Slashdot Mirror


Mars Polar Lander Lost Again

IZ Reloaded writes "The Mars Global Surveyor during one of its latest scans of the area where the Mars Polar Lander was originally spotted, discovers that the spacecraft is no longer there! Space.com reports, "We conclude that our interpretation of these features was in error. This is not the location of the Mars Polar Lander. Because the landing uncertainty ellipse is so much larger than our images, and we do not have another candidate to which to target...we cannot continue to hunt for the lander," the MSSS site explains."

197 comments

  1. Perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps it was stolen

    1. Re:Perhaps... by iezhy · · Score: 1

      i hope they woun't have to announce "we cannot continue the hunt for manned lander" after it will be sent there in several decades

    2. Re:Perhaps... by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      It's not on eBay. Yet.

  2. sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Damn martian tow-away zones.

    1. Re:sigh... by sdpuppy · · Score: 4, Funny
      No, they actually found the Polar Lander 1/4 mile away with wheels and engine gone.

      That's what happens when you park your Polar Lander in the wrong neighborhood! :-)

    2. Re:sigh... by timothykaine · · Score: 4, Funny

      Damn martian tow-away zones.

      But officer, *all* the curbs on this planet are red!

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

      correction: ...when you land your Polar Parker...

    4. Re:sigh... by TheGSRGuy · · Score: 1

      Well after scrolling all the way to the bottom of this page, it seems that very few people have anything serious to say on this.

      Doesn't this bother anyone? That thing wasn't cheap. NASA wastes money, this isn't new news. I'm getting sick of my tax dollars going to worthless missions like this.

    5. Re:sigh... by fandog · · Score: 1

      Either that or they'll see it driving around with fringe on the windows and neon underneath...

    6. Re:sigh... by daveo0331 · · Score: 1

      Would you rather NASA spend $100 million on missions that has a 50/50 chance of success, or $1 billion on missions that are sure to succeed? Think about it.

      --
      Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
    7. Re:sigh... by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1
      Are you serious?

      You hijack someone elses post to bitch about taxes, because you're being 'serious'? Get a clue.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
  3. REAL Polar Landers.. by rylin · · Score: 5, Funny

    REAL Polar Landers don't ask for directions.

    1. Re:REAL Polar Landers.. by zalas · · Score: 0

      Later on, the Polar Lander was heard commenting... "I'm FEMALE you insensitive clod!"

    2. Re:REAL Polar Landers.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, because if you land on a pole, you really only have one cardinal direction you can go in anyway. :) At least for the first infinitesimally small step ...

    3. Re:REAL Polar Landers.. by Eudial · · Score: 1
      REAL Polar Landers don't ask for directions.


      Insert the obvious buffering joke here
      --
      GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
  4. "spacecraft is no longer there"? by Bad+Ad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    how can it "not longer be there"? this just shows it was never there in the first place...

    "(score:5, trying to intice comments about martians"

    1. Re:"spacecraft is no longer there"? by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      Maybe it was. One of the things the are looking for is the parachute. I mean, it's a parachute, on a planet that has high winds and dust devils forming constantly... I would think it could have been there orignally and have been blown a long long way from there in the past 5+ years.

    2. Re:"spacecraft is no longer there"? by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Conclusively?

      With all the weather activity on Mars who's to say it hasn't been blown away?

      There might be more than mini-tornados at the poles.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  5. Oh Great! Not again. by bjason82 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Proof again that when left to the responsibility of the government, they do things best. Then again, the martians could have taken it! Someday those little green bastards are going to get a knuckle sandwich.

    1. Re:Oh Great! Not again. by hey! · · Score: 2, Funny

      Proof again that when left to the responsibility of the government, they do things best

      Yep. Better to leave it to all those private interplanetary exploration outfits. I've read Doc Smith so I know how this goes. If it weren't for gummint interference we'd have intergalactic travel and be driving around in cars made of Osnomean Arenak.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:Oh Great! Not again. by Vicsun · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right - all the Mars Exploration Vehicles launched by private companies are currently working without a hitch!

    3. Re:Oh Great! Not again. by david.given · · Score: 3, Insightful
      If it weren't for gummint interference we'd have intergalactic travel and be driving around in cars made of Osnomean Arenak.

      Given the kind of crumple zones you'd get in a car made of arenak --- i.e. none at all --- I think I'll stick with plain steel, thanks. I don't like having all the kinetic energy of half a tonne of car travelling at 70 mph transferred to my torso via my seat belt!

      Of course, if you could fit the car with Bergenholms, that'd be a different matter, although I suspect that the kind of pinball game rush-hour traffic would become would be even more stressful than it currently is. At least when you're in a traffic jam you don't run the risk of ricocheting off some pensioner's pet gerbil and arriving on Mars.

    4. Re:Oh Great! Not again. by Winkhorst · · Score: 3, Funny

      There seems to be an element here of the old "Heaven is perfect and immutable" belief system popularized by those ever so happy-go-lucky inhabitants of the Vatican over a couple of thousand years. Every time something changes, especially on Mars, the earlier observations are assumed to have been in error and the present conditions are assumed to be permanent and never changing. This goes back to the original observations of "canali" on Mars and includes the "proof" that the Martian face really wasn't there because it is no longer there. Now a spacecraft has been found; but NO, it couldn't have been found; because it's NOT THERE NOW! The parachute couldn't have blown away? The dust couldn't have covered the crash site? NO! IMPOSSIBLE! Why? Because it's not there now.... Perfect and immutable, just like the religious authorities have been telling us all along.

      --
      "Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
    5. Re:Oh Great! Not again. by Vengie · · Score: 1

      it's the frickin zwilniks. ...but they'll be gone in a flash of primaries. qx, over and out

      --
      When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
    6. Re:Oh Great! Not again. by SteveAyre · · Score: 1

      By the end of the series they'd invented inertial dampeners hadn't they?

      (By being inside a zone of force so no outside forces had any effect on them, and they drove the ship using 5th and 6th order forces).

      It's a while since I last read the books.

    7. Re:Oh Great! Not again. by VAXcat · · Score: 1

      No chance of ricochting off of a pet gerbil...with your Bergenholm on, you have no inertia,and no momentum either. When you hit the gerbil, you would stop abruptly, and since you were still inertialess, wouldn't feel a thing...jeez, what are they teaching you kids in Physics classes these day?

      --
      There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    8. Re:Oh Great! Not again. by evilviper · · Score: 1
      I don't like having all the kinetic energy of half a tonne of car travelling at 70 mph transferred to my torso via my seat belt!

      Why do people always say crazy things like this? Driving down the road at 70 MPH does not increase your body mass. You have to deal-with your body's kinetic energy. It makes little difference how much your car weighs (assuming you are hitting an immovable object).

      In any case, you don't want the passenger compartment to crumple, you want it to be as strong as humanly possible, although car manufacturers seem to want it to deform as much as possible for some reason. Hence, no roll-cages, and no reinforcement of any kind other than thin steel.

      You could also eliminate the need for crumple-zones if the seats, or perhaps the entire passenger compartment, was shock-mounted.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    9. Re:Oh Great! Not again. by Blue-Footed+Boobie · · Score: 2, Funny

      They thought there were cannolis on mars? What a bunch of maroons...

      --
      DAMN YOU OCTODOG! DAMN YOU TO HELL!
    10. Re:Oh Great! Not again. by Corey+Hart · · Score: 1

      Errr.. the crumple zones are the shock absorbers... in effect shock-mounted. And a controlled deformable cage means more energy absorbtion as long as it doesn't deform or collapse on the occupants, that's a good thing.

      --
      ..bright screens for bright people, but now I've got to wear sunglassess.
    11. Re:Oh Great! Not again. by mpfife · · Score: 1

      Dang dude - slow down. You're really accusing NASA scientists who are trying to explain the loss of a $10mil spacecraft, who have the data in front of them (we don't) that they are being influenced by Middle Age-era theology that the Vatican has apologized and said it was wrong about? That's not what the article seemed to be saying to me. Sure they're a little defensive/wierd in the way they said they were wrong or apparently were wrong. But wouldn't you be a little hat-in-hand/butt-covering/backpeddling if you'd just lost a $10mil piece of hardware, thought you found it, but then didn't, to a public that might want answers? That's way different than what you did which was jumping from their explanation to "It must be because they've been brainwashed by Middle Age theology and they wish to perpetuate and force on us!". I hardly believe most of the people at NASA are that slow. Kudos for coming up with possible explanations (which I liked and think very good avenues to investigate) but you are making a lot of assumptions about what they saw ihn the data (which we don't have) and drawing your own conclusions based on, to be honest, biased opinions of how much you see religion influencing research. What ax are you grinding? The data or your opinions? Science is about arguing facts and data, not your opinions about 'religious influences'. Accusing them like this is no different than religious zealots that do the same. Keep science clean folks.

    12. Re:Oh Great! Not again. by bjason82 · · Score: 1

      That's right, this is because if they (corporations) screw up they're not going to get another contract from NASA for billions of dollars. There isn't any incentive for NASA to do things right...Well, its either that or the huge bureaucracy has complicated things which has lead to less efficiency, thus making error more likely.

      See, its popular nowadays for people to talk about corporate corruption, totally ignoring the fact that there is more honesty and integrity in the corporate world's pinky finger than in all of government. People let the actions of a few bad apples dictate their view of everything "capitalsit." Government corporate subsidies have caused way more problems than would have occured if the corporations were left to fend for themselves. Government creates an artificial environment because companies that might not have survived if left to their own devices have seemingly remained in existence due to government hand-outs. When it comes to corporations, I say survival of the fittest, of course as long as they stay within the reasonable constraints of the law.

    13. Re:Oh Great! Not again. by Winkhorst · · Score: 1

      No, channels. Incorrectly translated canals.

      --
      "Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
    14. Re:Oh Great! Not again. by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Errr.. the crumple zones are the shock absorbers... in effect shock-mounted.

      Yes, but you could easily get the same effect without totalling the car. That was the point.

      And a controlled deformable cage means more energy absorbtion

      No, it doesn't. If it isn't colapsing inward, it's not absorbing practically anything. Besides, car makers have repeatedly shown that they are certainly not able to make a flexible passenger compartment that won't cave-in on the passengers in one type of accident or another.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    15. Re:Oh Great! Not again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "although car manufacturers seem to want it to deform as much as possible for some reason. Hence, no roll-cages, and no reinforcement of any kind other than thin steel."

      Absolute fucking bullshit.
      Why don't you quit talking out of your arse and actually have a look at crash tests, accidents and the structure of the car. I don't know nor care about older cars (you are talking in the present tense), but the newer cars crumple heaps around the passenger cell (or whatever they call it, I forget) and the "safety cell" (I think I've seen Volvo call it that) stays nicely intact. Side impacts are another issue. If you want to not damage a body, for a given speed change you need to have some distance to act over. And passengers are very close to the sides of the car (also causes heads to hit stuff). It really is the worst case and not very survivable.

      "other than thin steel"
      That just smacks of ignorance. You have no idea about structures do you? Sure it's built up of relatively thin sections, but when you mangle, bend and join them together it gets strong and stiff. Did you know that aircraft are built up out of sheet metal too? There aren't many large parts built out of forgings or machined components (around the landing gear it is). Yes, that includes the wing spars, (although it's actually the wing skins that do most of the work).
      A roll cage is a simple structure that works well for low volume applications.

      "You could also eliminate the need for crumple-zones if the seats, or perhaps the entire passenger compartment, was shock-mounted."
      Oh please, spare me. It hurts.
      Do you realise that the crumple zones provide more than a metre of "shock mounting"? So I suppose you are suggesting that we make cars 7 or 8 metres (26 feet) long so that we can put shock absorbers around the passenger compartment? Lets not even get into the weight issues, because these are going to be big mofos to withstand a crash.

      I hope for the sake of everyone I don't hate, that you never become an engineer. Although you are at least right about the car's mass not meaning anything when it comes to seatbelt forces. That comment about the car's kinetic energy going into the body hurt me even more than your post. Imagine when a 747 lands! Whoa, that's like 500,000 lbs (much less fuel on landing) decelerating. That must hurt so bad!! Fucking hell. Go back to school people.

    16. Re:Oh Great! Not again. by david.given · · Score: 1
      Why do people always say crazy things like this? Driving down the road at 70 MPH does not increase your body mass. You have to deal-with your body's kinetic energy. It makes little difference how much your car weighs (assuming you are hitting an immovable object).

      Um... um... because I was talking about E.E. Doc Smith physics, which bear only a passing resemblance to real world physics?

      You're right about that, of course. Mea culpa.

      You could also eliminate the need for crumple-zones if the seats, or perhaps the entire passenger compartment, was shock-mounted.

      However, I doubt you're right about that. Shock absorbers couldn't absorb nearly enough energy to slow the impact sufficiently. Remember that most cars are designed so that in the event of a head-on impact, the passenger compartment rides up over the engine compartment; that's a hell of a lot of mechanical deformation over the space of about a metre, a metre and a half. I doubt you'd find any shock absorber with the right characteristics that wasn't also based around bending a lot of metal, which rather defeats the point.

    17. Re:Oh Great! Not again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if Arenak was for real?

      http://www.rogermwilcox.name/arenak.html

  6. Isn't this the point...? by Jeff_at_RAD · · Score: 4, Funny

    in the movie where you cue the scary music?

    1. Re:Isn't this the point...? by ettlz · · Score: 1

      Well, remember "Epilogue (Part 2) (NASA)" from Jeff Wayne's Musical Version of The War of the Worlds?

    2. Re:Isn't this the point...? by SimilarityEngine · · Score: 1

      Wasn't that the sound of HG Wells spinning in his grave?

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    3. Re:Isn't this the point...? by hey! · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      in the movie where you cue the scary music?

      Ahhh... and then you exchange meaningful glances with your colleage, who could have put herself and the rest of her department through grad school with the fees she earned modelling brassieres in the New York Times Sunday Magazine, and incidentally is the only other person on Earth who grasps the implications of what you've just seen.

      I know the feeling well.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:Isn't this the point...? by SteveAyre · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      That's one of the better adaptations though.

      We could probably hook him up to a dynamo and solve the world's energy problems after the Tom Cruise one.

    5. Re:Isn't this the point...? by SimilarityEngine · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      ...after the Tom Cruise one

      Beats the crappy series. That really was disgraceful.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    6. Re:Isn't this the point...? by SharkJumper · · Score: 1

      Nope. Cue Solsbury Hill. That way NASA can turn this into a romantic comedy a la The Shining:

  7. dust, frost? by Use+Psychology · · Score: 5, Interesting


    perhaps the lander could have been covered by dust, or c02 frost -- therefore eliminating the weak detection seen before?

    1. Re:dust, frost? by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 1

      Did they forget to set the ship alarm? I told them ship jackers would get it.

      --
      There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
    2. Re:dust, frost? by Dusabre · · Score: 1

      RTFA and look the pictures before you give your 'solution'. Its clear from the second set of pictures that what they believed was the lander and its chute, are instead landscape features.

    3. Re:dust, frost? by nomoreself · · Score: 1

      I don't think there's anything very "clear" about those pictures at all.

      From TFA: The pictures were taken several Martian years apart under nearly identical illumination and atmospheric conditions, but the feature once identified as a candidate for MPL's parachute turned out to be the illuminated slope of a small hill, while the dark feature suggesting a rocket blast zone has faded - which would be expected owing to dust deposited by dust storms. But more importantly, the spot interpreted to be the lander has disappeared altogether

      Perhaps those interpreting the images now are mistaken in identifying the "parachute" as a hill. Furthermore, if the little dot that might have been the lander has disappeared in the erosion of the features presumed to be the blast area, that may be all the more reason to consider the lander's disappearance the result of the thing being buried.

    4. Re:dust, frost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reavers.

    5. Re:dust, frost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that is the most likely scenario. It's amazing that they didn't figure that out considering some of these people's whole lives are devoted to this and similar projects, yet some random slashdotter figured it out less than 10minutes after the posting... without even reading the article!

  8. V'ger by eno7 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe it will return one day as P'Lander to search for the makers.

    1. Re:V'ger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe, but will it take the shape of a sexy bald girl ?

    2. Re:V'ger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make that Po'Lander.

    3. Re:V'ger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the "F" will be damaged so that it believes it is Ned F'Landers.

    4. Re:V'ger by Shoggoth+of+Maul · · Score: 1

      Quit P'ander-ing to the Trekkies.

  9. Call the police by dedazo · · Score: 1, Funny

    Looks like there's a landerjacking in progress up there!

    --
    Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    1. Re:Call the police by hrm · · Score: 1

      Grand Theft Lander? Kinda has a ring.

  10. I knew it! by qazsedcft · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's THEM! THEY stole it to hide the truth from us! I told you!

    1. Re:I knew it! by crowspeaker · · Score: 0

      Giant Ants?

  11. Race you! by Frantactical+Fruke · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let me be the first to say:

    Good job with the brooms, Martian dudes!
    Hope you enjoy the hardware.
    Sorry we forgot to pack any porn on the hard disk.

    1. Re:Race you! by Kjella · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sorry we forgot to pack any porn on the hard disk.

      Since it'd be roughly as exciting as seeing two dogs mating to them, I think that might be just as well...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Race you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Sorry we forgot to pack any porn on the hard disk.

      The guys discovering the Pioneer 10/11 probe sure are in for a treat though!
      Imagine their disappointment if they come to us, only to find out we aren't all living nude in harmony.

    3. Re:Race you! by Frantactical+Fruke · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Let's do it like they do it on Discovery Channel..."

      Well, you're one fewer to bid against me when the Martian porn recovered from the Earth Polar Lander goes on Ebay, then.

    4. Re:Race you! by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Well, you're one fewer to bid against me when the Martian porn recovered from the Earth Polar Lander goes on Ebay, then.

      Go ahead. I'm sure it'll fit in well with the alien autopsy at Roswell you already have there.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:Race you! by hey! · · Score: 1

      And if they land here in America they're in for a big surprise when it comes to typical human proportions. And I do mean big.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:Race you! by The+Wooden+Badger · · Score: 1

      So does that mean I either need to shave or wax everything below the scalp in the name of science and interstellar diplomacy? I'll pretend you didn't say nude for now.

      --
      Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
    7. Re:Race you! by Sebilrazen · · Score: 1

      ..roughly as exciting as seeing two dogs mating...

      Canus di contendo? Dogs of War? War = Mars? They might get a little to excited by that, and we don't want to idle their growing economy and social dynamic.

      If they go idle who'll come and be our new Overlords to whom we bow down?

      --
      "There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
    8. Re:Race you! by sig97 · · Score: 1

      Sorry we forgot to pack any porn on the hard disk.

      That's actually good, or they might've got a terribly wrong idea about the proper way of greeting the Earthlings once they arrive.

    9. Re:Race you! by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Since it'd be roughly as exciting as seeing two dogs mating to them, I think that might be just as well...

      Maybe Martians have Furries... Or would they call them Humies? They have these Cons which they all dress up like humans and post the Martian version of Winger art on websites. Those dirty pervs!

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    10. Re:Race you! by Harry+Coin · · Score: 2, Funny

      If '50s science fiction movies are any guide, there's nothing that the Mars-Men want more than to breed with our women.

      If they turn out to be inaccurate in some small detail, then my whole life has been a lie.

      --
      That's pre 7-11 thinking....
    11. Re:Race you! by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > our new Overlords to whom we bow down?

      Or perhaps, "to whom we bow-wow?"

      Sorry...

    12. Re:Race you! by Furry+Bastard · · Score: 1

      They have these Cons which they all dress up like humans and post the Martian version of Winger art on websites.

      I like the sound of that.

    13. Re:Race you! by Infinityis · · Score: 1

      Captain Kirk would disagree...

    14. Re:Race you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the lack of entertainment centers in Martian surface, seeing a couple of dogs going at it should be an interesting enough way to spend your afternoon.

  12. Gone! Again! by SecureTheNet · · Score: 1

    My guess is the lil green men took it to their underground lab for analysis.

    --
    SecureThe.Net - Practical Resources for Securing Systems
    1. Re:Gone! Again! by The+Wooden+Badger · · Score: 1
      My guess is the lil green men took it to their underground lab for analysis.

      So what you're saying is that it's getting probed as we speak? Man, they're going to be disappointed!

      --
      Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
  13. I am Just imagining somewhere in a cave on mars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  14. Misleading summary.. by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Informative


    the spacecraft is no longer there!

    I think what the poster meant is the spacecraft was never there to begin with. With limited resolution and enough random dark spots and hills there's bound to be a few that look like they might be a parachute and a lander.

    Given how poor the images are I wonder why they ever thought this was the polar lander at all and not just natural features of mars?

    --
    AccountKiller
    1. Re:Misleading summary.. by Winkhorst · · Score: 1, Interesting

      We have satellites orbiting Earth that can read the numbers on a license plate and they can't get a good shot of the lander? Am I missing something here?

      --
      "Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
    2. Re:Misleading summary.. by larkost · · Score: 4, Informative

      Two notes:

      To the best of my knowledge the best spy satellites have a resolution of about 4 inches. That is good enough to recognize that there is a license plate there, but not read it. I realize that hollywood regularly presents satellites as being capable of so much more, but that is hollywood.

      Getting a spy satellite into Earth orbit vs. getting the same hardware into orbit around Mars. And then add in the face that the satellite around mars has to do many jobs, and carry a really big antenna to phone home. All of a sudden it becomes clear why the spy satellite might have better resolution.

    3. Re:Misleading summary.. by Vellmont · · Score: 2, Interesting


      We have satellites orbiting Earth that can read the numbers on a license plate and they can't get a good shot of the lander? Am I missing something here?

      Maybe we don't think there's license plates on Mars?

      Seriously though, what's the point of having ultra-high resolution pictures of Mars? Seeing each individual rock probbably isn't terribly usefull compared to other things the money could be used for. The CIA and NSA are obviously interested in high resolution pictures. NASA is interested in a wide range of optical frequencies, sub-surface mapping via radar, etc.

      The big limitation however is just the resolution/field of view tradeoff. Usually when you're taking that high a resolution you've got a very narrow field of view. If you wanted to photograph all of Mars it'd take forever with such small swaths. Intelligence agencies don't want to take pictures of everything on the planet at high resolution, just very select things. Also, Mars is further away from the Sun so there's less light reaching Mars.

      The most obvious difference of course is simply that US intelligence agencies have far larger budgets than NASA does, and obviously a smaller scope of what they're trying to accomplish.

      --
      AccountKiller
    4. Re:Misleading summary.. by DisownedSky · · Score: 2, Interesting
      We don't have the ability to fly those big honking things to Mars anyway, and the data bandwidth available wouldn't accomodate it anyway. It's much easier to put rovers on the ground.

      As it is, Malin's team can get sub-meter resolution on specific targets after a few passes.

      --

      "The impossible often has a certain integrity that the merely improbable lacks" - Dirk Gently

    5. Re:Misleading summary.. by highspl · · Score: 1

      It's not a polar lander, it's a feature.

      --
      It puts the lotion on it's skin, or else it gets the hose again.
    6. Re:Misleading summary.. by Alomex · · Score: 1

      To the best of my knowledge the best spy satellites have a resolution of about 4 inches.

      Sure, but once you have a target you can survey it with high altitude drones, which have a resolution of 1 to 2 cm or better, depending on how undetected you want to be.

    7. Re:Misleading summary.. by GooberToo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Last I heard, ~4" resolution was available during the mid-80's. More current information on available resolutions is top secret and not available to the public.

      Chances are, resolutions available from modern spy sats provide better than 4" resolution...especially when you consider the improvements available in active optics (active mirrors, etc), radar, and IR technologies.

    8. Re:Misleading summary.. by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      We have satellites orbiting Earth that can read the numbers on a license plate and they can't get a good shot of the lander?

      I always get a laugh out of this assertion, because it's provably false regardless of the quality of the cameras. Orbital imaging sats take pics when they are as close as possible to the target and have the least amount of atmospheric interference-- i.e. when they are directly overhead or as close as they can get to directly overhead. Even if the satellites had fine enough resolution to read detail at the sub-centimetric level, they still wouldn't be able to read a metal plate mounted vertically on the front or rear of a car!

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    9. Re:Misleading summary.. by MadCow42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can make a rough guess of their capabilities based on HUBBLE imagery, and add some factors for super-secret NSA abilities on top of that.

      Last time I was bored, I took a look at some raw Hubble images of Pluto, calculated the distance between Hubble and Earth on the day the picture was supposedly taken, and worked out the angle of view for 1 pixel of uninterpolated data from Hubble. Taking that angle down from Hubble's orbit height to Earth resulted in resolution just slightly better than 1" per pixel.

      The NSA supposedly has at LEAST Hubble resolution, if not remarkably better.

      (conspiracy theories, here we come...)
      MadCow.

      --
      I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
    10. Re:Misleading summary.. by alanh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Do a search on the Rayleigh criterion as it pertains to optical telescopes. Take, for example, the 200" (5.8 m) telescope on Mount Palomar. Under optimal conditions, it has a resolution of about 0.2 arcseconds. Put it up in LEO at, say 200 miles, and that would be an equivalent of about 1.6 inches on the ground. The HST with it's 2.4 m mirror would be about 3 inches.

      Unless they're doing some fancy stuff with multiple satellites, the HST's resolution is about the limit of what you can expect with optical telescopes.

      --
      - AlanH
    11. Re:Misleading summary.. by GooberToo · · Score: 3, Informative

      You can make a rough guess of their capabilities based on HUBBLE imagery, and add some factors for super-secret NSA abilities on top of that.

      That's very, very, very, very, very, very doubtful that you can draw any such conclusion from the performance of Hubble. Hubble is designed to look VERY far away. In fact, Hubble has problems if it tries to focus on an object too near (the earth for example).

      On top of that, Hubble is veyr much a modern telescope, simply put into orbit. It as very little in common with anything currently used as a spy telescope. Hubble is designed SPECIFICALLY to operate without an atmosphere. Spy sats are designed SPECIFICALLY to deal with atmospheric effects. Basically, Hubble and a spy telescopes have nothing but superficial commonalities.

      Your assertion makes about as much sense as saying something like, "You can make a rough guess at what an orange tastes like by eating an apple." What? Sure, they are both fruits, but commonalities stop there.

    12. Re:Misleading summary.. by Winkhorst · · Score: 1

      My point was that they send these probes halfway across the inner solar system and they are using optics that can't see anything as large as a lander. Basically, they are saying that there is nothing that size that could possibly be of interest. Any indication to the contrary is hooted off the stage. And they insure that they won't be contradicted by their own observations because the probes they send are half blind.

      --
      "Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
    13. Re:Misleading summary.. by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      Basically, they are saying that there is nothing that size that could possibly be of interest.

      I doubt Nasa would ever go quite that far. The thing you have to realize and what I was trying to point out is that there's always tradeoffs in any design. Spacecraft orbiting Mars has even bigger tradeoffs. Do you have the super-duper optics that can read a book in orbit (and blow all your money on it) or do you have multiple instruments, 3 more missions later on with very different goals, and optics that can see a schoolbus? Anything going all the way to Mars has drastic limits on weight. The heavier something is the bigger the rocket you need to get it to Mars. It also needs more propellant to stop the damn thing so it doesn't crash into Mars. All of that is expensive, and Nasa doesn't have blank checks from Uncle Sam. BTW, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter launched this August will be able to see objects about as large as a dinner plate. They'd like to be able to see rocks that might interfere with future landing sites.

      Any indication to the contrary is hooted off the stage. And they insure that they won't be contradicted by their own observations because the probes they send are half blind.

      We've got two Rovers currently driving around Mars for the extreme close up stuff. Getting inch resolution on a lot of rocks probbably isn't terribly interesting. Getting microscopic pictures of a few select interesting rocks is probbably a hell of a lot better at finding evidence of water being on Mars at one point.

      --
      AccountKiller
  15. Bloody mind tricks! by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Funny
    We conclude that our interpretation of these features was in error.

    But you put forth some pretty darn convincing evidence! I recall an earlier Slashdot story that covered all this in detail, where you announc...

    This is not the location of the Mars Polar Lander.

    ...

    That was not the location of the Mars Polar Lander.

    Move along, move along!

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  16. Easy by squoozer · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The martians dragged it into a cave when they noticed it was drawing to much attention. Sheeeesh do these people know nothing.

    --
    I used to have a better sig but it broke.
  17. List of Mars Efforts by EuropeanGuy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    List of Mars Efforts, courtesy of Wikipedia

    Items with bullets represent full or partial failures.

    * 1960 -- Marsnik 1
    * 1960 -- Marsnik 2
    * 1962 -- Sputnik 29
    * 1962 -- Mars 1
    * 1962 -- Sputnik 31
    * 1964 -- Mariner 3
    1964 -- Mariner 4
    * 1964 -- Zond 2
    * 1965 -- Zond 3
    1969 -- Mariner 6
    1969 -- Mariner 7
    * 1969 -- Mars 1969A
    * 1969 -- Mars 1969B
    * 1971 -- Mariner 8
    * 1971 -- Cosmos 419
    * 1971 -- Mars 2
    1971 -- Mars 3
    1971 -- Mariner 9
    * 1973 -- Mars 4
    * 1973 -- Mars 5
    * 1973 -- Mars 6
    * 1973 -- Mars 7
    1975 -- Viking 1
    1975 -- Viking 2
    * 1988 -- Phobos 1
    * 1988 -- Phobos 2
    * 1992 -- Mars Observer
    1996 -- Mars Global Surveyor
    * 1996 -- Mars 96
    1996 -- Mars Pathfinder
    * 1998 -- Nozomi (Planet-B)
    * 1998 -- Mars Climate Orbiter
    * 1998 -- Mars Polar Lander
    * 1998 -- Deep Space 2 (part of Mars Polar Lander spacecraft)
    2001 -- Mars Odyssey
    2003 -- Mars Exploration Rovers
    * 2003 -- Mars Express

    1. Re:List of Mars Efforts by Maian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Kinda proves those Martians don't want us ruining their world (after they've seen what we've done with ours) :)

    2. Re:List of Mars Efforts by rajeshgoli · · Score: 1

      Rememeber that the percentage of Co2 on martian atmosphere is >90%, if that is any indication as to how much we've spoiled our planet, the martians have screwed their planet up BIG TIME.

      --
      http://www.rajeshgoli.com
    3. Re:List of Mars Efforts by FrostedWheat · · Score: 1

      Mars Express and Beagle 2 where separate missions (like Polar Lander and DS2), and so far Mars Express has been a success.

    4. Re:List of Mars Efforts by thermopile · · Score: 5, Interesting
      There's a much better and much funnier synopsis of Mars attempts and failures here, as well as a record of a few other planets.

      Overall, we're really only about 33% successful at it. Space Travel is Not Easy.

      --

      "Diplomacy is something you do until you find a rock." --Richard Pound

    5. Re:List of Mars Efforts by Bob3141592 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, I'm sure we'll do better when we send human explorers to the planet.

      --
      In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
  18. Martian Mind Trick! by Pizaz · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This isn't the polar lander you are looking for.

  19. nothing to see here by zojakownith · · Score: 0

    Nothing to see here, please move along.

    --
    I have bad karma....

    Open source is heavenly, Microsoft is the devil, SCO is going to hell

  20. Re:they should put a leash on that thing! by Nerull · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem is the atmosphere. Even on earth plotting a trajectory through air can be rather inaccurate. Everything from pockets of turbulance, to what direction and how hard the wind was blowing that day can drasticly effect the trajectory. It gets even worse if it broke up, or a parachute didn't deploy, or got tangled. This is the reason why they have a landing elipse that is hundreds of miles in diameter.

  21. Hurry! by werewolf1031 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Click the randomly appearing Mars Polar Lander to win a Free iPod!

    Err, wait...

    1. Re:Hurry! by Infinityis · · Score: 1

      Hey, as long as I don't have to pay the costs to ship it from Mars, I'll click wherever you want.

  22. um by martin-boundary · · Score: 3, Funny

    Um, maybe I'm missing something, but have they checked for it on Google maps? I lost a black monolith once on the dark side of the moon, but it took all of two seconds to google for it. It was stuck in between some cheese.

  23. The mods strike again by The+Wooden+Badger · · Score: 2, Informative

    If anyone else (besides the mod in question) thinks that the parent was showing insight (no offense Big Ad; I know it's a joke) please step forward. I guess I could give the benefit of the doubt and say the mod could have accidentally modded as insightful, but meant funny, but the more I read comments the more I find instances like this. Either it was a mistake, or a bad mod. Whichever one it was I say to everyone: META MODERATE! Please? Since I have set my preferences to send messages about how my moderations have been meta modded I have received ZERO messages about the meta moderating results. I have had mod points at least three or four times since then.

    --
    Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
    1. Re:The mods strike again by Bad+Ad · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      also Big Ad
      wanna move in? i think i love you.

    2. Re:The mods strike again by FullCircle · · Score: 4, Funny

      It wasn't me, but some people refuse to mod funny because the poster gets no karma for it.

      That's why you get underrated, insightful, interesting, etc on funny posts lately.

      --
      If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
    3. Re:The mods strike again by morcheeba · · Score: 0

      all those reasons, plus one more: when I moderate a funny comment that offers obviously wrong advice as "informative", I smirk a little bit. I figure I can have some fun, too.

    4. Re:The mods strike again by bluGill · · Score: 2, Informative

      Though I metamoderation informative mods to something false down.

      I'm always amazed at how many bad mods the meta-mod system finds for me to examine.

    5. Re:The mods strike again by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      It wasn't me, but some people refuse to mod funny because the poster gets no karma for it. That's why you get underrated, insightful, interesting, etc on funny posts lately.

      I do that when I mod as well, only I've actually read the pull down menu contents and only use +1 - Underrated instead of something else that doesn't fit. This is the preferred way to bestow karma upon a funny poster. It preserves the "Funny" from previous mods (and also doesn't show up in meta moderation...)

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    6. Re:The mods strike again by ishepherd · · Score: 1
      This is the preferred way

      Uh, I think you mean your preferred way.

      Mine is to mod something ridiculous as 'insightful', every now and then. It tends to add to the joke :)

      --
      fud, notfud, yes, no, maybe
    7. Re:The mods strike again by Mistshadow2k4 · · Score: 1

      I'll meta-mod in just a minute. As if the link at the top of every page and after every coment I post weren't enough. We definitely need more meta-mods on /.

      --
      I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
    8. Re:The mods strike again by JVert · · Score: 1

      People like to moderate insightfull instead of funny even when they mean funny because the funny moderation does not count towards the total karma tally of the poster. So if a poster is all about the funny and gets blasted a few times, +20 funny and -5 troll/overrated and you have yourself negative karma.

      I dont garantee any of this is accurate as far as how funny affects your karma vs other, its just what I heard and what people are doing about it.

    9. Re:The mods strike again by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Uh, I think you mean your preferred way.

      True. I guess it's only "preferred" in the limited sense that it generates no negative feedback, e.g. "+1 insightful? WTF?" posts.

      Mine is to mod something ridiculous as 'insightful', every now and then. It tends to add to the joke :)

      Good point. Those can indeed be most humorous. :)

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    10. Re:The mods strike again by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      And I stopped meta-modding about a year ago, since I haven't had mod points for 2 years prior to that. WTF did I do wrong, and how can I fix it?

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    11. Re:The mods strike again by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      Though I metamoderation informative mods to something false down.

      My English language parser just exploded.

    12. Re:The mods strike again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I expected that when I wrote the line. I couldn't come up with a better way to write it though.

  24. Kindergarden Education by JBHarris · · Score: 1

    I learned in Kindergarden to keep up with my toys. Who knows who will take them when you aren't looking.

  25. Don't get paranoid... by meringuoid · · Score: 1, Funny
    ... there's a perfectly innocent explanation. It eloped with Beagle and got married in secret in the Russian Orthodox monastery where all the Soviet probes defected to over the years.

    They're now setting up home in a pleasant spot on the slope of Mount Olympus overlooking the Mariner Valley and hoping to raise a family of small Lego buggies.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  26. little green terr'ists by hrm · · Score: 3, Funny

    Which is exactly why GWB is funding Nasa's Mars mission: to take the fight against these little green terrorists to their own planet.

    1. Re:little green terr'ists by bjason82 · · Score: 1

      I disagree, if he really wanted to take the fight to those little green bastards he'd just send a volley of nukes and be done with it. I mean, he'd have done that to iran, north korea, etc. if he could have. But seeing how there's no political pressure coming from mars he has nothing standing in his way, its not likely the martians are supporting his "new world order" goals. The only thing a consolidated one-world-government would do is making conquoring earth more difficult for the Martians.

      I say we send midget spies to infiltrate their society and cause distruction from within!!!!

  27. yeah no joke by Bad+Ad · · Score: 2, Insightful

    me? insightful? we need the ability to mod the modders.

    -1 American ;-)

  28. OT(moderation notes) by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Since modding someone funny gives them no /. karma some have started using interesting or insightfull in it's place to better reward humor and this might explain the mod.
        Also whenever I meta mod and find I need to check the 'context' MOST of the time I'm MM-ing a post several weeks old, only once or twice has the article been still open for posting.
        That last bit said I still rarely see meta mods on my moderation anymore, though at one time I could expect to see about 20% of my mods meta'd, and within a month or two.

    Mycroft

    --
    https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    1. Re:OT(moderation notes) by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      How does one view meta-moding of one's moderation?

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    2. Re:OT(moderation notes) by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Somewhere in your user prefferences is are options you can check to be notified of replies to your posts and moderations and meta mods to your mods and so on.
          You'll also find a setting to determine how /. sends these notices to you (e-mail, when you log-in, etc.)
          It may not be on the 'preferences' pages specifically, but on of the various options pages you have.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
  29. Is there a Fridge on Mars? by zenmojodaddy · · Score: 1

    If so, I suggest looking there. It's always behind the fridge.

  30. Area 51 on Mars too? by jrumney · · Score: 1

    It appears the Martians have their own Area 51, where they hide evidence of extra-marital life from their fellow martians.

    1. Re:Area 51 on Mars too? by ken+kenobi · · Score: 3, Funny
      Extra-marital life?

      They're hiding evidence of their affairs with space probes fom their spouses??

    2. Re:Area 51 on Mars too? by jrumney · · Score: 0

      Damn! I hate it when a freudien slip ruins an otherwise perfectly serious comment.

  31. similar to The Hunt for "Red" October.... by GReaToaK_2000 · · Score: 1

    You lost ANOTHER Space Probe???

  32. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  33. Amazing Grace by aapold · · Score: 1

    A landing probe randomly tossed but leaving no debris it once was found but now is lost we're blinded and now can't see ..... No one down here knows how to work the brakes, but Uncle Sam's on Mars

    --
    "Waste not one watt!" - CZ
  34. It's got to be said.. by mikael · · Score: 1

    These are not the droids you are looking for....

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  35. As seen in the previous Mars story... by Pomme+de+Terre! · · Score: 1

    ...clearly, this is the work of the giant purple spiders.

  36. Hey martians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Earth just called, they want their probe back!

  37. Logical by OpenSourced · · Score: 1

    After some months of trying to communicate with the extrange visitor, the Elder Martians just wished it away.

    --
    Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
  38. Re:aliens sook it by Winkhorst · · Score: 1

    On Mars, YOU are the alien...

    --
    "Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
  39. Awww, Uncle Owen! by Griim · · Score: 1

    Maybe someone (and "the guys") took the lander to go pick up some power converters...

  40. "Hello, On Star?" by Dekortage · · Score: 1

    You'd think if GM and other American auto makers can install On Star to help people find directions and lost vehicles, then our space agencies could use it too. Sheesh!

    --
    $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
  41. But then comes.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that little tiff with the Martians:

    "What have you done? Thousands of years of building and rebuilding, creating and recreating so you can let it crumble to dust. A million years of sensitive Martians dying for their dreams... FOR WHAT? So you can dig and dance and play."

  42. Incorrect by Crixus · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Is it really correct to say that it's lost again, since they never truly knew where it was?

    --
    Ignore Alien Orders
  43. Of course it is not there... by Neeth · · Score: 0

    It stands now in Hangar 18 of Area 51.

    --
    Yes, I am the one with the legendary sig.
  44. Overheard by zr-rifle · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Dude, where's my Polar Lander?"

    --
    Hack your mind out of its sandbox.
  45. Re:they should put a leash on that thing! by laurieknight · · Score: 1

    I'm fairly sure if the parachute didn't deploy then the thing wouldn't have wafted far off course...

  46. All your landers are belong to us. by littleshop · · Score: 0

    Ok, well so a few more to go.

  47. Cydonia by markov_chain · · Score: 1

    You know, if you thought the Cydonia conspiracy nutjobs were crazy, wait until they get ahold of this little story :)

    --
    Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
  48. Homeland Security by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 0

    Looks like the United Nations of Mars are finally cooperating on Homeland Security and emergency management.

    Maybe we ought to see if they would be willing to participate in an exchange program.

  49. Yours got inverted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I think you got modded funny, instead of informative, because no one wanted to give you karma points.

  50. Clarke warned us!! by blakespot · · Score: 2, Funny

    All these worlds are yours except Mars

    Attempt no polar landing there


    blakespot

    --
    -- Heisenberg may have slept here.
    iPod Hacks.com
  51. looking for lander by whovian · · Score: 1

    That's some pretty bad digitial zoom. Haven't NASA any better optical zoom built into the Surveyor?

    Have there been any sandstorms on Mars lately?

    --
    To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
  52. I suspect Jedi treachery... by VAXcat · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This is not the polar lander you were looking for.

    --
    There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
  53. Re:aliens sook it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or, to be specific and on topic: On Mars, SOVIET RUSSIANS are the aliens!

  54. ironic by Sumobot · · Score: 1

    They try looking for it under the couch cushions? ...always where I loose stuff.

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

      Is that where you lose loose stuff?

  55. Who doesn't love this by jonathanduty · · Score: 2, Funny

    Who doesn't love spending money looking for broken crap? Its like the ebay of space.

  56. I'm suspicious by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    Sounds just like Bagdad Bob and Saddam, there is no Polar Lander, there never was a Polar Lander. Inspections for the Polar Lander have failed and are going nowhere. I say we gather a coalition of the willing and invade now to find all the Polar Landers, lest they be used against us!

    1. Re:I'm suspicious by fmobus · · Score: 0

      don't forget poland!!!111oneoneeleveneleven

    2. Re:I'm suspicious by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      forget? they're next , since they've obviously got their WMD programs *very* well hidden! And we can't let their continued efforts to dominate world kolacky and periogi production continue unchecked!

  57. Re:TMM we need you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No kidding - that's why I read this thread: for the Martian commentary by TMM ... Not troll

  58. Look under the lamppost by lildogie · · Score: 1

    the light is better there.

  59. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  60. Venus vs Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    As a man, you'd rather want to be the first man on Venus.
    You know, the "female planet".
    Yeah, Mars is kind of frigid, but Venus is hot!
  61. Re:TMM we need you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on, TMM! We're dying for you to shit out the next episode of your martian space drama.

  62. Re:aliens sook it by utnow · · Score: 1

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    That is NEVER not funny!

  63. I think we all know what's going on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think its pretty obvious that the most likely explination is that the Mars Polar Lander has gone rouge. Its internal computer system probably became self aware during its initial approach to Mars, most likely after being interferred with by some sort of ancient Martian radio transmission. Its obviously now trying to make its way to the giant face monument, where logic tells us there is a large cache of ancient Martian weapons and technology. The polar lander's obvious plan is to use this supply of Martian goods to craft itself a new body with which it can return to earth and attack us with. We need to put together a team to head out to Mars on the double in order to stop the imminent polar lander threat. I'd recommend sending Gary Sinise, but he's probably busy with CSI:NY. I'm guessing Val Kilmer would be free to go, though.

  64. My fellow Martians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I categorically deny that any alien spacecraft have landed in our polar regions! There have been no covert government expeditions to move any such craft to area Sl nor are there any strange little wheeled vehicles exploring our deserts!

    - Your Fearless Green Leader
    Uzbecko Mugistani

  65. Boggle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Though I metamoderation informative mods to something false down.

    Erm..?

    I'm always amazed at how many bad mods the meta-mod system finds for me to examine.

    Indeed, the "Informative" you received on the gibberish above will be a good test case

    1. Re:Boggle by bluGill · · Score: 1

      Indeed, the "Informative" you received on the gibberish above will be a good test case

      I was in fact wondering what idiot would mod that informative. On re-reading it, it makes sense, but I had to slow down to understand it. So gibberish is a little harsh. Still, even if it was perfectly written, it does not deserve any mod at all.

      Let me see if I can fix it: When meta-moderating, if I see something marked informative that is false I will mod it down. Even if it is clearly sarcastic humor. Humor is interesting, but it is not informative.

      I use all the tools I have to improve slashdot as a place for geeks interested in science to hang out. It often feels like loosing battle.

  66. No lander because resolution got better by pz · · Score: 1

    To the lay eye, it certainly appears that the initially identified location was questionable at best, because of the high levels of background noise. The few pixels of dark near the few pixels of light could, perhaps, have been a lander, but they also could have been just noise. Although the linked article doesn't mention this, there would be, I'd hope, a decent amount of statistical analysis to show that these pixels were a good 3+ sigma away from background. But by looking at it, you sure don't get that impression, as there are a handful of places that the arrow could just as easily pointed at and declared "lander!".

    What's really impressive, though, is the newest set of images with vastly improved resolution and reduced noise! And, unless there's something about a Shuttle mission to replace hardware in Mars orbit that we haven't heard about, this is on the same optics and sensors! Sounds like some good old-fashioned software engineering improvements of the like that JPL gets far too little credit for. Anyone involved in the project know for sure?

    --

    Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
  67. Re:they should put a leash on that thing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real question is: are they using feet or meters to calculate the landing site? Because it seems to me that they are looking for it in the wrong place.... :)

  68. Ob SW quote by RedLaggedTeut · · Score: 1

    These are not the mars exploration drones you are looking for.

    --
    I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
  69. OnStar? by Evil+Butters · · Score: 1

    So has anyone called OnStar to see if it can be located?

    --
    Homer no function beer well without.
  70. Re:NASA uses web cam technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah the best of /. bull shit speculation and ignorant assertions.
    I suppose if you were in charge we'd have a 50 fps colour calibrated movie of this area showing us detail down to "I woz here" graffitied onto the lander by naughty technicians.

    You have seen four little pictures and that's enough. Screw you.

    BTW, Hubble only takes b&w pictures too. It's just that its tagets don't change, so it can multiple shots with different colour filters on. And they aren't very pretty at full resolution.

  71. for a price tag of 5x hubble expect more by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    If the us military complex nsa/fema and top secret projects spend $450billion, you can bet they allocated $5b/yr * 20 yrs of effort
    into getting something 10x better than hubble for close range. maybe a 1m meter * 6 in a ring. When there is no limit to a budget, and no slow managers involved, you can bet the NSA (10000+ math people) and the best grads can do better.

    Who knows maybe they beam down UV rays and inspect the result bouncing back or 25 ghz beams in combo with 1000 wavelengths.

    3mins of my time isnt going to come up with 20 years of expertise * 10000 people.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  72. Re:they should put a leash on that thing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe the light's better there?