Slashdot Mirror


Mars Express Successfully Deploys First Boom

Psiolent writes "As reported yesterday, the Mars Express team is beginning the antenna deployment process. The BBC reports that the satellite has successfully deployed the first boom of the primary antenna. The article also states that 'the mood amongst instrument team members is now said to be positive, following the problem-free deployment of the first boom.' The second boom of the primary antenna is scheduled to be deployed Sunday."

10 of 116 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Falling standards by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A car for a few days? Try two, both for well over a year and still going... and which made some of the most important discoveries the space program has EVER made.

    I agree that overall the space program is in a sad state, but the Mars Rovers rank up there with Apollo and Voyager as one of the most important missions ever in terms of discoveries and accomplishments.

    --
    This space available.
  2. Re:Falling standards by iSeal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What was the biggest triumph of space exploration in the last ten years? Managing to prove the existence of the Bing Bang with certainty?

  3. Re:Falling standards by flyingsquid · · Score: 4, Insightful
    No, our highwater mark for the last ten years is a solar-powered toy car which rolled around for a few days on the surface of Mars. Pathetic.

    It's only pathetic if you judge the space program in terms of cool stunts, which for the most part is what the manned program has been. In terms of collecting data for scientific purposes, we've mapped Mars, photographed the outer planets, and had the Hubble peer at planets outside our solar system. All done with automated "toys" like rovers, probes and orbiters.

    So real space exploration doesn't look like "Star Wars". Tough shit. Grow up and get over it.

  4. Re:Falling standards by FleaPlus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So a very tiny part of a relatively small-scale space mission went well. That's terrific.

    I've personally been anxiously awaiting the Marsis deployment since last year. This "very tiny part" should hopefully settle the question of whether or not there are bodies of subterranean water currently on Mars. I don't know about you, but I consider the possibility of Martian aquifers quite exciting.

    What was the biggest triumph of space exploration in the last ten years?

    There's plenty of options:

    * the first landing on an asteroid
    * the discovery of bodies of water in the past of Mars
    * the first privately-funded suborbital human spaceflight
    * the first landing on Titan
    * the first in-space test of an ion propulsion engine
    * the discovery of and first images of extrasolar planets
    * the discovery of a sub-surface ocean on Europa
    * the collection of dust samples from a comet
    * high resolution (10m) maps of the Martian surface

    No, our highwater mark for the last ten years is a solar-powered toy car which rolled around for a few days on the surface of Mars. Pathetic.

    And Einstein was a guy who thought about stuff for a while and wrote them down.

  5. Re:Falling standards by zaguar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, The COBE data managed to prove the big bang theory, and the WMAP data supported that conclusion to a higher degree of accuracy. I suggest that perhaps, the proof of the origins of the univers is perhaps SLIGHTLY important and valuable. But hey, what do i know? In my view, proving that something as miraculous as the big bang occured is a stunning triumph of modern science. Perhaps it is not in your view.

    --
    "Sure there's porn and piracy on the Web but there's probably a downside too."
  6. Re:Falling standards by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Remember the day when an entire manned space flight going without a hitch was barely considered newsworthy?


    Yah, I also remember a day when ALL of Nasas resources were dedicated to one single mission, rather than a 100-200. You just think it might be a bit easier to accomplish one single goal while dedicating all your resources to it than it is to work on 100 things at the same time? We spent billions upon billions of dollars for a guy to play golf on the moon and get some rocks back. That's great, and we learned a lot but in terms of science it was peanuts compared to the science we get from all the missions being worked on now.

    Since then, we've had blurry telescopes, lost probes, crash landings, re-entry burn-ups, space station fires, metric conversion errors, and a plethora of other humiliating failures.

    True. We've also had wonderfull sucesses. We fixed the "blury telescope" in orbit, and have upgraded it several times since. We've STILL got two robots wandering around Mars far after they were designed to operate. We had a probe land on a moon of Saturn, had another probe land on an asteriod, and have another set to crash into a comet. We've got another probe set to orbit mercury for the first time ever. Oh, and we've got a small armada of probes set to be sent to mars over the next few years. Compared to the "glory days" where we also had massive failures like rockets exploding, I think we're doing damn well. As far as past failures, if you want something with that's a bit safer, try something a bit more easy like designing ashtrays.

    No, our highwater mark for the last ten years is a solar-powered toy car which rolled around for a few days on the surface of Mars

    Quite a manipulative way to put it. The rovers have produced an enourmous amount of information on the geology of Mars in the more than a year they've been active. We never would have gotten the evidence for liquid water on Mars we have without being able to move around the surface.

    But you seem to be more upset that we're not doing "glamorous" things like going to the moon, or producing pretty pictures of Saturn. If all you care about is sexy space stuff, I'd suggest one of the fine eye-candy sci-fi movies hollywood puts out. Nasa is in the business of science, and partially in the business of manned exploration. Creating "Star Trek" isn't in that mission.

    --
    AccountKiller
  7. Re:Falling standards by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ok, how about the discovery of proof that Mars had bodies of water? Sure, we had lots of indirect evidence, but not conclusive proof. Now we have it.

    --
    This space available.
  8. Re:why is it by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For a start (as another poster pointed out) it is not NASA. You obviously have not heard of the concept of a "support department". ESA did test it to death (I belive they are CMML5 compliant) and kept on testing it after launch. The post launch testing is why they CHANGED THIER ORIGINAL PLAN.

    How would you suggest anyone "guarentee success" with anything when the most you can do is mitigate risk through testing? I would say the biggest problem NASA has, is educating taxpayers who have an unreasonable expectation of perfection because they once wrote a flawless "hello world" in highschool.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  9. Re:Falling standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I don't think it's a big conspiracy, it's based on a few simple problems with humans - ie life support, you have to send them back, and they're a a lot larger than a robot. We don't really have the technology to send a human to Mars yet.

  10. Re:Falling standards by drsquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That begs the question of whether human lifesupport is something we need.

    No matter important we humans think we are, a robot or a computer is much better suited to the task of exploration. They don't need feeding, they don't need oxygen, or gravity. A computer doesn't get bored, it doesn't make human errors, it can explore for decades in outer space and won't go insane. Think a human would last long in a pod on Mars? How long 'till he opens the door to commit suicide?

    We could explore the entire galaxy without a human even leaving LEO.

    As for finding habitation for when the Earth is hit by an asteroid, what makes you think that an asteroid-hit Earth in a perpetual global winter will be any less of a habitable place than Mars? If you can live in a 'space city' on Mars with artificial oxygen/water/food generation, you can do the same on Earth, with less hassle if something goes wrong.

    Space isn't like on Star Trek or Star Wars, it won't be full of exciting planets all with Earth gravity and human-breathable atmosphere, filled with aliens who both look and sound like humans, and speak English or have a perfect translator. Space is largely a dead and empty place, planets are years of travel apart, inter-stellar would take decades, and you wouldn't find much when you got there. Space-stations or planet/moon habitations wouldn't be nice places to be. There'd be little or no gravity, you'd spend most of your time floating around, shitting and pissing in tubes, and eating re-hydrated powder.

    Even if there was a largely-pleasant space-station to live on, within a few months the novelty would wear off and you'd be begging to go back to Earth, even if just to breath fresh air or to feel rain.