Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mars Polar Lander Lost Again

Posted by samzenpus on from the alien-joy-ride dept.

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."

3 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

    2. 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.