flying new technology so we can get to Mars in two weeks instead of two years.
      New technology gets flown fairly routinely, you just don't hear about unless you actually read the technical webpages etc... Most of it is down in the details and isn't sexy enough to get any coverage in the media.

      Flying to Mars in two weeks needs a miracle, not technology development.

    11. Re:Is this it? by QuantumG · · Score: 1
      Flying to Mars in two weeks needs a miracle, not technology development.

      It does with that attitude.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    12. Re:Is this it? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Flying to Mars in two weeks needs a miracle, not technology development.

      It does with that attitude.

      It's not an attitude,it's a simple physical fact. To traverse even the shortest trajectory (in terms of miles traveled) in two weeks requires accelerations (energy)10-20 times greater than currently achieved.

      Even the mighty Saturn V couldn't toss a BB into a two-week trajectory to Mars.

    13. Re:Is this it? by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      The whole point of my post was to say that chemical rockets are a dead end. NASA should be flying new propulsion technology like nuclear fission powered plasma rockets and M2P2 engines. Instead, these technologies remain purely hypothetical. There's hope that the later will be tested by commercial space industry but there's no hope of the former.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  9. ESA Aiming for Mars by nastyphil · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, we're pretty sure that they know how to hit Mars!

    --
    Dialectician. Archology.
    1. Re:ESA Aiming for Mars by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      but this time they'll land safely on mars, successfully get a sample, correctly navigate the return trip, and then hit earth.

  10. Re:Zonk, STOP DELETING STORIES! by John+Seminal · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    I did not even see that story "Can Build Robots But Can't Afford College" http://slashdot.org/~daveschroeder, but it would have been more interesting than the past 2. :p

    I am suprised they deleted the story and all the comments. That kinda sucks.

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

  11. Metric by gspr · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, at least us Europeans won't have trouble with the metric system...

    1. Re:Metric by MouseR · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Although it's widely speculated that they had estimated the martian atmospheric pressure in PSIs for Beagle II.

    2. Re:Metric by Bad+D.N.A. · · Score: 1

      Nope, you can crash your probes all on your own with out having to blame it on conversion issues.

      --
      "Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations"
    3. Re:Metric by uncoveror · · Score: 2, Funny

      Metric Shmetric! It was the Zhti Ti Kofft. They will shoot down this probe too.

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    4. Re:Metric by MouseR · · Score: 1

      Hey mods, this is not interesting or insightfull!

      It's sarcastic!

      Geez.

    5. Re:Metric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but afaik, the Beagle probe had nothing to do with the ESA and was a purely British project.

  12. Great, but... by djinn2020 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Is the probe supposed to knock chunks out of Mars towards earth? I like better the idea of sending probes with better analytical software/hardware to Mars. Cheaper anyhoo

    --
    Mens et Manus
  13. It could take awhile. by A+Sea+and+Cake · · Score: 1

    First you'll have to get different countries to agree on exactly what to send to collect what, won't you? As well as who to hire - what staff, from which countries. As well as the budget, who's responsible for what parts, where the parts are being purchased/made, what data's being collected, who this data will be shared with, and on and on and on.

  14. Re:Is it me, or are we as humans wasting time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    yes, yes, indeed, why would we need search for meaning of life on mars when you can find that answer right here on earth, we just need to read the bible!!

  15. Re:Is it me, or are we as humans wasting time... by Manhigh · · Score: 1

    Its you.

    Space exploration is a drop in the bucket compared to other components of a nations budget.

    --
    "Open the pod by doors, Hal" > "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave" sudo "Open the pod bay doors, Hal" > alright
  16. Is this an SDI test? by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1

    The "ESA Aiming for Martian Probe" makes it look like the ESA is sighting targets on a probe from Mars....

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  17. I just can't help myself. by nc_yori · · Score: 3, Funny

    So remember children, what should you do if a supernova happens in your solar system? Yes, that's right. Duck and cover.

  18. Martian probe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's about time we probed them back.

    1. Re:Martian probe? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      It's about time we probed them back.

      Yeah, my ass is still hurting from their probes that came here.

  19. Re:Is it me, or are we as humans wasting time... by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If the mars rovers were to discover proof that there is still life on Mars it would be in the interest of every pharmaceutical company on earth to get that sample into their lab before their competitor. One alien microbe would be worth more than a zillion times its weight in gold. The ability to study a new form of life would give us so much insight into the life sciences that we could help many more "folks" than if we shut our eyes and turn our back on the universe.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  20. quick questions... by [cx] · · Score: 0, Troll

    Metric or Imperial? Who can you trust?

    [cx]

  21. Sucked me right in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "They apparently want to return samples of Martian soil with the probe"

    When did they get these samples? How much are they spending to get them back to Mars?

    Oh, that's not what the author meant ... Doh!

  22. Yep, that's it. by nc_yori · · Score: 2, Informative

    The problem, QuantamG, is that beauracracy is typically unwilling to explore new methods when old, proven methods are available.

    Compounding this problem is the fact that American politicians/higher-ups seem to lack the ability to say, "I'm sorry, I screwed up. Everyone makes mistakes," so possibly funding a program that fails in the public eye is a non-option.

    It is true that the government has programs that fail all the time [computerworld.com]; it's just that something like space travel is more suitable for general public news consumption so it's more widely reported and therefore a touchy subject for most politicians.

    I agree, we should be putting money into exploring better technology now, so space endeavors will be more efficient later. All the more reason to do things like voting and calling your congresspersons

    P.S.- The above statement isn't an invitation to talk about how fucked up American politics are. Sorry if anyone views it that way.

    1. Re:Yep, that's it. by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well commercial interests are supposed to push this, but there's simply no market for it yet, so we're dependant on government funding. Hopefully that will change in the next 20 years. Here's some cool space propulsion technology. When will we see a flight test of this stuff?

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  23. The next logical step by FuturePastNow · · Score: 4, Informative

    The next logical step for Mars is sample return. According to this page NASA expects to do a sample return in 2013. I wonder if an earlier European mission will change that plan any?

    --
    Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
    1. Re:The next logical step by Seumas · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The next logical step is to just close the space agencies and start worshipping sun-gods. Seriously, we went to the moon in 1969. As of almost 36 years later, we haven't touched won on any other surface again - including the moon.

      Thing of all the advances we've made in 36 years. And in 1969, the advances we'd made since 1933. Sure, we've advanced a few other aspects of space and astronomy - but not the most basic of exploratory measures. Man.

      I was born after the moon landing. I currently wonder if I will actually live to see man go anywhere else in my life time. And if I do, will it be a one-shot thing that doesn't happen for the rest of my life time? Considering nothing has happened in almost four decades, what cause is there to believe anything will change in the next four? Especially with the direction, management and attitude by, of and regarding the various space agencies?

      In retrospect, it's a bit sad that the biggest moment of the generation or two before me was putting a man on the moon while the biggest moment of mine was watching a bunch of civillians blow up on launch a couple decades ago and a bunch of people blow up on re-entry a couple years ago.

    2. Re:The next logical step by Fjornir · · Score: 1

      There is only one god,
      And he's the sun god,
      Ra! Ra! Ra!

      --
      I want a new world. I think this one is broken.
  24. Way off-topic by MyLongNickName · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This is way off-topic, but I like buring karma for a good cause.

    This bonch is a weird guy. Not entirely sure I even like him. However, I've seen him getting mod attacked for no legitimate reason. Some insightful posts that I may disagree with are getting modded troll.

    I love free speech. I don't mind if someone disagrees with me. I don't mind if someone says things that I find totally wrong. Yet, obviously there is at least one person with mod points who has taken it on themselves to mod bonch into oblivion. You don't have to take my word for it.... take a look at the guy's posting history. Is he strange? Probably. Is he a troll? Definitely not.

    What to do about it? If you are in M2 land, take your responsiblity seriously. If you seee a troll, and it isn't a clear troll, M2 the moderator down. If you have any mod points, help him to keep his head above water till the mods responsible get corrected by the system. The system only works when a majority of the people are fair, and not just out to push an agenda.

    And keep an eye on me... I have a feeling that I will be getting followed a while too :)

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  25. Re:Is it me, or are we as humans wasting time... by Decaff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is it me, or are just wasting money and time looking for the meaning of life when we could better spend the time and money helping folks on this planet?

    What a boring world it would be if we did not explore!

    As for the time and money - do you realise that the amount spent on space exploration is a tiny fraction of defense spending?

  26. Finally by jluebke · · Score: 4, Funny

    At last we're probing the Martians for a change. I say they had it coming.

    1. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, Martian probes YOU!

      (You heard me!)

  27. competition by antiaktiv · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Competition between the US and USSR is what started space exploration and put man on the moon, not to mention uncountable other scientific achievements. Even though there isn't nearly as much money being put in to it now as there was forty years ago, competition will, as always, lead to innovation.

  28. ESA doesn't trust NASA? by Corpus_Callosum · · Score: 1

    My guess is that the ESA doesn't trust NASA.

    We Americans have a pretty interesting history regarding disclosing facts about basic science, research and non-terrestrial activities (at least when such science, research and non-terrestrial activities occur within the event horizon of the US blcack budget).

    A more interesting question than the ESA doesn't work with NASA may be, if the ESA finds anything interesting how will NASA respond? Will it be, "Wow, why didn't we ever notice that?

    --
    The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
  29. Re:Soy bugreloaded y me cago en vuestros muertos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Hablar en cristiano" is a Franco-era colloquialism meaning to "speak in Spanish", when Fascist Spain banned all of the native languages in Spain besides Spanish.

  30. Re:Is it me, or are we as humans wasting time... by chadamir · · Score: 1

    It probably wouldn't be any less boring or more interesting than it is now. Your hypothetical reality presupposes knowledge of our current reality.

  31. sometimes yes, sometimes no. by bluGill · · Score: 1

    There is a weight[1] limit on all current rockets, which depends on the destination, how fast you want to get there, other such factors. Thus if the ESA and US consider a mission that needs and entire rocket launch itself, there is no point in coperating because in the end much will need to be duplicated.

    Another reason to not coperate is it makes for fault tolerance. Most missions are one offs that will never be run again (sometimes two are three offs). It takes to long to get a mission going and so long between missions that technology has advanced enough between each one that you need to design from scratch each time. When the US and ESA work separately, failures by one are worked around. Thus there are two working rovers on Mars now, even though the ESA's failed. If they had worked together there might be no rover should the one mission have failed. (and never mind the US funded two itself)

    That said, NASA and ESA do work together where it makes sense. That Saturn probe (I can't spell the moon's name) was a joint project. A good way to make use of two limited budgets. Which is often a factor.

    [1]Yes, weight, not mass. Mass is completely unlimited, you just trade mass for velocity according to newton's law: f=ma, etc. Weight is limited because you need to get the weight out of a gravity well.

  32. Re:Is it me, or are we as humans wasting time... by Decaff · · Score: 1

    It probably wouldn't be any less boring or more interesting than it is now. Your hypothetical reality presupposes knowledge of our current reality.

    Of course a future in which space exploration was banned due to expense would be more boring!

  33. It's about propulsion, propulsion, propulsion by ChiralSoftware · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I'm sure we could learn many useful things from a sample return from Mars, and we might even make some breakthrough discovery, such as discovering microbes, but is this an optimal way to spend money? It seems like there are two very important technologies that we need to develop more of in order for our space efforts to "scale": better propulsion technologies and better autonomous vehicle technologies. Any expenditures that don't help those two goals is just a one-shot benefit, rather than a real contribution to making us a space-capable species.

    On the propulsion question, it seems like their plan is to get enough fuel to achieve Mars escape velocity up to Earth escape velocity to get it to the surface of Mars in the first place. It sounds like this is heading towards being just an enormous amount of rocket fuel moving back and forth. I don't see any real advancement in science in us trucking around gargantuan loads of the same old fuels. Sure, it's very expensive and takes a lot of resources, but it's still just rocket science, something we've been doing for decades.

    It also doesn't get us any closer to manned missions. It seems like to do a manned Mars mission you need to get enough fuel to the surface of Mars to a) support all the surface activities there and b) lift the astronauts back off the Mars surface and c) lift the astronauts back off the Mars surface. Yes, b) and c) are the same; I don't think anyone would propose sending astronauts over there without a backup lift-off plan. But anyway, when you add up all the fuel in a, b, and c, plus crew habitations and science gear, you end up needing many tons of stuff on the surface of Mars, and it costs something like $10,000/pound to get stuff off of Earth so just the fuel costs alone are going to be mind boggling, and in the end we haven't developed anything new. Just more big rockets.

    It seems to me that the whole thing is a pointless waste unless we develop methods of producing fuel on Mars itself, so round-trips can become a more routine thing and we can start thinking about larger probes even further afield.

    NB, I am not a rocket scientist.

    -----------
    Educational software

    1. Re:It's about propulsion, propulsion, propulsion by NardofDoom · · Score: 3, Informative
      We have ways of producing in-situ fuel on Mars. A small tank of hydrogen, a atmospheric processing unit and an RTG will provide enough fuel to launch back to Earth.

      You really need to read "The Case for Mars."

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
    2. Re:It's about propulsion, propulsion, propulsion by khallow · · Score: 1

      Actually if there's any one factor that matters, it's not new propulsion technologies, but rather the cost of putting something into orbit from Earth. You can't run a Mars mission if everything costs $10,000 per kg to put it there. The key to solving that is launch frequency. The more often you launch, the cheaper each launch is. We need vehicles that launch hundreds of times a year. What was infeasible at $10,000 per kg becomes downright reasonable at $100 per kg.

    3. Re:It's about propulsion, propulsion, propulsion by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Insightful
      We have ways of producing in-situ fuel on Mars. A small tank of hydrogen, a atmospheric processing unit and an RTG will provide enough fuel to launch back to Earth.
      In theory, yes. In practice, there are many unanswered questions about how the hardware will survive the dust in the atmosphere, how trace contaminants will affect the process, etc... etc... The words 'atmospheric processing unit' conceals a thorny thicket of these unsolved problems, and conceals the fact that the unit isn't actually yet developed.
      You really need to read "The Case for Mars."
      But please do so with a largish grain of salt handy. Robert Zubrin has a habit of presenting paper concepts and not-quite-fully-baked ideas as if they were developed hardware or fully fleshed out plans that only need a little funding to bring to fruition.
  34. A joint sample mission not before 2016 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whats the big deal, Cheech and Chong have been sampling joints since 1976, let them be in charge of the mission

  35. Depends on your goal by StefanJ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The equipment required to extract fuel from the Martian atmosphere will necessarily be pretty hefty. You'd need a nuclear reactor or a really large array of solar panels.

    It would cost a fair amount to develop, manufacture, and transport this equipment.

    If you are only planning a small sample return mission, it would be a waste to heft all that stuff there.

    BEFORE we can plan a Mars mission, especially one that will depend on locally extracted fuel, we're going to have to know a lot more about Mars' surface conditions. I think it is entirely justified to send a whole bunch of relatively low-tech probes first.

    As for the general idea of propulsion research, sure. But there is no real reason to wait until we have plasmonic hyperdrives to check out the territory

    1. Re:Depends on your goal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wrote the grandparent post. I'm basically talking about the nuclear-on-Mars plan. It seems like lobbing chemical rockets back and forth is a waste; I would rather invest the money in developing nuclear-powered fuel generation factories that we could drop on Mars so that when sample return probes or manned missions show up, they'll have a big supply of energy, and also so they don't need a whole fleet of Saturn V rockets to get themselves off of Earth. As a side benefit, if we can figure out how to build nuclear reactors that are autonomous and can withstand the rigors and dangers of space flight, that could have some very immediate everyday-life benefits right here on our home planet.

  36. whoops by ballsanya · · Score: 2, Funny

    Am I the only one that accidently read that as ESA Aiming for Martian Pope in 2011....

    1. Re:whoops by johannesg · · Score: 2, Funny
      It would be interesting to know if you were the only one. We always hear that as many as 3% of the population are functionally unable to read or write in the western world, and I always found that hard to believe, but perhaps slashdot can now help us gain some solid numbers.

      So, if you, like the original poster, were unable to read the headline, could you just quickly reply to this? I'll count the number of replies and calculate the number of analphabetics here on slashdot.

      Thanks for your help. Remember, we do it all for science!

  37. Mars Society by fsh · · Score: 3, Informative
    This is precisely what Dr. Robert Zubrin has been advocating since the early 1990's. His plan would run about $2 billion a year, and was developed in response to President Bush Sr.'s $450 billion Space Exploration Initiative. The first year an Earth Return Vehicle would be sent over with a small amount of Hydrogen. When it landed, it would start processing the CO2 with the H2 to produce methane and water. If a decent water source can be found (which is becoming more and more likely), they wouldn't even need to take the H2 with them. A year after the ERV is launched, the Hab is launched with the crew (while the ERV is still on its way to Mars). By the time the Hab lands on Mars (as close to the ERV as possible), the ERV's tank will be topped off and ready to go.

    Zubrin is president of The Mars Society where you can find all the details about his plan, called Mars Direct.

    --
    fsh
  38. Before sample return... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... it would probably be wise for ESA to succeed landing something simpler on Mars.

    (Not that I think that ESA is actually insane enough to do otherwise... the story is misleading and the summary is crap.)

  39. Why not use the Space Station? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of trying to catch samples mid flight, why not have them dock with the space station or come up next to it, and let one of the astronouts grab it with a robotic arm? It is why we have station right, so things can dock with it? Would it not be cheaper to have them just bring the sample canister down with them during the next switch?

    -Adam

  40. Sharing & contractors... by quarkscat · · Score: 1

    Competing missions to Mars may not be such a
    very bad thing. NASA has has spectacularly
    disasterous luck with its contractors (mixing
    up ISO & Imperial measurements cost a Mars probe),
    while the ESA nearly lost all data for their piggy-back
    probe to Ios (due to uncalculated doppler effects
    on data baud rates).

    Seems to me that combining efforts may more likely
    combine the worst failures of their perspective
    contractors, rather than cancelling them out.

  41. Re:Zonk, STOP DELETING STORIES! by SeventyBang · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Zonk, Notifying you of story duplication doesn't mean, "DELETE THIS STORY ASAP!", but rather, "in the future, spend a few minutes performing a search to see if the topic has already been discussed; particularly if it's within the previous [few] months".

    The bottom line is: You are not Jimmy Olsen and you shouldn't worry about getting the "scoop" on someone else on the list. The ten minutes you take to back up your story will make you look a little more thorough if|when it's posted versus what you're dealing with now.

    Does this make things a bit clearer?

  42. Don't worry. by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    I'm sure someone will solve this problem. Hell, it might even be some radical that takes a modified ICBM and equips it with warpdrive abilities.

    Who know...we might even make friends with some pointy eared human like creatures. ...naa....it could never happen. Just ignore me.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  43. two probes by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 1

    One rover called the ExoMars, and a few years after that, the sample return mission. Two separate missions, as the article says.

  44. MODERATORS ON CRACK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't be _that_ stupid, you piece of shit mod.

  45. Re:Is it me, or are we as humans wasting time... by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It annoys me so much when people complain about something so fantastic, marvellous and even useful as space exploration, while they almost never point out the fact that a lot more money go into the military budget every year.

    How is researching for new weapons a way of helping people on this planet? Or funding the armies, navies and air forces that use them, how does this help anyone? Here's another question: If we stopped doing what some people think unnecessary, would we then begion to help the poor and the sick and the homeless? Of course not, because less money for peaceful science and colonisation means more money for military actions and other bad things.

    Why do we do it? Why do we wish to explore beyond our horizon, why do we wish to find new worlds to colonise? Maybe it widens our horizons. It gives us answers to ancient questions, it tickles our imaginations, it gives us hope. Should we rather stay here, to stagnate?

    I'm certainly not saying that we shouldn't solve our problems here too. We should. And I believe that to do so we need to stop living in fear of each other and ourselves, we need to stop fighting each other and start to cooperate for the good of everyone. Sadly not enough people in power want this to happen.

  46. Bringing things from Mars to Earth is a bad idea. by mister_jpeg · · Score: 1
    How many examples can you think of?
    Mars Attacks!
    Species
    Species 2
    X-Files episode Tunguska, where the black oil comes from Mars

    How many times have we seen things from Mars attack us?

    --
    -jpeg
  47. Re:Bringing things from Mars to Earth is a bad ide by ccozan · · Score: 1

    Doom?

  48. Re:Is it me, or are we as humans wasting time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you scrapped the space programme you'd be taking a big chunk out of the economy and putting a lot of people in the unemployment line. That is hardly helping folks here is it?

    Think about where the money for the space programme actually goes. They're not putting wads of notes into a probe and blasting it off across the cosmos, ever to be seen again.

  49. Beagle 2 by Catmeat · · Score: 1
    This article is interesting and worth reading:

    link

    The author, Dwayne Day, is a highly recpected historian of space exploration. He concludes that Beagle 2 was a excellent example of how not to manage a space project. He appears to think that Professor Colin Pillinger should never again be put in charge of large amounts of tax-payers money.

  50. Absurd generalization by amightywind · · Score: 1

    In Europe, they work as a team and are credited as members of a team. In the USA people get credit for outstanding work individually, not a team. So it is interesting to see how this plays out.

    A sweeping and absurd generalization. Consider the wildly successful Spirit and Opportunity missions. Are you suggesting that anything other than excellent engineering teamwork and program management have made these missions what they are?

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
  51. Rover mission in 2011 not sample return by amightywind · · Score: 2, Informative

    According to the BBC, the ESA is set to send a robotic probe to Mars around 2011. They apparently want to return samples of Martian soil with the probe...

    You'd think the poster would RTA. The 2011 mission is a rover mission.

    In addition to the rover project, they also reiterated their support for an existing proposal - a "Mars return" mission, sketched for 2016, in which various space powers would pool their resources to send an unmanned probe to Mars, take soil samples, and bring them back to Earth.

    NASA is already considering a sample return mission prior to the 2016 timeframe. I am not sure what plans there are for international collaboration. I would like to see the US work more closely with Japan.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
  52. ESA mars mission by lenart · · Score: 1

    the ESA is planning an new mars mission because of the new heineken H.E.L.L.O. mission

    1. Re:ESA mars mission by lenart · · Score: 2

      forgot to post the web adress. Its www.h-e-l-l-o.org. click yes on the age check an enjoy the funn. Look at the movie included in the post 'Succesfull landing'

  53. Is it armed? by JJ · · Score: 1

    Spirit and Opportunity will still be there, they might put up a fight.

    --
    So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
  54. Didn't they try this already? by chinton · · Score: 1

    I thought Beagle II was a sample return mission... I just didn't impact hard enough. Thank you. I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your server.

  55. War of the Worlds? by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    Whoops, was that the sound of a greybeard detector springing to life?

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  56. Re:Soy bugreloaded y me cago en vuestros muertos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy came from http://barrapunto.com (a spanish site like slashdot).

    He is just a teen troll, don't feed him please.

    We, the comunity of barrapunto, apologize for his acts.

    Have a nice day and sorry for my english!!! ;)