Slashdot Mirror


Mars Swings Unusually Close to Earth

amazon10x writes "Mars will come unusually close to the Earth on Saturday; the second time in 60,000 years. The last occurrence was in 2003. 'This is the best we're going to see Mars, so we should strike the iron while it is hot,' said Kelly Beatty, executive editor of Sky & Telescope magazine. The Red Planet will be 43.1 million miles from Earth at 11:25pm [Eastern time]." Update by J : Starting a few hours after sunset, look fairly high in the eastern sky.

335 comments

  1. Unusual? by ReformedExCon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Usually, when you use the word "unusual", it implies a sort of unexpectedness of the event. If there was an unusual swing of Mars towards Earth, I don't think it would be minor news.

    --
    Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
    1. Re:Unusual? by laughingcoyote · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Unusual" can also mean "rare"-I think that's the context it's used in here.

      --
      To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
    2. Re:Unusual? by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      I think "unusual" is a good word, as it's not usually this close.

      "Irregular" would be a poor choice, on the other hand. The movement of the planets is quite regular.

    3. Re:Unusual? by lpcustom · · Score: 1

      I don't think the article meant it was "surprising". When I hear someone say "unusual" I don't think "exciting turn of events". Though I don't think the word "unusual" works well here either. WHO CARES!
      As far as the actual article, who else thought this was Urban Legend Spam that had made it's way somehow to Slashdot?

      --
      Beer! It's what's for breakfast!
    4. Re:Unusual? by lpcustom · · Score: 1

      Also, when do you think "Google Mars" will come out.

      --
      Beer! It's what's for breakfast!
    5. Re:Unusual? by q-the-impaler · · Score: 0
      usual (y'zh-l) pronunciation
      adj.

      1. Commonly encountered, experienced, or observed
      2. Regularly or customarily used
      3. In conformity with regular practice or procedure

      Since 'Un' means 'Not', you are correct. Nothing to see here, grandparent is overrated.
      --
      Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform
    6. Re:Unusual? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They say this every 2 years.

    7. Re:Unusual? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yikes.. that deserved at least a 2, Funny! :-)

      Must.. resist.. Uranus.. follow-up...

    8. Re:Unusual? by IAmTheDave · · Score: 1
      Rare, huh? Rare like Haley's Comet. My parent's thought I was too young to wake me up in the middle of the night to see the comet. Now I'll have to wait until I'm over 80 to see it.

      Better take a look at Mars this time. Don't really feel like waiting until I'm 60,027 to see it again.

      --
      Excuse my speling.
      Making The Bar Project
    9. Re:Unusual? by amazon10x · · Score: 1

      Don't really feel like waiting until I'm 60,027 to see it again. If you RTFA you'll notice that it will come this close again in 2018.

    10. Re:Unusual? by ZeroZen · · Score: 1

      3. In conformity with regular practice or procedure

      This meaning suggests that something irregular has happened to the orbit of mars. I thought something weird tugged on the orbit and brought it closer upon reading the title of the article.

    11. Re:Unusual? by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      "Unusual" can also mean "rare"-I think that's the context it's used in here.

      Rare is entirely subjective here. On the time scale of the history of humanity, this event is not particularly rare. On the time scale of the cosmos it is exceedingly common. On the time scale of a fruit fly it is unheard of.

      The usage in the article was sloppy. This even is neither "rare" nor "unusual." It should've said "Mars reaches point in orbit closest to Earth," no more, no less.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    12. Re:Unusual? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the hell modded this up?

      Main Entry: unusual
      Pronunciation: -'yü-zh&-w&l, -zh -'yüzh-w&l
      Function: adjective
      : not usual : UNCOMMON, RARE
      - unusually adverb
      - unusualness noun


      As an example, if you saw some unusual clothes at a fashion show, would you be surprised?

    13. Re:Unusual? by Retric · · Score: 1

      LOL get over your self. If something happens for one month out of every 60,000 years it's rare in the same way that something that happens for 1/600,000th of a second every second is rare. When you call something rare your not just talking about how often something happens, but what % of the time it happens. Sure twice a day the time is 12:12.121212121212 but vary rarely that time. It's even less common for that to happen on the 12th of the month and even uncommon for that to happen on the 12th day of the 12th month. So just because it's going to happen ~70 times over your lifetime does not make it less rare than your 10th birthday. You might only have one birthday but you spend 24 hours on that birthday vs. some tiny fraction of a second so picking a random time in your life it's much more likely that if falls on your birthday than at 12:12.121212121212 (AM OR PM) on the 12th day of the 12th month.

    14. Re:Unusual? by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      When you call something rare your not just talking about how often something happens, but what % of the time it happens.

      Well, duh. What you fail to understand here, genius, is that you cannot talk of "how often" something happens without first defining the time period under discussion. If you're talking geological or cosmological time then this even isn't even remotely rare or unusual. If you're talking femtosecond time periods then this is an unparalleled rarity. The article says this is an "unusual" event without going into any discussion about what constitutes unusual. So, you're argument is basically worthless because, like the original poster, you fail to understand the meaning of "unusual" or "rare."

      Here, let me help you out a bit.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    15. Re:Unusual? by Retric · · Score: 1

      Umm no.
      How often is it AM? 1/day
      What % of the time is it AM ~50%

      So it uncomon for a clock to say AM? No why picking a random time you have a 50/50 shot at AM. Note: when I said how often I gave a the interval between events not a count of events over a time frame. So the count might be 365,243 over 1000 years but it's not important what makes it common is the % of the time it's AM.

      Look up the definition of "rare air" and you see that it's not about the absolute count of particals of air but the relitive amount of air per unit space. Thus you define things like vacume not by how many per foot, but in terms of average count per unit space. Thus on average you might have .0001 per (m^-100)^2 but the size of unit space is not important. Your sugesting that an even that happens once every X years is rare over the course of a second but common over the course of a million years but you can't define things that way because you don't know which second your talking about. Thus it's still % chance per unit time. And to get the % chance you need the duration per event * average number of events per unit time / unit time.

  2. Time zone? by lisany · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well what time zone? 11:25pm here could be 6:25am somewhere else. Bad slashdot!

    1. Re:Time zone? by mmjb · · Score: 5, Informative
      From TFA:
      On Saturday, Mars' orbit will bring it 43.1 million miles away from Earth, with its closest pass scheduled for 11:25 p.m. EDT.

      EDT is 4 hours behind of Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), ergo closest orbit will be at 03:25 a.m. UTC.

      I think.
    2. Re:Time zone? by mmjb · · Score: 1

      For "orbit", please read "pass". (!)

    3. Re:Time zone? by m50d · · Score: 2, Informative

      No true geek would use anything but UTC, wherever you are.

      --
      I am trolling
    4. Re:Time zone? by dwater · · Score: 1

      "Universal Time"? Hrmm, I can't help but wonder if they that it'll be 3:25am there too.

      I often wondered why it wasn't more appropriately named...

      --
      Max.
    5. Re:Time zone? by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 1

      Right, but anywhere you are in the world, at 11:25, you'll be facing more or less towards the outside of the solar system. The closest you would ever get to mars, assuming perfectly circular orbits would be at 12:00 midnight with mars directly along the vector perpendicular to the tangent of Earth's path. So at 11:25 no matter where you are in the world, you could be the closest to mars. Now it might be that lateral distance is much more important than the distance gained by being on the correct side of the earth, but then again it might not. Plug the numbers into a computer and find out.

      --
      Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
      Africus aut Europaeus?
    6. Re:Time zone? by mmjb · · Score: 1

      I appreciate that logic but given that the closest pass varies, I don't think you can assume circular orbits. Maybe the observer's location on Earth is irrelevant?

    7. Re:Time zone? by pv2b · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No true geek would use anything but UTC, wherever you are.

      No.

      A true geek would know all the different ways employed to measure time, included, but not limited to, the various different variations of Universal Time, Atomic Time, Solar Time, Sidereal Time, Ephermis Time and Terrestrial Time, not to mention time according to the day/night cycle of an extra-terrestrial body. He would also be able to tell you in minute detail the differences between GMT and UTC.

      Time zones are easy, they're all just simple offsets from UTC.

      Me, I just fall asleep when I'm tired, and wake up when I do, and try to be awake when it matters.

    8. Re:Time zone? by Jaruzel · · Score: 4, Funny

      So that's 3:25am UTC Sunday morning?

      Great - The UK (and many other countries) flip back to GMT\UTC Sunday morning, so now my head hurts trying to work out when I have to set my alarm so I can get up, get get dressed, go outside, and stand disapointedly staring at a cloud covered sky :(

      -Jar.

      --
      Together, We Can Make Slashdot Better. I Do NOT Mod ACs. - Check Me Out
    9. Re:Time zone? by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 1

      Right, but in this sitution, we can assume circularity, or even linearity for that matter. What counts is the speed of rotation vs. the speeds of the two planets relative to each other.

      --
      Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
      Africus aut Europaeus?
    10. Re:Time zone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why use utc instead of gmt? what's the difference anyway(actual question)?

    11. Re:Time zone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This may come as a surprise, but Mars is SLOWLY approaching the closest point, and will SLOWLY move away from it - observing it at the exact moment of closest approach is of little significance, good weather is much more important. I've been blessed with two excellent, cloud free nights this week with Mars so bright at the moment it almost hurts to look at it with a decently fast 'scope.

    12. Re:Time zone? by LynXmaN · · Score: 1

      3:25 UTC will be 3:25 GMT and 4:25 CET since the time change is done at 2:00am always

      --
      May the source be with you!
    13. Re:Time zone? by csjavi · · Score: 1, Funny
      the time change is done at 2:00am always
      In which time zone?
    14. Re:Time zone? by m4dm4n · · Score: 2, Funny

      A true geek knows only two times, coffee time, and, and... Okay only one time.

    15. Re:Time zone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It won't look terribly different at 11:24 or 11:26 -- in any time zone, just like the equinox or solstice is a momentary event but you can round off to the nearest day to say when the season begins.

      For casual Mars observation, what matters is that you look today, not the specific moment of observation.

    16. Re:Time zone? by SatmanUK · · Score: 1

      Just to point out that timecodes should not be relied upon, eg BST can be described as British Summer Time , but is also Bangalore Standard Time. Maybe we should outsource our Winter :) it could be worse, we call all be living in Internet Time although where the clock is '0' will probably be governed by ICANN until 2012 where after it will be in IRAN attached to ticking geiger counter.

      --
      Which is hardest to surrender .. Smoking, Sex, Power, Money or Karma
    17. Re:Time zone? by m50d · · Score: 2, Informative

      Calling it UTC keeps the French happy and was instrumental in persuading them to accept it (there was a competing standard based on iirc Paris). Other than that I don't think there's any difference.

      --
      I am trolling
    18. Re:Time zone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I wonder if they are reporting on Mars that Earth is passing unusually close. Does mars even use universal time?

    19. Re:Time zone? by Mantorp · · Score: 3, Informative

      my free astronumy tip of the day: if it's dark look up

    20. Re:Time zone? by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1
      Mars is SLOWLY approaching the closest point, and will SLOWLY move away from it
      That's a relief, I'll be travelling tonight and I was worried I'll miss it.
      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    21. Re:Time zone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is your 'scope fast, may I ask? Does slew across the skys at a high speed or does it track at a high speed, or what?

    22. Re:Time zone? by Dwonis · · Score: 4, Informative
      The earth is spherical, and it rotates. (!)

      When it's 11:25 PM wherever you are, that's the time to look.

    23. Re:Time zone? by jridley · · Score: 1

      Local variations in cloud cover, atmosphere stability, etc have MUCH more impact than exact timing. It'll look basically the same for several nights in a row. This isn't a meteor shower or aurora where you have to be there at the right time. Mars has looked pretty good for weeks already and will for a few weeks after this.

    24. Re:Time zone? by pv2b · · Score: 3, Informative

      The parent is simply wrong.

      GMT and UTC are two very different time scales.

      GMT is simply the mean solar time at Greenwich Observatory.

      UTC is measured using atomic clocks, based on TAI (International Atomic Time) which is a weighted average of a few hundred atomic clocks around the world. Now, to keep it within one second of mean solar time at Greenwich Observatory, they occasionally add in a leap second here and there to make it work. The result being that UTC is offset an integral number of seconds from TAI.

      The particular dispute with the French that I've heard of is that the French wanted to call UTC TUC (for Temps Universel Coordonné, or something like that) while others wanted to call it CUT (Coordinated Universal Time). So to ensure nobody got what they wanted, they agreed to call it UTC out of spite for one another.

      Now, there may be another conflict with the French (the French are always making a fuss about something :-) ) that I haven't heard about, but I doubt the conflict the grandparent mentioned had anything to do with the GMT->UTC transition.

      Interesting, however, how the Proud French People values communications and interoperability with the Benelux, Germany and Italy more than being in a time zone corresponding to solar time at their latitude. They'd be a much closer match having the same time as the UK, Paris being just at about 2 E. Then again, the only thing the French like more than to be different than anyone else is to spite the English. :-)

    25. Re:Time zone? by slugstone · · Score: 1

      Can I stare at my eye lids or do I have to look at the clouds to?

    26. Re:Time zone? by fm6 · · Score: 1
      Geeks are suprisingly clueless on time zones. Look at how many web sites don't handle them correctly. I used to be technical editor for a customer support web site serving people in every time zone. The web team would announce down times like "7 PM Pacific Standard Time". Which wasn't even correct, since it was summer and daylight savings time was in effect. Even if it had been correct, it would have been hard to figure out by people in, say, Germany. I had to practically beat people over the head to get them to add the UTC offset.

      And here's what's really ironic: most of the developers were from India. Which is not only on the other side of the planet, but has a unique (UTC +5.5) countrywide time zone. You would think that an Indian geek would be more aware of time zone issues than an insular U.S. geek. Not the case.

    27. Re:Time zone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A 'fast' telescope is typically considered to be one with a focal ratio of less than F6.

    28. Re:Time zone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, we're oblately spherical.

    29. Re:Time zone? by owlstead · · Score: 1

      And how many metres a second is this "slowly" exactly? Pfft, I bet it's gone before I see it.

    30. Re:Time zone? by barakn · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's an oblate spheroid.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    31. Re:Time zone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:

      spherical

      adj 1: of or relating to spheres or resembling a sphere; "spherical
      geometry" [ant: {nonspherical}]

      2: having the shape of a sphere or ball; "a spherical object";
      "nearly orbicular in shape"; "little globular houses like
      mud-wasp nests"- Zane Grey [syn: {ball-shaped}, {global},
      {globose}, {globular}, {orbicular}, {spheric}]
  3. Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now we can take a lift to Jupiter..? BTW when is it gonna get close to it...?

  4. again? by utnow · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Doesn't something like this happen every year these days? I feel like every few months I read that, "Mars is closer than it's been in a REALLY REALLY long time." I mean I'm sure each of these has it's own special significance, but for us average people on the ground all this means is that the red dot is a bit larger...

    1. Re:again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      No need to even read TFA - but you never even read the summary!
      Mars will come unusually close to the Earth on Saturday; the second time in 60,000 years. The last occurrence was in 2003.
    2. Re:again? by utnow · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So it came unusually close in 2003... and now again in 2005... and they're expecting it again in 2018?

      And so it's happening 3 times in 15 years... but we're going to blow that up to say "3 times in 60,000 years!!!"

      Honestly... the New Orleans Saints win playoff games more rarely than this occurs. Which brings be back to my original comment: Seems like every few years we hear that Mars is WHOA! close to the earth. Other than it's significance to NASA's mars mission and palmists, all this means to john-everyman is that the red dot in the sky is a little brighter.

    3. Re:again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if the temperature on Oct 27th in some city hits 105 degrees for the first time in recorded history its not newsworthy because it it hit 102 degrees the year before, and 100 degrees 5 years prior?

      I'm not following that... 105 degrees is the hottest its been in recorded history!; people like to know about stuff like that... and for SCIENTISTS this information IS relevant... and besides isn't this slashdot?? "News for nerds!" (scientists included!)

      Why are you suggesting we tailor the content to "john-everyman"?

    4. Re:again? by yotto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      *Doesn't something like this happen every year these days?*

      If by "every year" you mean "Every other year," and by "every other year" you mean "2003" then yes, it happens every year. Note, please, that every other year (give or take) Mars gets closer to us, then further, then closer, so there are times where it will be closer than others. This one (and the one in 2003) are just extra-close.

      *So it came unusually close in 2003... and now again in 2005... and they're expecting it again in 2018?*

      They're not "expecting" it so much as "knowing" it, but yes, Mars gets closest to us every couple years, and sometimes it's closer than others, so it will be in 2018 as well (I assume, I haven't actually researched 2018 in particular). It won't be as close as it is this year, or in 2003, which made these two so special.

      *And so it's happening 3 times in 15 years... but we're going to blow that up to say "3 times in 60,000 years!!!"*

      We're not blowing up anything. 60,000 years ago (or so) Mars was as close to the Earth as it will be this week. Between 60,000 years ago and now, it's only happened once, in 2003, and it will happen again in a couple days.

      *Honestly... the New Orleans Saints win playoff games more rarely than this occurs.*

      To put this in terms you'll understand, think of it this way. The NOS win a game, after losing, say, 5 in a row. The announcer says "This is their first win in 6 games." Are you going to complain and say "No it's not, it's their first win in ONE GAME!"?

      *Other than it's significance to NASA's mars mission and palmists, all this means to john-everyman is that the red dot in the sky is a little brighter.*

      Which is why we're having this discussion on a geek website. It's NEWS.

    5. Re:again? by dogbreathcanada · · Score: 1

      Did you somehow accidentally click a link that brought you here, when you were intending on getting to the People magazine website?

      Here you go: http://people.aol.com

    6. Re:again? by utnow · · Score: 1

      You're exactly right. It's like jumping up and down screaming

      HOLY SHIT 101!!! THIS ONLY HAPPENS ONCE EVERY 60,000 YEARS!!!
      HOLY SHIT 102!!! THIS ONLY HAPPENS ONCE EVERY 60,000 YEARS!!!
      HOLY SHIT 100!!! THIS ONLY HAPPENS ONCE EVERY 60,000 YEARS!!!

      I would wager to bet that the position of the Earth and Mars is 'special' in each of the 21,900,000 days of that 60,000 years. Should we make an announcement for each day with the headline "Mars is closer than it's been in the last 60,000 years!.... but oh yeah it was closer in 2003.

      No. This is not news worthy in a mainstream news source (the original source). This isn't even news. It's like having a headline that says "THE NUMBER 500 WAY BIGGER THAN 2!!!" and each subsequent year updating to a larger number. I'm not suggesting we tailor slashdot to john-everyman. I'm suggesting that slashdot raise to higher standards than reporting announcements about the movement of planetary bodies which are extremely predicatble.

      Here's a headline for ya... Microsoft is conducting itself like a business! holy shit!!! I didn't see it coming!!!

      and besides... like it or not most slashdot readers ARE john-everymen. They're nerds no less, but this annoucement is nothing more than a blurb in their RSS feed. Name one reason knowing this information bettered your life. ;)

  5. And for those without ESP: by Elrac · · Score: 1, Funny

    What time zone is that time in?

    --
    When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Rel
    1. Re:And for those without ESP: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Those with clairvoyance, this Slashdot story is a déjà-dupe.

      To child poster: yes, I knew someone would say that.

    2. Re:And for those without ESP: by 42Penguins · · Score: 1

      Damn...How'd you know?

  6. Seeing is much better also by hobotron · · Score: 2, Informative


    This time around it will be not so close to the horizon when it is visable, look to the west, it will be the brightest object in the sky.

    --
    There is truth in humor.
    1. Re:Seeing is much better also by dascandy · · Score: 1

      Looking to the west for *whom* ? Asia? Europe? America?

      Thinking about it, Europe will be plain dark, Asia will have early sunrise (with their sun in the "east"), and America will have the sun in the "west". So, those in America will be looking to the east and those in Asia will be looking to the west. Those in europe won't have a sun nearby to confuse it with.

    2. Re:Seeing is much better also by Cat_Byte · · Score: 1

      So, those in America will be looking to the east and those in Asia will be looking to the west.

      That depends on where the object is in the sky. Everyone is going to have it appear somewhere in the sky at a relative time and move west since it is close to being lined up with our axis. When it gets dark in Asia they will look to a certain point in the sky and watch it pretty much the same way someone in the US would when it gets dark there.... Of course it will be daylight at one or the other so they won't be looking east at noon ;)

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
    3. Re:Seeing is much better also by dascandy · · Score: 1

      The object is opposite the location of the sun (implicitly), because it's at its closest (near to us) and it's in a trajectory that's larger than ours (which places it away from the sun, compared to us). Also realising that all planets except Neptune are in a nearly-flat plane for terms of rotation, comes to the conclusion that it must be on the other side of the sun. So, if the sun is in the west, you look to the east. If the sun is in the east, you look to the west. If the sun is on the other side of the earth, you look up (under a slight angle for the angle the earth' axis makes with its trajectory).

  7. Mars threatening us with the message! by Maxhrk · · Score: 0

    this is mars's way of giving us a message "stop infects Me with your earthling stuff, or [i]I WILL SWING MY BALL ON THE WAY UNUSUALLY CLOSE![/i]"

  8. Wow. by DrEldarion · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Red Planet will be 43.1 millions miles from Earth at 11:25pm.

    According to TFA, this is about 100 million miles closer than usual. They say it won't be this close again until around 2018.

    Given advances in technology by that point, it should make a great time to put men on Mars.

    1. Re:Wow. by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Funny

      Given advances in technology by that point, it should make a great time to put men on Mars.

      How long will we have to wait intil we're advanced enough to put women there as well?

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    2. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea I *know* I paid way too much.
      I bought from DealMeIn.net

      Never again, what a scam.

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

      That's still a lots of millions.

    4. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even look at the site? That makes no sense.

    5. Re:Wow. by Piquan · · Score: 1

      Given advances in technology by that point, it should make a great time to put men on Mars.

      I mentioned this elsewhere in this article, but I'll repeat it here too since it's relevant.

      While that is indeed considerably closer than it would be on the average random day, every couple of years Mars gets within about 49 million miles of Earth. This event's 43.1 million miles, while smaller than usual, doesn't represent an amazingly rare 4x difference.

    6. Re:Wow. by supachupa · · Score: 1

      Good.. let's get George W. Bush into his spacesuit before Saturday! Don't forget the oxygen tanks.. no.. nevermind.. forget the oxygyen.

    7. Re:Wow. by graemecoates · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Given advances in technology by that point, it should make a great time to put men on Mars.

      This makes virtually no difference to the effort required to transfer an object to Mars from Earth. The orbit would be an elliptical transfer orbit (the most efficient), and is far more dependent on the position of Mars relative to Earth (hence "launch windows" for probes).

      The 7ish million miles will make naff all difference - the point is actually when someone will stump up the cash, and when we figure out how to have an effective life support system (food, water, oxygen, shielding against radiation, etc, etc). The furthest humans have gone is ~250,000 miles - 43 and more million miles is, ahem, miles further.

    8. Re:Wow. by macpeep · · Score: 4, Informative

      Exactly. And even more importantly for Mars missions and such is that the energy / velocity required to get to Mars varies hardly at all between the every couple of year distance of 49 million miles vs. this year's 43.1 million miles. It's easier to visualize if one understands that one doesn't fly in a straight line to Mars from Earth. That is, to fly from Earth to Mars today, you wouldn't travel 43.1 million miles just because that's the distance today. Rather, you'd travel something like 500 million miles cause you'd fly in a so called Hohman transfer orbit that essentially traces an elliptical orbit that has a periapsis (closest to sun) point that touches Earth's orbit and apoapsis (furthest from the sun point that touches Mars' orbit. The distance of the arc of that orbit between the periapsis and apoapsis is very roughly 500 million miles and varies VERY little depending on how close Mars was to Earth at launch time. And equally small is the variation in flight time and required fuel, thrust and delta velocity.

      Peppe

    9. Re:Wow. by profke · · Score: 1

      >Given advances in technology by that point, it should make a great time to put men on Mars. na - let's just all stand up and wave :-)

    10. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bit longer I guess. It takes time to develop anti-PMS pill.

    11. Re:Wow. by idonthack · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It wasn't a sexist comment until you made it one. "Men" is commonly accepted to mean "people".

      The sad thing is you were modded Insightful.

      --
      Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
    12. Re:Wow. by tourvil · · Score: 3, Funny
      How long will we have to wait intil we're advanced enough to put women there as well?

      We can't very well send both men and women since they wouldn't be able to control themselves. :)

    13. Re:Wow. by Cat_Byte · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The sad thing is you were modded Insightful.

      Until now. The moderators hit the crack early today didn't they?

      Re:Wow.(Score:3, Interesting)

      WTF?

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
    14. Re:Wow. by Cat_Byte · · Score: 1

      We can't very well send both men and women since they wouldn't be able to control themselves. :)

      Suddenly the genetically engineered willing sex slaves and the sex robots in Tripping the Rift and other sci-fi shows make more sense...lol.

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
    15. Re:Wow. by ozmanjusri · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "Men" is commonly accepted to mean "people".

      Only by sexist "people".

      The sad thing is you were modded Insightful.

      Moderation
      50% Interesting
      50% Funny

      Then you can cheer right back up. the only Insightful moderation was in your own imaginitive little mind.
      Hey it's the thought that counts though, so thanks!

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    16. Re:Wow. by drsquare · · Score: 1

      When they invent a way to do the washing-up in zero gravity.

    17. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NEVER! Helloo!!! Species??? Duh...

    18. Re:Wow. by matth · · Score: 1

      After reading this statement, we believe you may be a terrorist with terrorist motives, and this post and your IP have been reported. Please stand-by.

    19. Re:Wow. by Lab+Wizard · · Score: 2, Funny

      Woman won't go to Mars until there are shoe shops waiting for them.

    20. Re:Wow. by oni · · Score: 1

      This makes virtually no difference to the effort required to transfer an object to Mars from Earth. The orbit would be an elliptical transfer orbit

      I'm glad that you pointed this out.

      Listen up everyone, space travel is not about straight lines. Download orbiter and fly a few trips to mars yourself. It will all become clear.

    21. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry that radical feminism hasn't managed to change the whole english language. Now go kill yourself.

    22. Re:Wow. by ValuJet · · Score: 1

      Be sure to pack some wire coat hangers and it won't matter.

    23. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could just send George Takei.

      Sulu was a queer!

    24. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re:Wow.(Score:-1, Offtopic)

      Isn't the topic started by the parent? How can the reply be off topic? I think you guys just proved his point!

  9. In galactic scales... by WARM3CH · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In galactic scales, for an event to accure only once every 60,000 year, the word is not "unusual". The correct word in these situations is "normal" or even "quite often"!.

    1. Re:In galactic scales... by aussie_a · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about twice in 2 years, while having not occurred until 60,000 years before that?

    2. Re:In galactic scales... by croddy · · Score: 1

      but we live on earth. for us, it is unusual.

    3. Re:In galactic scales... by bdeclerc · · Score: 5, Informative

      And the worst thing about this whole thing is that it isn't true!

      While in 2003 Mars passed us closer then at any other time in the last 60.000 years, it passes us by pretty close every 15 and 17 years. The 2003 passage was a "whopping" 1% closer to us than the 1971 pass, and this year's pass at 43 million miles is not unusual at all, every 15-17 years there's at least one pass that is significantly closer than that, the 1988 pass being at 37 million miles - noticably further than 2003, but much closer than this year's passage.

      So as usual, take main stream press accounts of science stuff with a very big grain of salt!

    4. Re:In galactic scales... by purfledspruce · · Score: 5, Informative
      It's still not "unusual" -- these orbits have been known and tracked since ancient times and are fully predictable. It has to do with the different orbital velocities and the slightly eccentric orbits. The two planets will be close to each other again in 2 years and 2 months, just like always, it's just that they'll be slightly further apart the next time that we get close together.

      Imagine an egg still in its shell. Looking down at the egg, it's like the shell is the orbit of Mars and the yolk (still inside the shell, of course) is the orbit of the Earth. In 2003, when the two planets got as close as they can get, it was like both were on the wide end of the egg, where the yolk is closest to the shell. Well, Mars' orbit takes about two years and two months to complete, so this year Mars and the Earth meet up near the wide end of the egg again. In two years' time, though, Mars will be a little further along the shell of the egg when it catches up to Earth, which will be a little further from the wide end of the egg.

      In 60,000 years or so, the closest approach will have walked all the way around the edge of the egg until it's at the "closest closest approach," the wide end of the egg. There's nothing unusual about it.

    5. Re:In galactic scales... by Aumaden · · Score: 4, Funny

      An it will continue to pass closer and closer until *SPLAT*.

      Haven't you noticed? 5 years ago, it would have been rare to meet 2 dense induhviduals in a week! Now, I usually encounter at least 1 a day. This accumulating density is subtly increasing the Earth's gravitational field. (Yes, yhat's also why your scale keeps going up.)

      I believe reality television is to blame. I eagerly tuned in to the first season of Survivor, thinking "Oh boy! Televised Darwin Awards!" But, wha?? They *vote* people off? The smart people? This isn't "survival of the fittest", it's survival of the weaseliest. (It is so a word, Dilbert says so and that's good enough for me!)

      And weaselness is closly related to denseness. Don't believe me? Take a minute to talk to your upper management. Then another minute to see what they get away with. See!?

    6. Re:In galactic scales... by matth · · Score: 1

      How exactly do you (And the author) know this has only happened twice in 60,000 years?!?! Do you have some supreme knowledge? I'm just curious here.

    7. Re:In galactic scales... by ponds · · Score: 3, Funny

      They use this new sort of witchcraft called 'math,' along with arcane properties such as trajectory, velocity, etc.

    8. Re:In galactic scales... by phlegmofdiscontent · · Score: 3, Informative

      In addition, the article states that Earth and Mars are usually 140 million miles apart, as if they just stay stationary and only occasionally move closer. 140 million may be the average, but the separation is always changing. Seriously, this is why other countries laugh at the US, because even our science writers lack even a grade-school education in science.

    9. Re:In galactic scales... by GreekPimpSlap · · Score: 0

      if it keeps getting closer and closer... how lung until it runs into the earth ?

    10. Re:In galactic scales... by jridley · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, except it's not true. The pass 2 years ago was closest in 60,000 years, but this one's not unusually close at all. Mars is at opposition with Earth every 2 years, and every time there's all kinds of sloppy science reporting. When I read this on CNN yesterday, I just shook my head.

      The reporting last time was ridiculous; some even stated that Mars would look as big as the moon; this again was sloppy misquoting; S&T had said that Mars IN A 75X TELESCOPE would appear as big as the Moon does TO THE NAKED EYE. Many news sources cut the emphasized parts in that statement.

      I sometimes think AP puts people on the science desk if they can't make it anywhere else. They don't really seem to have an interest in accuracy, even though the science desk would seem to demand that qualification.

      BTW, the view of Mars is actually better this time around than the "closest in 60,000 years" pass 2 years ago. The reason is that Mars is higher in the sky this time, so you have less atmosphere to look through. That's a far bigger difference than the measly amount closer it was last time.

    11. Re:In galactic scales... by uberdave · · Score: 1

      Either that, or they just use kstars

    12. Re:In galactic scales... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > How about twice in 2 years, while having not
      > occurred until 60,000 years before that?

      F***ing global warming. God damned Republicans!

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    13. Re:In galactic scales... by Brushfireb · · Score: 1

      This is the USA.

      We dont care for your math or science. After all, we think that teaching Intelligent Design is a good idea.

      Until you can prove to me that you found all this out from God, I dont like you.

        B

    14. Re:In galactic scales... by pclminion · · Score: 1
      It's still not "unusual" -- these orbits have been known and tracked since ancient times and are fully predictable.

      Looking in a dictionary, I don't see any connection between the concepts of "unusual" and "unpredictable." Unusual literally means "not usual." The usual state of affairs is for Mars to be further away than this. Therefore, Mars is "not usually" this close (God, I can't believe I have to spell it out for you), and this occurrence is "unusual."

    15. Re:In galactic scales... by pimpsoftcom · · Score: 1

      So as usual, take main stream press accounts of science stuff with a very big grain of salt!

      I prefer sodium chloride coalesced into a crystalline matrix.

      --
      - d
    16. Re:In galactic scales... by Vapebait · · Score: 1

      Third time in 60,000 years.

    17. Re:In galactic scales... by purfledspruce · · Score: 1
      "Looking in a dictionary, I don't see any connection between the concepts of "unusual" and "unpredictable." Unusual literally means "not usual." The usual state of affairs is for Mars to be further away than this. Therefore, Mars is "not usually" this close (God, I can't believe I have to spell it out for you), and this occurrence is "unusual.""

      The usual state of affairs is for Mars to be in orbit around the Sun, and for the Earth to be in orbit around the Sun, and for the two of them to be close together every 26 months. An unusual occurence is for one of these planets to suddenly be moving outside of its normal path, which is what the original poster was commenting about.

      In fact, this dictionary shows that the second definition of the word unusual includes "unexpected." There is nothing unexpected, strange, or unusual about two celestial bodies coming close to each other in their orbits, it happens many times every year.

      "(God, I can't believe I have to spell it out for you)"

      Of course you have to spell it out for me; I am a rational, thinking individual who was trying to understand what other people were saying and show them that it was not "unexpected" or "unusual" in any way for planets to orbit the Sun. Your limited understanding of how to use a dictionary (i.e., stopping as soon as you've found the meaning that you are referring to and not reading on or trying to see what other meanings the word has) just shows how shallow and unthinking your post was. If you had attempted to understand what the other person was saying, and looked beyond the first meaning in the dictionary, then perhaps you would have seen what the other person was talking about; instead, you chose to write inflammatory dialogue.

    18. Re:In galactic scales... by pclminion · · Score: 1
      Your limited understanding of how to use a dictionary (i.e., stopping as soon as you've found the meaning that you are referring to and not reading on or trying to see what other meanings the word has) just shows how shallow and unthinking your post was.

      The dictionary I use is the one Google links to when you type in a search term. That dictionary had only a single definition: Not usual, common, or ordinary.

      But I'll be generous, and list all the synonyms that popped up in the thesaurus:

      infrequent, occasional, rare, scarce, sporadic, uncommon, atypic, atypical, novel, unconventional, unordinary, unwonted, offbeat, bizarre, cranky, curious, eccentric, erratic, freakish, idiosyncratic, odd, outlandish, peculiar, quaint, queer, quirky, singular, strange, unnatural, weird, exceptional, extraordinary, magnificent, outstanding, preeminent, rare, remarkable, singular, towering, uncommon.

      Now tell me which of those means "unexpected." I didn't think so.

    19. Re:In galactic scales... by A_Pryd3 · · Score: 1

      Mars seen with - Naked eye = . - 12x Digi Cam = . - 60x Spotting Scope = *verybright* . *verybright*

    20. Re:In galactic scales... by gstoddart · · Score: 1
      Haven't you noticed? 5 years ago, it would have been rare to meet 2 dense induhviduals in a week! Now, I usually encounter at least 1 a day.

      So, 5 years ago you were living a more sheltered life and not interacting with people?

      Sadly, 1-a-day has been pretty much baseline for a decade or so. I mean, go to a McD's or a Radio Shack and you can fill your quota without trying.
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    21. Re:In galactic scales... by Aumaden · · Score: 1
      So, 5 years ago you were living a more sheltered life and not interacting with people?
      No, I'm still sheltered and not interacting with people. *They*, however, are getting better at finding their way to me!
      Either that, or the pit trap is full again. I *hate* it when that happens!

      Sadly, 1-a-day has been pretty much baseline for a decade or so. I mean, go to a McD's or a Radio Shack and you can fill your quota without trying.
      But, by going into a Radio Shack or McD's you *are* trying! Who do you think buys the spots during reality tv programming?
    22. Re:In galactic scales... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      still, that makes it a theroy.

      All remaining the same as it has been since tracked, then it likely... but its not 100% proven true.

      we dont have all facts that exist to make a real proof, just can make a good theory from what we do know.

      Who knows, 50,000 years ago it could have been even futher away and somehow got pulled a lot close when the planet that is now the astroid belt imploded...

    23. Re:In galactic scales... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yea, you're absolutely right. the average citizen of any other country is totally laughing at us right now because some scientist didn't specify that the distance between Earth and Mars changes. get real.

  10. Time Zone by acd294 · · Score: 4, Informative

    For those like me wondering the time zone, I actually RTFA:

    On Saturday, Mars' orbit will bring it 43.1 million miles away from Earth, with its closest pass scheduled for 11:25 p.m. EDT.

    --
    main(){char *c;while(1){c=(char*)malloc(1);*c='a';fork();}
    1. Re:Time Zone by merdaccia · · Score: 2, Informative

      And just to further confuse the crap out of people, at 11:25pm Eastern Daylight Time, Europe will be in Winter time, having changed its clocks just a few hours before. So 23:25 EDT will be 03:25 GMT, not the typical 04:25 GMT.

      Either way, it's on Saturday night. I'll have trouble seeing my feet, let alone Mars.

      --

      *blinking cursor*

    2. Re:Time Zone by sita · · Score: 1

      pass scheduled for 11:25 p.m. EDT.

      I'm still wondering. I have no idea how many hours from GMT EDT would be. I am not even sure that there are not multiple zones that use the EDT acronym. Like Eastern Dagestan Time, or something.

    3. Re:Time Zone by geegs · · Score: 1


      23:25 EDT means 03:25 GMT throughout the year.
      The change of time zone is a change in local time, not a change in GMT.
      Say "So 23:25 EDT will be 03:25 in UK local time, not 04:25".
      </pedantic>
      Thanks for the reminder though.

    4. Re:Time Zone by Bitsy+Boffin · · Score: 1

      What?! GMT doesn't change with the seasons, GMT == UTC == Zulu for all intents and purposes. Infact, I don't know of any timezones that change during the year - people switch to seasonal timezones, but the timezones themselves don't change.

      --
      NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
    5. Re:Time Zone by nilsjuergens · · Score: 2, Informative

      ok mr. smartypants, if you want to be pedantic do it right: GMT has been replaced by UTC

      --
      -- Having problems sending big files over the net? Try out Efisto (http://efisto.org)
    6. Re:Time Zone by sheppos · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, GMT doesn't change, the UK for instance is currently using BST which is GMT+1. On Saturday we switch back to using GMT.

    7. Re:Time Zone by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

      Daylight savings changes in the UK DO NOT affect GMT (GMT is a dated term, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Time)

      If daylight saving were still in effect it would be 04:25 British Summer Time (BST).

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    8. Re:Time Zone by evilandi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Correct. I'm a Brit in the UK; today Friday 28 October we are in BST (British Summer Time) which is GMT+1. It will remain BST tomorrow Saturday.

      At 3AM BST Sunday morning, it will become 2AM GMT. It will then be GMT through to the last Sunday in March.

      This is even more annoying than usual, because we are using Windoze laptops on a ghost hunt overnight Saturday night / Sunday morning. We are expecting very annoying data logging problems at 2AM BST/3AM GMT as Windoze automatically switches timezone. Which is why I'm recommending we use a Linux laptop which has been forced to GMT hardware clock. We're also recommending that people don't trust clocks on mobile phones or PDAs, lest these also attempt auto-changeover. You have no idea how rare wristwatches are in the UK; everyone uses their mobile phones these days.

      --
      Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
    9. Re:Time Zone by evilandi · · Score: 1

      I wrote: problems at 2AM BST/3AM GMT

      Correction: 3AM BST/2AM GMT. See how confusing it is? We really should have picked a better night for the investigation.

      --
      Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
    10. Re:Time Zone by Jaruzel · · Score: 1

      No it hasn't. GMT still exists as Time Zone, in the same way that EDT does. UTC is just a new fancy everyone-in-the-world-is-happy-about-it name for the zero offset of the meridian line. GMT was a bit to Ye-Olde-British-Empire for most people.

      -Jar.

      --
      Together, We Can Make Slashdot Better. I Do NOT Mod ACs. - Check Me Out
    11. Re:Time Zone by squoozer · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is obviously a Martian invasion plan. First they submit a story to /. that doesn't contain the timezone which confuses us a bit. Then they choose a time zone that plenty of people don't know (judging by the other comments). Then, and this is the one that really convinced me it's an invasion, they make sure that the conversion from the given timezone to to the ones used in Europe is as difficult as possible (most of Europe switches from daylight savings time to standard time on that night). This is a cunning ploy to keep us on the back foot while they get their ships of death in place. It should be evidence enough for any one.

      To arms, the Martians are coming.

      P.S. There are some dubious looking bumps in the sand on Mars. I think they might be hiding WMDs!

      --
      I used to have a better sig but it broke.
    12. Re:Time Zone by Jaruzel · · Score: 1

      Switch the laptops to Casablanca time - it's the same as GMT without the BST switch.

      Or you could just un-tick the 'auto adjust for daylight savings' checkbox until you've done the ghost hunt?

      -Jar.

      --
      Together, We Can Make Slashdot Better. I Do NOT Mod ACs. - Check Me Out
    13. Re:Time Zone by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      I'm still wondering. I have no idea how many hours from GMT EDT would be. I am not even sure that there are not multiple zones that use the EDT acronym. Like Eastern Dagestan Time, or something.

      It'd be rather more useful if times were quoted in UTC or with a quoted offset rather than using a (to most of the world) fairly meaningless acronym...

    14. Re:Time Zone by evilandi · · Score: 1

      Or you could just un-tick the 'auto adjust for daylight savings' checkbox until you've done the ghost hunt? ...and if Windoze still cocks up we can call it evidence of paranormal intervention! Result!

      --
      Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
    15. Re:Time Zone by rdoger6424 · · Score: 1


      Hey! That's when America's daylight savings time ends! Now we'll have to invade Europe!
      </bushness>
      Well, at least until 2007, when we extend DST into November

      --
      "Hello 911? I just tried to toast some bread, and the toaster grew an arm and stabbed me in the face!"
    16. Re:Time Zone by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "GMT was a bit to Ye-Olde-British-Empire for most people."

      The "G" in GMT stands for Greenwich, a town in England that houses the royal observatory. The French disputed the position of the GMT line for a couple of hundred years. They said it was ~1km to the left, they even went to the trouble of marking it on the countryside with a line of poles. Given the history of the two countries it's remarkable they settled the matter without going to war.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    17. Re:Time Zone by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "We are expecting very annoying data logging problems at 2AM BST/3AM GMT as Windoze automatically switches timezone. Which is why I'm recommending we use a Linux laptop which has been forced to GMT hardware clock."

      Are you sure that is your only option?

      Is there a ghost of a chance that your recommendation will acted apon?

      Boom-Boom! Thankyou, I'll be here all night.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    18. Re:Time Zone by nwbvt · · Score: 1
      "Then they choose a time zone that plenty of people don't know (judging by the other comments)."

      So are you claiming that this will happen in one time zone but no others? That is, if you live in the Eastern United States, you can just look up to the sky and see it, while if you live anywhere else you will see nothing (unless you adjust your clock)?

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    19. Re:Time Zone by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1
      The French disputed the position of the GMT line for a couple of hundred years.
      They disputed quite a few other things too. Generally with a singular lack of success.
      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    20. Re:Time Zone by Control+Group · · Score: 1

      At the risk of being called an MS apologist: even Windows supports not automatically changing the clock for daylight savings time. You just uncheck the box that says "automatically adjust for daylight savings" in the time zone selection dialog.

      --

      Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
    21. Re:Time Zone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'd be rather more useful if times were quoted in UTC or with a quoted offset rather than using a (to most of the world) fairly meaningless acronym...

      Maybe you should read articles on a local website? This is CNN, not CNN international. More than half the world can't even see Mars when it's at its closest. You didn't bitch that the article was wrong for them.

    22. Re:Time Zone by txmadman · · Score: 1

      ...and I, for one, welcome our new Martian overlords...

    23. Re:Time Zone by DrugCheese · · Score: 1

      We must invade mars! Not for our safety, or anything to do with us. But for the martians who wish to live in a democracy and enjoy all the freedoms and liberties that we do. Like property tax.

      --
      *DrugCheese rants*
    24. Re:Time Zone by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I thought your link was going to lead me to the "April fool" debacle, but that was even funnier.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    25. Re:Time Zone by Pfhreak · · Score: 1

      P.S. There are some dubious looking bumps in the sand on Mars. I think they might be hiding WMDs!

      Well, now all we have to do is make sure the US government knows that they also have oil, and there'll be a counter-invasion in record time.

      --
      The U.S. Constitution needs to be ammended with a "separation of business and state" clause.
    26. Re:Time Zone by serutan · · Score: 1

      For extraterrestrials reading this, what is it in Martian Standard Time?

  11. All this by Kurt+Russell · · Score: 1, Insightful

    damn light pollution! Looks like a good excuse for a road trip.

    1. Re:All this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on down to Miami-Dade, Broward, or Palm Beach County. Due to Hurricane Wilma about 55% of the people (or more) here do not have power and the night sky isn't polluted with light.

      The damm noise polution from the generators though...... :)

    2. Re:All this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong with light pollution when observing a bright planet? If anything it helps reduce the contrast, which makes out eyes overexpose due the huge amount of dark vs small circle of bright planet (I'm talking about through a telescope). I find that if I blind my self with my mobile phone I can see details on Mars better for a few seconds.

      On the other hand, light pollution sucks arse for most observing.

    3. Re:All this by yeremein · · Score: 1

      damn light pollution! Looks like a good excuse for a road trip.

      I agree with your sentiments on light pollution, but this is a bright planet we're talking about. Venus and Mars are extremely easy to pick out in a light polluted sky because they're the only "stars" you can easily see.

  12. That's close! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Road trip!

  13. The Distance... by CrackedButter · · Score: 2, Informative

    is so close, yet so far!

    1. Re:The Distance... by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 4, Funny

      Couldn't be much more from the heart.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    2. Re:The Distance... by hackstraw · · Score: 1
      is so close, yet so far!

      Funny and true. TFA says:
      Mars will still seem small to the naked eye, appearing about the size of a penny seen from 620 feet away.
      I guess I was wrong, but I thought that I saw Mars with my naked eye many times. I could never see a penny from 200 yards, I doubt 100.

      I wonder what that orange thing I've always called Mars really is? Hmm.
  14. Getting closer! by e.loser · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Second time in 60,000 years that we know of? If the last time it happened was in 2003, and this is only 2 years later, and the next time is "scheduled to be in 2018 (FTFA)", is it possible we just didn't have the technology to detect it back then?

    1. Re:Getting closer! by Ihlosi · · Score: 4, Informative
      Second time in 60,000 years that we know of?



      Planetary orbits are pretty stable (especially considering the short time frame), so it is fairly simple to calculate where Earth and Mars have been during the last 60,000 years.

    2. Re:Getting closer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "is it possible we just didn't have the technology to detect it back then?"

      Maybe. Since planetary orbits are completely unpredictable and random, we have no reliable way of knowing when Mars has been nearby.

    3. Re:Getting closer! by leenoble_uk · · Score: 1

      Why not download Celestia [Google it] and measure it for yourself over the last 60,000 years ;-)

    4. Re:Getting closer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What advanced technology do you have in mind? You can see it by eye!

    5. Re:Getting closer! by Vr6dub · · Score: 1
      Planetary orbits are pretty stable

      I would say that if these events have happened twice in two years and again in another 13, from a time sample of 60,000years, then the orbit is rather unstable. Unless, it's normal for planets to just all of a suddent shift orbit like that.

    6. Re:Getting closer! by Insensitive_Claudio · · Score: 1

      Do a google search for orbital resonance mars. It may be that planet orbits aren't as stable as we think. After all, we weren't around 60,000 years ago to witness the orbits.

    7. Re:Getting closer! by JetJaguar · · Score: 1
      I would say that if these events have happened twice in two years and again in another 13, from a time sample of 60,000years, then the orbit is rather unstable. Unless, it's normal for planets to just all of a suddent shift orbit like that.

      Well, either that, or certain people are hyping up a fairly common event to make it sound more novel than it really is. To put it in a slightly different perspective, this "story" has been trotted out every two years for about as long as I've had a telescope which is over 25 years at least. The only people that seem to remember this same story being reported every other year are those of us who have gone out every other year to see it. Now, don't get me wrong, this is a pretty cool event, an opportunity to get a new "close up" view of Mars is always interesting, however it is also misleading to imply that this is some kind of once in a lifetime event, because it isn't.

      --

      Shop Smart, Shop S-mart!

    8. Re:Getting closer! by e.loser · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but how good can you see a penny from 620 feet?

    9. Re:Getting closer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can estimate the difference in distance by the difference in brightness. Mars is now brighter than usual, so it's closer. Fairly accurate brightness measurements have been done by eye for millenia.
      So if it is a shiny penny ... ;-)

    10. Re:Getting closer! by pclminion · · Score: 1
      Do a google search for orbital resonance mars. It may be that planet orbits aren't as stable as we think. After all, we weren't around 60,000 years ago to witness the orbits.

      Uhhh, humans were certainly around 60,000 years ago.

    11. Re:Getting closer! by barakn · · Score: 1

      Yes it is normal, it's mostly due to Jupiter, which is big enough to throw the other planets around a little bit. Scientists can "solve" the n-body problem and get fairly accurate orbits going back much further in time than 60,000 years.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
  15. From article by smeenz · · Score: 4, Informative
    As I know nobody will actually read the article, I'll summarise it here:

    It won't be as close as it was in 2003, but it will be more visible to more of the earth's population This is the closest it will be until 2018 Hubble will be snapping party photos of it for posterity's sake.
    Also, here's a diagram showing the realtime orbits of the inner planets so you can see for yourself.
    1. Re:From article by DavidHOzAu · · Score: 1


      It won't be as close as it was in 2003,
      Too right.


      but it will be more visible to more of the earth's population
      Except if you live in the Southern Hemisphere... Honestly folks, we went through this two years ago. In 2003 it was visible from Melbourne, and it was much brighter. You really should been in Australia back then... that way you could now have an ego like me!

      (Thinks to self: I think it was still visible up north, except that it wasn't anywhere near as bright.)

      I'm sure you folks up North must you're kicking yourself having to wait this long. No, really, I'm sure you must be green with envy by now...

      Well just in case you aren't, I can't wait to look at this in Dad's 12" telescope. With a tracking planetary gearbox. And a nice 360 stand. We only had a 10" back in 2003, and we didn't have the CCD camera... not that I am trying to make some people here jealous. Oh noes, humble little me would never do that. Far be it for someone with my ego to fall that low...

      ...

      Ok, perhaps not. ;-)

    2. Re:From article by smeenz · · Score: 1
      Actually, I'm in Auckland.

      So yeah, it sucks for me too. I was just going on what the article said.

    3. Re:From article by DavidHOzAu · · Score: 1
      Actually, I'm in Auckland.

      So yeah, it sucks for me too

      I couldn't agree more. I live at Wide Bay in Queensland.

      Unfortunately, the Earth isn't see-through this time of year, and I won't be getting any pics until my particle accelerator comes back from the lab.

    4. Re:From article by connah0047 · · Score: 1

      Hubble will be snapping party photos of it for posterity's sake.

      Why should we do anything for posterity? They never did anything for us...

  16. For the timezone challenged by n0dalus · · Score: 1, Informative

    TFA says the timezone is Eastern Daylight Time (UTC - 0400).

    So it is at 3:25 am UTC. I don't know where in the world Mars will be visible from at that time though.
    Where I live it will be daylight, so I won't be able to see anything but the Sun as it burns into my retinas.

    1. Re:For the timezone challenged by fizze · · Score: 1

      well, but its SUNDAY in the UTC(GMT) then, isnt it ?

      this is hilarious, because daylight saving time ends one (or two ?) hours after that.
      coincidence ?

      --
      Powerful is he who overpowers his temptations.
    2. Re:For the timezone challenged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      If you feel your retinas burning, I suggest looking to another direction. If Mars is at it's closest point to Earth, it is at the exact opposite side than Sun.

      Dork...

    3. Re:For the timezone challenged by SteveAyre · · Score: 1

      Before. The clocks change at 1am.

    4. Re:For the timezone challenged by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Which is 2AM BST and means an extra hour of boozing !

    5. Re:For the timezone challenged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      Where I live it will be daylight, so I won't be able to see anything but the Sun as it burns into my retinas.

      Look DOWN, ya moroon.

      Mars is AWAY from the sun. Didn't My Very Educated Mother teach you anything when she Just Served Us Nine Plums (plus another word to be named later)????

    6. Re:For the timezone challenged by fizze · · Score: 1


      ....and certain people actually wonder why there's more (car) accidents on mondays after daylight-saving-change sundays....
      ;)

      --
      Powerful is he who overpowers his temptations.
    7. Re:For the timezone challenged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look DOWN, ya moroon.

      And while you're looking down there, twist you torso a bit, and you will see Uranus.

      Oh dear - There's one in every forum, isn't there? :(

  17. whats it in GMT by Celt · · Score: 1

    what the hell is 11:25 p.m. EDT in GMT?

    --
    "WebTV: bringing the Internet into the shallow end of the gene pool since 1995" - Martin Bishop
    1. Re:whats it in GMT by Celt · · Score: 1

      Nevermind its 03.25 GMT :)

      --
      "WebTV: bringing the Internet into the shallow end of the gene pool since 1995" - Martin Bishop
    2. Re:whats it in GMT by rizole · · Score: 1

      Check this out:
      Abbreviations

  18. once per 60'000? by Janek+Kozicki · · Score: 2, Interesting

    second time in 60,000 years. The last occurrence was in 2003.

    So the event that happens once per 60,000 years - happens now a SECOND time, just after two years?

    No (the summary is of course poorly written), in 2003 it was 35 million miles (56 000 000 km), and then it was an event once per 60,000 years. Now it is 43.1 million miles (69 000 000 km) and it is an event once per .... oops I don't know. But it happens more often ;)

    --
    #
    #\ @ ? Colonize Mars
    #
    1. Re:once per 60'000? by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      69 000 000 km ? oh, well, I can come out of the cellar then.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    2. Re:once per 60'000? by RodgerDodger · · Score: 3, Informative

      *sigh* The configuration that allows it get this close happens every 60,000 years. The cycle takes a few decade to play out.

      --
      "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
    3. Re:once per 60'000? by BushCheney08 · · Score: 1

      Thank you very much for explaining that. I was confused since it was saying that it happens every 60,000 years; last in 2003, happening now, and scheduled to happen again in 2018... :-/

      --
      Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
    4. Re:once per 60'000? by djmurdoch · · Score: 1

      The article is complete crap. Mars gets close roughly every 14 years or so, and this year is not particularly exceptional. It was closer than it will be this year in 2001, 1988, 1986, 1973, 1971, etc.

      You can use the ancient Ephem program (available everywhere) to find stuff like this.

  19. Next swing-by by phorm · · Score: 0

    The next swing-by will be 2018. If any countries were looking to visit Mars for exploration/excavation/colonization/etc, wouldn't planning for one of these time-frames be a good idea. Certainly it would save off a lot of travel distance, given that it is nearly 1/4 of the regular distance from Earth. With that in mind though, expeditions would still need to start off long before the actual event... I'm sure that it takes a rather long time to travel 43,000,000 miles.

    I don't know what speeds exactly rockets travel at, but at Mach 2 (earth relativistic since there's not air in space, but about 1200-1400MPH give or take depending on altitude)

    43000000Mi/1400 Mi/h= 30714.29 h
    30714.29 h / 24 h/day = 1280d
    1280 d / 360 d/year = 3.5 years

    So to make the next pass-by they have to leave at 2014 or so using Mach 2 as an estimate (again I have no idea on actual sustained rocket speeds, but I'm still guessing a significant lead-time)

    1. Re:Next swing-by by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mach2 ??

      Dude, you at least need 11.2km/s to get away from the earth.

    2. Re:Next swing-by by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Apollo spacecraft speed was about 25,000 m.p.h.

    3. Re:Next swing-by by Nyh · · Score: 1

      Dude, you at least need 11.2km/s to get away from the earth.

      Yes, and then you arrive at infinity with speed 0. The 11.2 km/s is the escape velocity from earth. This means: if you start from earth with a velocity of 11.2 km/s (and ignore things like air friction) you will escape earths gravity field and arrive at infinity with speed 0 without using any energy for propulsion.

      Nyh

    4. Re:Next swing-by by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Dude, you at least need 11.2km/s to get away from the earth.

      [nitpick mode] Well, nah. 11.2 km/s is a theoretical number that assumes you start at Earth's surface, don't have to go through the atmosphere, don't receive any thrust after liftoff and don't encounter any other gravity wells along the way. Sort of like "If you fire a bullet with 11.2 km/s from the surface of Earth (minus the atmosphere) into a completely empty universe, the bullet will never ever start falling back towards earth". [/nitpick mode] But other than that, what would be Mach 2 in Earths atmosphere would be quite slow for a spacecraft. Not that you can measure a spacecrafts speed outside the atmosphere in Mach - no atmosphere, no sound, no speed of sound. Duh.

    5. Re:Next swing-by by 0rionx · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't know what speeds exactly rockets travel at, but at Mach 2 (earth relativistic since there's not air in space, but about 1200-1400MPH give or take depending on altitude)

      Even a relative slow moving spacecraft travels far, far faster than the speed of sound. The average interstellar spacecraft generally cruises at somewhere around the neighborhood of 50,000 mph - roughly Mach 66. Some have been known to hit much higher speeds, but usually that's a result of a nearby planet's gravitational pull.

      According to the Guiness Book of World Records, the fastest recorded spacecraft were the NASA-German Helios probes, which hit 158,000 mph during their slingshot pass around the sun.

    6. Re:Next swing-by by heatdeath · · Score: 1

      If any countries were looking to visit Mars for exploration/excavation/colonization/etc, wouldn't planning for one of these time-frames be a good idea

      Not necessarily. Just because it's going to be closer doesn't mean that that would be the most efficient way for a rocket to get there. A rocket's path would be essentially a big orbit intersecting both earth's orbit and mars' orbit. I'd be willing to bet that the best time to send a rocket is completely disjoint from the best time to look at it through a telescope.

      --
      I'm sorry. The number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again.
    7. Re:Next swing-by by Piquan · · Score: 1

      Certainly it would save off a lot of travel distance, given that it is nearly 1/4 of the regular distance from Earth.

      While that is indeed considerably closer than it would be on the average random day, every couple of years Mars gets within about 49 million miles of earth. This event's 43.1 million miles, while smaller than usual, doesn't represent an amazingly rare 4x difference.

    8. Re:Next swing-by by madaxe42 · · Score: 1

      That'll be a Hohmann transfer orbit. Or you could use the Interplanetary Superhighway

    9. Re:Next swing-by by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I know Mach2 was just a guess but it is also a snails pace for space flight. The escape velocity for Earth is ~40,000km/h, so the spacecraft will need to travel at least that fast to ever get to Mars (might be easier from the moon, thus all the talk about a moon base). So probably Mach33-34 is a better estimate.

      "...wouldn't planning for one of these time-frames be a good idea"

      Yes, but alas someone has beaten you to it. Earth has already sent quite a few unmanned craft to Mars, all of them have taken advantage of the Mars fly-by to minimise travel time. This is what they mean when they talk about a "launch window". Using the orbits and gravity of planets and moons to get around the solar system is well understood. Have a look at the intricate looping and twisting paths of the cassini or voyager missions for an example of elegance and precision.

      I have not read TFA but being a closet space geek I find the summary confusing. Mars and Earth pass each other every 2-3yrs. Mars has a more eliptical orbit than Earth. Just draw an elipse with a circle inside of it and you can see that sometimes they will pass where the two orbits are closer together and other times where they are further apart.

      In 2003 the two planets passed each other at a point where the orbits are very close together, you have to go back 60,000 yrs to find another example of such a close fly-by. In 2005 the fly-by is the closest it has been since, well....2003, it wont get as close as the 2005 fly-by for another 13yrs, so what?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    10. Re:Next swing-by by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can an interstellar spacecraft POSSIBLY travel at Mach 66? What's the speed of sound in a vacuum, exactly?

    11. Re:Next swing-by by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The average interstellar spacecraft generally cruises at somewhere around the neighborhood of 50,000 mph - roughly Mach 66.

      Um...
      1. No one's built an interstellar spacecraft yet. Interplanetary?
      2. Mach 66 means 66 times the speed of sound. Sound doesn't exist in a vacuum.

      Oh well, in space no one can hear a nitpicker scream :-)

    12. Re:Next swing-by by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [nitpick the nitpick] more like Mach 33. For comparison, the voyagers are leaving the solar system at about 16km/s IIRC, so, yes, it is slow for a spacecraft [/nitpick the nitpick].

    13. Re:Next swing-by by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Pffft, only about .3 oo/o of warp 1. I'm not impressed.

  20. For those who aren't in the 19th century anymore by dascandy · · Score: 5, Informative

    The information in the article in SI units:

    > On Saturday, Mars' orbit will bring it 69.4 million kilometers away from Earth, with its closest pass scheduled for 3:25 p.m. UTC.

  21. Unusually close? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, I do indeed think that regular orbital patterns dictate that this is a very usual event. There is nothing strange or unusual about it, other than it may be considered a slashdot dupe.

    Ohh wait, those are quite usual anyways!

    Ohh well...

  22. watch out..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for those little green flashes!!!!! ;-)

    1. Re:watch out..... by Ulven · · Score: 1

      I already have my chicken-wire mask.

    2. Re:watch out..... by rossdee · · Score: 1

      I think the gp was refering to War of the Worlds rather than Day of the Triffids, which had nothing to do with Mars.

    3. Re:watch out..... by Ulven · · Score: 1

      No, but there were strange lights in the sky.

      I did wonder briefly at the mention, but not having read War of the Worlds the proper reference went right over my head.

  23. Fashion statement: "unusually close to the Earth" by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 2, Informative

    Mars feels it comes "unusually close to the Earth". Like in "Since a couple of years I feel irresistibly attracted to Earth." Or like suddenly Mars' orbit has changed.

    Just bear in mind that 60k years is a fart in planetary history. This coming close to Earth could have -or has been- predicted hundreds of years ago.

    --

    I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
  24. Jack Horkheimer by Menoyoda · · Score: 1

    I hope he comes out of this alive. He has a history of getting too excited about these things. Will no one think of Jack Horkheimer! Stop looking up!

  25. Hunker Down by chkMINUS · · Score: 4, Funny

    With all the natural disasters lately, I'm stocking up on food and water in case it hits.

    1. Re:Hunker Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shit its soooo cloudy here I can see it hit before it hits!!! (Sydney, Australia 12:53:02AM - 1hr 6min and 58 second before day light saving at time of typing)

  26. Re:For those who aren't in the 19th century anymor by dascandy · · Score: 1

    Oh, and on its closest point it's the size of a euro at 230 meters.

  27. Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Call Bruce Willis and Professor Frink!

  28. Why are they "hyping" this? by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1

    As was stated, it was at it's closest back in 2003. Do we really need these kinds of updates every other year? To me, the way this is presented greatly diminishes that "once in a lifetime event" feeling that was hyped up 2 years ago.

    Anyone else get the feeling the media is the new Hollywood, taking a "hit" and driving it into the ground?

    --
    People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    1. Re:Why are they "hyping" this? by davidbrit2 · · Score: 1

      You might be onto something there. I just got a Cease and Desist order from NASA for spoiling the storyline of tomorrow's Mars fly-by before release day.

  29. Strike while the iron's hot? by zaguar · · Score: 1, Informative
    Well, the iron on Mars is actually quite cold. While it is correct to say that there is iron on Mars (the red colour is caused by iron oxide on the surface), it is certainly not hot.

    The daytime SURFACE temperature is about 80 F during rare summer days, to -200 F at the poles in winter. The AIR temperature, however, rarely gets much above 32 F.

    http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q2681.html

    --
    "Sure there's porn and piracy on the Web but there's probably a downside too."
  30. The early Catholic church rang... by troon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...and they want their geocentric theory back...

    From TFA: The two planets -- normally separated by about 140 million miles -- will not be this close again until 2018.

    Normally separated by 140 million miles? On average, Earth orbits at 93m miles, Mars at 140m miles, both roughly on the same plane. That means the distance will vary periodically from around 230m miles to 47m miles. This current phenomenon is a "minimum minimum" which is why it is notable.

    It sounds like CNN looked up the orbital distance from Mars and assumed that it orbits the Earth...

    --
    Ydco co ,df C erb-y go. a Ekrpat t.fxrapev
    1. Re:The early Catholic church rang... by wombatmobile · · Score: 1

      It sounds like CNN looked up the orbital distance from Mars and assumed that it orbits the Earth...

      It still does. In Kansas.

    2. Re:The early Catholic church rang... by grimJester · · Score: 2, Funny

      It sounds like CNN looked up the orbital distance from Mars and assumed that it orbits the Earth...

      This controversy should be taught in schools. Gravity is a theory, not a fact.

    3. Re:The early Catholic church rang... by stupid_is · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I suspect they meant "on average" after having taken the 233 and 47 numbers (add them and divide by 2). Not as rigorous as the pedant /. crowd would like, but good enuff

      --
      -- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
  31. Being prepared. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Locking neck collars and cuffs.....check......whips, chains and guns........check.........rag-tag goon squad........check.........Mad Max-style vehicles.........check. Alright, I.m prepared for the after math of whatever economical, physical and enviromental damage this may cause.

    1. Re: Being prepared. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      > Locking neck collars and cuffs.....check......whips, chains and guns........check.........rag-tag goon squad........check.........Mad Max-style vehicles.........check. Alright, I.m prepared for the after math of whatever economical, physical and enviromental damage this may cause.

      You'll still need your inflatable doll, too.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  32. War!!! by BarryNorton · · Score: 1, Funny

    Don't tell me this, just as I'm (re-)reading War of the Worlds!

    1. Re:War!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry.

      The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one.

    2. Re:War!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one.
      But still they come.
    3. Re:War!!! by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but I'd stay out of Grovers Mill, New Jersey for a few days around Halloween, just in case.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    4. Re:War!!! by billjank · · Score: 1

      Hopefully there's no Illudium Q36 Explosive Space Modulator awaiting up there.

      'Specially with the recent passage of Mel Blanc...

    5. Re:War!!! by BarryNorton · · Score: 1
      Perhaps, but I'd stay out of Grovers Mill, New Jersey for a few days around Halloween, just in case.
      I was more worried about my wife in Surrey... I said read, not listened :p

      (Is it watched, as well? I've not seen the movie...)

    6. Re:War!!! by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      In Surrey, Martians are only a problem in August, so I wouldn't worry. For listening, you can also listen to the Jeff Wayne musical version of the original story (Richard Burton reading the main part). In the movie (1953), the Martians hit California but I'm not sure of the time of year. Apparently someone made another movie version recently starring a couch-bouncing loon, but I don't know too much about it.

      People in Grovers Mill should also look out for Red Lectroids named John.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    7. Re:War!!! by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      I was more worried about my wife in Surrey...

      Leatherhead to be precise...

      I too picked a rather inoppertune time to reread this classic.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    8. Re:War!!! by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      The actual quote from the book was:

      "The chances against anything manlike on Mars are a million to one," he said.

      Note that what came was not exactly manlike but rather something vaguely reminiscent of machine-piloting octopus-like creatures. So Oglevy was indeed correct that manlike beings were not flying from Mars to earth...

      I am re-reading this book too....

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    9. Re:War!!! by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      I have been thinking that it could be quite interesting to write a sequel of a secondary martian invasion in the early 21st century. Now that we have an understanding of most of the weapons that Wells wrote about (infrared lasers, poison gases, etc).

      The Martians could have come with better biological hazard containment systems, having learned from their first failed attempt.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  33. Chances from anything coming from Mars ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are a million to one?

  34. Mod Parent Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is funny!!!

  35. Strike while the iron is hot... by heatdeath · · Score: 1

    "...so we should strike the iron while it is hot."

    So...we're attacking mars preemptively?

    I guess it's better than going after Iran. Mars seems relatively defenseless for being named after the god of war.

    --
    I'm sorry. The number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again.
    1. Re:Strike while the iron is hot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't underestimate the Martians. They got one out of three spatial probes so far.

  36. Know what i dont wanna hear tonight? by todd10k · · Score: 1

    "Shit, its gonna crash!"

    1. Re:Know what i dont wanna hear tonight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those Disney people will do anything to plug their movie...

    2. Re:Know what i dont wanna hear tonight? by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, that's just a piece of Xenu's R6, according to L. Ron Hubbard.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  37. people please by macpeep · · Score: 5, Informative

    We all went to school and we all know how this works. Let's just calm down and consider how rare or not rare this event is.

    Earth orbits the sun in a nearly circular orbit at a mean distance of 1 astronomical unit (by definition of AU). Mars on the other hand orbits the sun in a less circular orbit that takes it as far as 1.67 and as close as 1.38 astronomical units from the sun. As we all know, it takes earth 1 year to orbit the sun (again, by definition of a year). It takes Mars 687 days (1.88 earth years).

    Let's put this into more "human" terms using an analogy. Let's imagine a rock in the middle of a field. And let's put two people walking in circles around the rock. One person at a distance of 10 meters and the other at a distance that varies between 14 and 17 meters from the rock. Very quickly we'll notice that the closest the people can ever come from eachother is 4 meters and the furthest they can come is 27 meters. But we also notice that as they walk around, the person closer to the rock will take 1 minute to walk around the rock and the person on the outside will take 1.88 mintues so the one on the inside will be overtaking the one on the outside roughly every other minute (once per two years in Mars-Earth terms). And whenever they overtake, the distance will be anything from 4 to 7 meters. And quite often, it will be a distance of 4 to 5 meters or so. It's not rare at all. What's rare is that it would be VERY close to the minimum 4 meters.

    So.. when we say it's "amazingly close" and "closer than in 60000 years", it's more like getting within 4.1 meters instead of 4.25 in the analogy above. We're not talking about 4 meters vs. 27 meters or anything like that.

    Conclusion: this isn't THAT special at all. Mars isn't THAT much closer at all. For example for Mars missions and such, the difference in distance is mostly irrelevant.

    Peppe

    1. Re:people please by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh, I disagree. I got this eMail a few weeks back, and it, like, said that Mars would be as big as the moon in the sky. I'd say that's pretty reliable. You, Mr. Science, are not at all reliable with all of your facts measurements and stuff like that. Jeez! If congress says Mars will be big then it must be true! They like, know stuff.


      --
      blah blah blah
    2. Re:people please by Porag_Spliffing · · Score: 1

      > and the furthest they can come is 27 meters.

      At first I thought you come closer and go further, so this should read "and the furthest apart they will be is 27 meters"

      Then I realised if the fine purveyors of spam are right perhaps they can come 27m.

      --
      Maybe you live in interesting times
    3. Re:people please by big+dumb+dog · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the analogy. It helps to put the phenomena into perspective.

      --
      "Seven years of college down the drain. Might as well join the f-ing Peace Corps." - John 'Bluto' Blutarsky
    4. Re:people please by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

      Both Mars and Earth have eliptical orbits, Mars orbit a bit more eliptical than
      Earth's. If you draw a line between the Foci of each these orbits, the lines might overlap, or more likely, be at some angle. Thus the distance between these orbits vary quite a bit, so at it's closest approach, Mars can be as little as
      35 million miles away or more than twice that distance. 2003 saw the closest, close approach in thousands of years, 2005 is seeing one almost as good.

      Rare? Not really, every 4 or 6 years brings a good close approach of Mars, and
      every 2 years the planet is worth looking at with a telescope.

    5. Re:people please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We all went to school and we all know how this works.

      and yet, you go on to dumb it down for everyone else. you must be a blast at parties.

  38. dammit by StromgBad · · Score: 1

    this is gonna fuck up my chi...

    1. Re:dammit by megrims · · Score: 1

      Nope. I don't think you typed enough of that.

  39. Re:people please [small correction] by macpeep · · Score: 1

    When I say that the difference in distance is mostly irrelevant, I meant the difference in distance of the closest approach - which happens roughly every two years. It doesn't matter much in terms of delta velocity if the distance from Earth to Mars is 0.38 or 0.42 astronomical units. It would matter much if the distance is 0.4 or 2.5 AU though, but that's irrelevant since missions to Mars are only started when the two planets are close to the closest approach. And that's no rare event at all - it happens once per two years or so.

    Peppe

  40. Sulu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and in other news, Sulu swings close to uranus.

  41. Doom by MacGod · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is just so the demons can use those teleport pads to beam themselves to Earth. Here's hoping that by the time they arrive, we've figured out how to hold a flashlight AND a gun!

    --
    "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one " -Albert Einstein
    1. Re: Doom by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      > This is just so the demons can use those teleport pads to beam themselves to Earth. Here's hoping that by the time they arrive, we've figured out how to hold a flashlight AND a gun!

      No problem, I always shoot with my eyes closed.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Doom by mooniejohnson · · Score: 1

      "Insightful"? I guess some mods live in constant fear of teleporting demons. Better not tell them about Black Mesa, here on Earth...

      --

      Elmo knows where you live!

    3. Re:Doom by trongey · · Score: 2, Funny

      Forget the flashlight. Somebody's gotta get busy scattering boxes of shotgun shells all over the place! Well, that and developing body armor that automatically jumps off of the ground and puts itself on you when you step on it.
      But what about the Leather Goddesses?

      --
      You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
    4. Re:Doom by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Funny
      Forget the flashlight. Somebody's gotta get busy scattering boxes of shotgun shells all over the place!

      You get to work on that and I'll brief everyone on the importance of putting their door and locker codes on their datapad.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  42. Mars is very close now! by David+Off · · Score: 1

    I don't know if you guys get up out of mom's basement much at night but I've noticed that Mars has been very close for a few days now.

    If you are in Europe you can see it in the east very high in the sky... around 11pm, it is the big red star, fourth rock from the sun. You can resolve it to a small disk even with 10x binoculars although my neighbour has a huge telescope which I will have to see if I can borrow.

    It may be closest at a certain time but it won't make much difference if you catch it a few hours or even days later, it is still very close.

  43. But what about getting them back? by fantomas · · Score: 1

    So this date in 2018 is a great time to put people on Mars... but what about getting them back? does that mean they've got to wait there for 13/50/ 10,000 years before they can come back.... errr.... I sense a problem here....

    1. Re:But what about getting them back? by Yakman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      but what about getting them back?

      Who says it has to be a return mission? Come on, don't you think there would be plenty of qualified volunteers for a one way mission? This is why I think China will be space pioneers (well, 2nd generation pioneers) - because they will be able to launch one way missions without too many naysayers complaining about it.

    2. Re:But what about getting them back? by watermel0n · · Score: 1

      A one way mission is not interesting. It is already proven that we can send thing to the Mars. The real challenge it to send people there and bring them back.

    3. Re:But what about getting them back? by lightningrod220 · · Score: 1
      ...because they will be able to launch one way missions without too many naysayers complaining about it.
      Except for the fact that once they get there, and it hits them that they won't be heading back, don't you think psycologically they aren't going to be ready for the mission anymore. ("Sir, what's your status? Have you landed safely?" "Who cares? I'm gonna die here anyway.") So there will be naysayers, except for the fact that they'll be on another planet.
    4. Re:But what about getting them back? by amazon10x · · Score: 1

      Who said they're coming back???


      Obviously the world is ending in 2020... I saw it in a movie so I know it's true.

    5. Re:But what about getting them back? by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      So there will be naysayers, except for the fact that they'll be on another planet.



      Well, if indoctrination, heroism and straight-out brainwashing didn't do the trick, there's still the sudden revelation that the life-support system has a remote-controlled off-switch, so they can die "here, now", or "here, 200 days from now".

  44. observing Mars by VENONA · · Score: 1

    I don't know why Cowboy Neal linked to CNN, while quoting Sky and Telescope--a very good mag. Maybe he didn't want to slashdot them?

    From the S&T site: "From now through mid-November, Mars is closer, brighter, and appears larger in a telescope than it will again until 2018! The so-called Red Planet (actually bright yellow-orange) is a real eye-catcher blazing high in the east by late evening, as it awaits your telescope. It's 20 arcseconds wide, larger than it almost ever appears. A full guide to this Mars apparition, including a surface-feature map, is in the September Sky & Telescope, page 67."

    Most US libraries have S&T, if you don't subscribe. Peel yourself away from the monitor and go have a look.

    See http://skyandtelescope.com/observing/ataglance/art icle_110_1.asp for this info and a neat shot of Mars taken through a 7" catadioptric telescope. Note that the photo was taken by a S&T editor--very probably an expert astrophotographer. Also, 7" cats of this type (Maksutov-Newtonian) do not grow on trees.

    This close approach is mainly of interest to amateur astronomers. It's an opportunity to see and photograph detail that's completely invisible in unfavorable approaches.

    Note that you don't need much in the way of dark skies to see Mars. It's bright, and dark skies are only vital when you're trying to see faint stars and anything nebulous. Comets, the Milky Way, etc. That said, dark skies do add to the beauty. Plus, if you can see that background of fainter stars, it's a chance to easily see the planets' relative motion over several nights.

    Overall, a very cool naked-eye astronomy thing. So get your geek on, and have fun.

    --
    What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
  45. Re:For those who aren't in the 19th century anymor by metricmusic · · Score: 1

    Thanks I probably wont have the means at that time go see it so it puts it into perspective what I will be missing.

    --
    http://www.livejournal.com/users/metricmusic
  46. So, does this mean... by benbob · · Score: 1

    ...that we can look forward to 12 peaceful years before the next round of war starts?

    1. Re:So, does this mean... by vertinox · · Score: 1

      ...that we can look forward to 12 peaceful years before the next round of war starts?

      No it means we'll have a new war on Saturday that will drag on for another 10 years.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    2. Re:So, does this mean... by benbob · · Score: 1

      *sigh* sounds about right

  47. Mars Swings! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    Yes, under the name Ares he bonked Venus (aka Aphrodite), the wife of Vulcan (Hephaestos), who, having his suspicions, set up a trap and caught them at it in bed with a net, and then called all the other Olympians in to see his catch, and -

    Ok, I guess porn wasn't read for the quality of the plots way back then either.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Mars Swings! by Zarf · · Score: 1

      That Mars, what a swinger!

      --
      [signature]
    2. Re:Mars Swings! by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is, while the geek was off in his workshop making cool toys, the jock was getting it on with the hot chick? There's a shocker.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  48. Re: by nmec · · Score: 1

    So near, yet so far...

  49. They killed pluto! by madaxe42 · · Score: 1

    What do the guys at fourmilab know about new years eve 2099 that we don't know? Pluto is gone in 2100!

    1. Re:They killed pluto! by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 1

      Damn, you're right. A little manual binary search discloses that it will disappear at exactly 12:00 Jan. 1st 2100.
      Spooky :)
      Maybe fourmilab has some evil, long-term plan? Too bad they gave it away in a little seemingly innocent script.

      --
      Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
  50. Some calculations by jschmied · · Score: 2, Funny

    The attraction between earth and mars is then

    6.67*10^-11*6*10^24*6.4*10^23/(54*10^9)^2 = 8,7*10^16 Newton
    (metric units)

    it seems a large number but if you see the mass of the earth 6*10^24 it means every kg recives a force of 1,5*10^-8 Newton.

    My weight is about 80 kg it means the mars attracts me with 1,2*10^-6 N what is about 0,12 mg.

    Just to get some idea of relations...

    1. Re:Some calculations by Use+Psychology · · Score: 1


      yes, a useful calculation there.

  51. Mars copying a hoax? by tommykat · · Score: 1

    Is it just me or wasn't there a recent email hoax claiming something similar but more ridiculous than this.

    --
    Do you have an oblem?
    1. Re:Mars copying a hoax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hello my name is barrister marvin martian from mars
      i have informations regearding special oppurtonity for your investment. my planet has been in recent turmoil and i can secure short distance to mars with your help only. these message are confidential. in order to aid my planet i require a deposit to the order of a few million miles which i can make from your interplanetary distance account information. please respond ungertly. god bless you and your family.

    2. Re:Mars copying a hoax? by tommykat · · Score: 1

      in order to aid my planet i require a deposit to the order of a few million miles which i can make from your interplanetary distance account information.

      I don't have one of them. I think my friend NASA does though.

      --
      Do you have an oblem?
    3. Re:Mars copying a hoax? by steve-qc · · Score: 1

      ah.. sNope! Apparently, it's true http://www.snopes.com/science/mars.asp

  52. Um, well, no by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1
    "Seeing it clearly" is much more dependent on the distance through the atmosphere you have to look through. The distance to Mars is only a teensy, tiny, itsy-bitsy, microscopically shorter right now.

    To see Mars most clearly you should wait until it's as high above the horizon as possible, not until it's a wee bit closer.

  53. Re:For those who aren't in the 19th century anymor by Captain_Chaos · · Score: 1

    Almost right:

    > On Saturday, Mars' orbit will bring it 69.4 million kilometers away from Earth, with its closest pass scheduled for 15:25 UTC.

    Or is that too 21st century?

  54. Not the escape velocity issue again... by Vampo · · Score: 1

    The escape velocity is the velocity which an object needs to have at ground level travelling upwards. Assuming that no other forces (engines, air resistance, space dust etc) are applied to that object but the gravitational pull of the earth, the escape velocity only guarantees that the object won't fall back down to earth. In fact, the eventual relative to earth speed of that object would be zero.

    The easiest way to visualise it is to imagine a bullet fired from the surface on a vertical trajectory. If that bullet travels at escape velocity the moment it leaves the gun and travels in vacuum (no air resistance) it will reach a height where it is no longer affected by the earth's gravity just as it runs out of speed.

    Escape velocity is a nice concept but is based on a number of assumptions. Assume gravity from a single point (not true unless you define your point as big as the earth), assume no friction (kind of hard to achieve unless you install a deflector dish on the bullet), the mass of the bullet is on a sigle point etc etc...

    The rockets we put in space today have absolutelly nothing to do with the escape velocity of the earth. The whole concept is based on the excertion of a force grater than the earth's gravity for an extended period of time (rockets) as well as trajectories way off from the vertical, usually spiraling out.

    1. Re:Not the escape velocity issue again... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Yes I realize that "escaping" is based on acceleration and that the velocity of an object is always relative to another object or "point in space" (whatever that means). I was deliberately aiming for a simple explanation (perhaps too simple).

      One thing that I did not think of was that previous missions to Mars have taken ~6 months. This gives an average speed over (say) 50 million miles as ~Mach4.

      "Not so fast", I hear you say, "things are misleading when everything is moving about in curves, you can't assume a fixed distance between reference points".

      Those complexities were in mind when I threw in the comment about elegance and precision. I can only assume NASA uses the Sun or the target as a refernece point when they have given out velocity figures in the past.

      The last time I studied calculus there was still no answer to the three body problem (nice animation link at the bottom). I have a BSc but I do not claim to be a maths genius or even a garden variety rocket scientist. I do however understand enough to marvel at the beauty of their geometrical creations.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  55. Imagine. . . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    . . . . . a Beowulf cluster of these?

    What? Damn!

    I'll get me coat.

  56. 2nd time in two years, 60k years since last by RPoet · · Score: 1

    Is it natural variance ... or global warming?? This, and Andy Rooney, tonight on 60 minutes.

    --
    "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
  57. hundreds of amateur images by pease1 · · Score: 1
    A world wide group of amateurs have been making images and drawings of Mars for several months and regularly - daily - post new images on several websites:

    CMO
    ALPO

    Of most interest is over the past three weeks there has been a nice dust storm that was visible with small telescopes from the US.

    1. Re:hundreds of amateur images by Rick+Richardson · · Score: 1

      Wow.

      Forget 8" telescopes. You need 15" (.4m) to see anything.

    2. Re:hundreds of amateur images by pease1 · · Score: 1

      Nah, over the years, I've routinely used a 4-inch to see plenty of detail on Mars. Here's example from 2003.

  58. Re:For those who aren't in the 19th century anymor by dascandy · · Score: 1

    hm... it might just have been in the middle of the night, so it would be am, or plain 3:25 UTC.

    However, even the official SI is from the 20th century. It's been around for 45 years now, and it's officially even accepted in the USA. They don't use it though...

  59. Red planet at midnight, sailor's Halloween fright? by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

    So, for someone mid-Atlantic, somewhere in the tropics, Mars is going to be straight overhead at its closest point. That sounds like a good start for a Martian slasher movie: A cruise liner, a bunch of teenagers, a psycho-martian who kills twice every 60,000 years...

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  60. "Seen anything unusual lately?" by matt+me · · Score: 1

    "Mars is bright tonight. Unusally bright."

  61. Re:For those who aren't in the 19th century anymor by jschrod · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Well, neither 3:25pm nor 15:25, but 03:25 UTC.

    I.e., a good thing for some chill-out at our party tomorrow. :-)

    --

    Joachim

    People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]

  62. Mars will be unusually close to Earth this weekend by kurbchekt · · Score: 1, Funny

    but, honestly, they're still just friends

  63. Watch Out by Astronomypete · · Score: 0

    for Ming The Merciless.... Flash where are you! Come on Macromedia help!!!

    --
    Better is the enemy of good enough. - Russian proverb.
  64. Re:For those who aren't in the 19th century anymor by VolciMaster · · Score: 0
    We may not be in the 19th Century, but we are in America, where we still use miles. Americans like miles. We like pounds and gallons. We've grown up with them and don't need to think about them. Other countries may like the SI system because they've grown up with it.

    In the US, we don't really care what kilometers are, unless we happen to visit Canada, and even then they're nice enough to give signs in both units.

    I personally don't like the metric system because it's too easy to make mistakes in, having witnessed lots and lots of them in physics and chemistry classes, "Oh, woops, I meant 10^3 watts of power for that hair dryer, not 10^4." Those off-by-one errors in SI make a huge difference. Sliding the decimal point around is a nifty idea, but one that's way too easy to goof up on.

  65. Strike the Iron? by Wingie · · Score: 1

    Does "strike the iron while it is hot" means shooting it with our portable airplane-pilot-blinding PowerPoint-enhancing deathrays?

  66. Human Scales... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...are the standard measures for the word "unusual".

    If you happen to be a planet or a star, then I guess your comment makes sense. For the rest of us, "unusual" does it.

  67. Re:For those who aren't in the 19th century anymor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    I personally don't like the metric system because it's too easy to make mistakes in, having witnessed lots and lots of them in physics and chemistry classes, "Oh, woops, I meant 10^3 watts of power for that hair dryer, not 10^4." Those off-by-one errors in SI make a huge difference. Sliding the decimal point around is a nifty idea, but one that's way too easy to goof up on.

    That you don't like the metric system I can understand but this is a poor excuse, given that the metric system is designed exactly to simplify calculations. You too would need to use the scientific notation e.g. to express the distance to the sun in miles. Moreover there will be all kinds of crappy conversion factors going from yards to inches, miles and whatelse. Maybe the imperial system has its merits in the construction business, but metric certainly rules for engineering/scientifical applications.

  68. Mod parent post Funny, not insightful. Jeez! by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1

    Ok, ok. I just posted a dumb comment as a joke. I think this was the intention for the parent post here. Yet it is modded 5 insightful? Is someone smoking crack? You've gotta be kidding, right? Or is that part of the joke? If not, /. should not allow Mongoloid Club members to be moderators. Jeez!


    Yes, jokes. You know, "jokes", right?

    --
    blah blah blah
  69. Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mars isn't really a planet. Mars is really some advanced --compared to out current exsistence-- spaceship which the Vulcans are using to watch us. Anyway I think I will put on my transparent aluminium when I go to view this at 3:25 GMT, yes it will be just like Star Trek: First Contact.

  70. Mars has come closer than that before by aggressor-on · · Score: 1

    It has come so close that I've been able to take a bite off it... Actually... I've eaten the whole thing... Several times! Pfff.... 43.1 million miles... Mars... Get in mah belly!

  71. Youngsters by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

    I remember the last time. Era er arr arrg was all GRA GRRRR ARR ARR ARR too. But, I was like uu uu o ee ee.

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  72. And for those who dont RTFA by Viper+Daimao · · Score: 1
    On Saturday, Mars' orbit will bring it 43.1 million miles away from Earth, with its closest pass scheduled for 11:25 p.m. EDT.
    --
    "In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
  73. Mars by Lost+Penguin · · Score: 1

    It blocks my view of Jupiter .....

    --
    I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
  74. 100 million miles closer than usual by Darius+Jedburgh · · Score: 1

    Mars orbits the Sun. So does the Earth. There simply is no 'usual' distance between Earth and Mars. Sheesh!

  75. Re:For those who aren't in the 19th century anymor by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
    I personally don't like the metric system because it's too easy to make mistakes in, having witnessed lots and lots of them in physics and chemistry classes, "Oh, woops, I meant 10^3 watts of power for that hair dryer, not 10^4."

    And when you're not using metric units, you automatically quit using the decimal system, too ?

    The "error" in your example has exactly zero to do with the metric system, but with people have trouble counting the number of zeros.

  76. Maybe... by Greyfox · · Score: 2, Informative
    11:25PM in EVERY timezone! After all, it doesn't do much good to look while the sun's still up!

    Use as directed. Comment not valid in Canada or either of the two poles. Author not responsible for alien abductions due to stargazing.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  77. Pic by Slashdoc+Beta · · Score: 1

    Pic:

    .

  78. Re:For those who aren't in the 19th century anymor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "In the US, we don't really care what kilometers are, unless we happen to visit Canada, and even then they're nice enough to give signs in both units."

    Just out of curiosity, what part of Canada have you visited that has signs in both units? I live in Winnipeg, and have travelled all across the country, and don't recall ever seeing such signs.

    Perhaps it's out east somewhere. I haven't spent nearly as much time travelling out east as I have travelling in the west.

  79. Re:For those who aren't in the 19th century anymor by anothy · · Score: 1

    I'm an American. I was born and raised here. I use the US system (the not-quite-british system; why the heck do we have different values for the pint? bah!). when i drive to canada and see gas prices in CAD/litre, i have no idea what i'm paying, and km/h is barely a step better than reporting it in attoparsec/microfortnight. but c'mon... let's not pretend that this system we're using actually makes any sense. we use it because it's what we know, and because it would be expensive and time-consuming to change. real scientists know that SI is better... even the US Army knows it's better (a "click" is a kilometer). it's fine to be parochial here, but let's admit that's what we're doing.

    also, /. has tons of non-American (or non-British) readers. converting to an international standard is probably the courteous thing to do.

    --

    i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
  80. I love this by caffeinex36 · · Score: 1

    I cant wait to read what cult killed, mass suicide, blah blah blah tomorrow morning. the hailbob guys were neat.that guy what the raddest.

  81. If you dont.... by doctorjay · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    forward this message to 10000 billion people .. you will die! Wasnt this a chain mail 3 years ago? Wasnt it supposed to be real, then it kept on circulating for years after that... But CNN and BBC is saying it so it must be real

  82. Re:Mod parent post Funny, not insightful. Jeez! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quit bitching.

    You get karma for insightful; you get none for funny. See the other 2000 posts about why funny stuff is sometimes modded up with other categories.

  83. Re:For those who aren't in the 19th century anymor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    > also, /. has tons of non-American (or non-British) readers.
    For your information, a ton is 1000 kilos which is 2207,50551 lb (there are both US, UK and international tons - I was calculating with the "metric ton").

    This was a public service announcement brought to you by jchillerup (who is Danish and uses SI-units in his country).

  84. It's called "MARS", not "The Red Planet" by Fleetie · · Score: 1

    I really HATE that people insist on getting all "creative" and arty-farty by first referring to it as "Mars" and thereafter insisting on calling it "The Red Planet". Its name is "Mars", so pigging well USE IT. What makes it even worse is that Mars is nowhere near to being red anyway. GET IT RIGHT, and stop being so limp-wristed.

    --
    "Absorbing your worst..."
  85. or perhaps 1999: by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    > On Saturday, Mars' orbit will bring it 69.4 million kilometers away from Earth, with its closest pass scheduled for @642.

    (Swatch beats)

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
  86. Fifth rock by whitehatlurker · · Score: 1

    I don't care for TFA calling Mars the 4th rock from Sol, considering that Luna is (depending on its phase) either the 3rd or 4th large terrestrial body from Sol. (Others than parent poster can read "the Sun" for "Sol" and "the Moon" for "Luna".)
    --
    Terran

    --
    .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
  87. junk science by ChrisCampbell47 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I am so tired of this story. Every 22 months it comes back and I have to explain it to all the non-technical members of my extended family who ask me about it, expecting a freaking flash in the sky or a moon sized UFO or some crazy crap like that.

    Think about this: all of these people are voters. Now extrapolate to environemental policies, energy issues, stem cell research ...

    Freedom is on the march!

  88. wow, thanks... by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    Because measuring the distance between the Earth and Mars in an arbitrary unit which is defined as 5,280 of some dude's foot is completely stupid. It's much better to measure the distance between the Earth and Mars with an arbitrary unit which is defined as one ten-millionth of the distance between the equator and the pole of one of these planets.

    (Yes, I know it isn't defined as that anymore, but that's what it is. And the new definition is even more arbitrary than the old, although more accurate.)

    I just drives me nuts when people seem to think that their units are so damn superior to others that for some reason they shouldn't have to be familiar with or convert from someone else's units.

    And finally, when measuring astronomical distances, every unit you could possibly use is as arbitrary as another.
    Meters: based upon the size of the Earth
    AU: based upon the radius of the Earth's orbit.
    light-year: based upon the time of the Earth's orbit.
    parsec: based upon the length of the Earth's day (angular rotation of Earth about its axis)

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
  89. Re:For those who aren't in the 19th century anymor by VolciMaster · · Score: 1

    All over the place near the borders in Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick.

  90. Gee, that helps. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can soooo envision 69.4 million km waaaay better than I can envision 43.1 million miles. Give me a break. Maybe if we were talking about something on the order of tens, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, and maybe even hundreds of thousands (stretching it a bit), but not millions and certainly not tens of millions.

    Besides, SI units of time are bizarre in their own way. The hour was defined as 1/24th of a day by the Egyptians because of their duo-decimal counting system (3-joints on each finger, not counting thumbs). The minute is 1/60th of an hour and the second is 1/60th of a minute because the Babylonians used a base-60 counting system. The SI definition of "second" had to be discovered so that it accurately represented what a second was, so it is defined based on something to do with cesium atoms.

    Although I grant you it is better than basing your entire system of measure on some guy's foot. But if humans had one more or less finger and the Babylonians settled on something other than base-60 (or were wiped out before they could influence other cultures) then maybe we would have 30-hour days and 50 seconds in a minute and 50 minutes in an hour. Something to think about.

  91. Once in a lifetime event! by MojoSF · · Score: 2, Funny
    As I frequently tell my visitors to the telescope ...

    "It's a once in a lifetime event! Of course in astronomy we get five or six of those a year."

    Old Town Sidewalk Astronomers

    1. Re:Once in a lifetime event! by Surt · · Score: 1

      That's why you use the word 'a' and not 'the'. It's perfectly natural that there be multiple once in a lifetime events, as long as they are in different classes.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  92. doesn't work that way by idlake · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Chinese government does not want to go down in history as a government that sends people to their death in interplanetary travel; it's bad PR, it's bad for business, and it doesn't even fit in with the philosophy underlying Chinese governmental authority.

    In any case, what would the motivation be? The only reason for manned travel to Mars in the near future is as a publicity stunt and to make people believe that the universe works like it does in Star Trek. That illusion is going to be destroyed if you plan on leaving people there to die.

    Scientifically, rovers are a far better investment right now and for the coming decades. They can stay there for months with almost no resource requirements, and they really don't have to come back.

  93. every two years is not unusual by peter303 · · Score: 1

    The "orange star" has certainly been pretty in North American skies lately.

  94. Nothing arbitrary by rduke15 · · Score: 1
    measuring the distance between the Earth and Mars in an arbitrary unit which is defined as 5,280 of some dude's foot is completely stupid

    That could depend on whose foot it is.

    But anyway, the definition is not arbitrary at all :-) :
    [A metre] is the length of the path travelled by light in absolute vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second.


    And the real beauty, of course is in that second, which happens to be exactly
    the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.

    It's NOT arbitrary. It's poetry!
  95. For those in, or near East Texas by Spock+the+Baptist · · Score: 1

    Public Viewing Session

    The observatory will be open to the public on Friday, October 28th at 8:00pm weather permitting.
    Venus shines brightly in the west-southwest just before sunset. It's second in brightness only to the moon after sunset. After night falls, you'll find Mars rising in the east. Mars is closest to Earth this week and next! It's shining brilliantly at magnitude -2.2 in Aries near the Taurus border. It rises fiery yellow-orange in the east-northeast in twilight, blazes high in the eastern sky by 10 p.m., and moves over to the west by dawn. And it's rising earlier every day. In a telescope Mars is 20 arcseconds wide. For a couple of weeks it remains essentially as large as when at its very closest on the night of October 29th. Check out recent amateur images of the planet including its dust storm here: http://skyandtelescope.com/observing/objects/plane ts/article_1612_1.asp

    SFA OBSERVATORY NOTES http://www.physics.sfasu.edu/observatory/obs.htm

    The SFA Observatory's viewing sessions are intended for visitors of all ages and are free of charge. Since these are outdoor events, poor weather conditions may force a cancellation. The current weather report can be found here. To reach the SFA Observatory dial 936-569-0102 and for maps and directions http://www.physics.sfasu.edu/observatory/tour_form .html. We have free SFA Star Charts that you can download and print http://members.cox.net/astro7/SFAStarCharts.html. To see what's up in the sky see this Week's Sky at a Glance.

    For larger groups please email me in advance so that I can have additional help available.
    In addition to our public viewing session at the SFA Observatory you may also want to attend a planetarium show on a Friday night. Here's the planetarium schedule: http://www.physics.sfasu.edu/planetarium/index.htm

    --
    "Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
  96. It's our fault, you know. by Dog135 · · Score: 1
    How about twice in 2 years, while having not occurred until 60,000 years before that?

    I blame global warming. It's also the reason for all these solar flares and earthquakes.
    --
    "That's so plausible, I can't believe it!" - Leela
  97. great, now by geekoid · · Score: 1

    it decides to start rainign in oregon.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  98. Easy by geekoid · · Score: 1

    send me. It will only be a matter of time before my ex-wife shows up.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  99. Pumpkin by wildsurf · · Score: 1

    Look, up in the sky! It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown!

    --
    Weeks of coding saves hours of planning.
  100. Gack - English as she is broken by Tired+and+Emotional · · Score: 1

    I can't resist griping that the phrase is "strike while the iron is hot" not "strike the iron ...". Someone needs to go read George Orwell's lecture on dead metaphors. Also, at no time in its passage will Mars "hover". It will just continue on its merry way in its orbit, oblivious of all those humans staring at the bottom side of clouds on earth while churning out grangrous English. Perhaps the fact that it never approaches much closer shows a deep wisdom. [/grump]

    --
    Squirrel!
  101. Re:Mod parent post Funny, not insightful. Jeez! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are a queer. If you are too much of a little girl to do anything but post anonomously, then go home to your parents basement and play Quake or watch spank-the-monkey movies or whatever it is that you do. Maybe write bad code or try to haxx0r 0tHer p33ples boXe$ cuz u-r 1337. Anyway you slice it, you are a flaming pile of dung.

    Oh yeah...your dad looks like a nice guy.

  102. Re:For those who aren't in the 19th century anymor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    also, /. has tons of non-American (or non-British) readers.

    For your information, a ton is 1000 kilos which is 2207,50551 lb (there are both US, UK and international tons - I was calculating with the "metric ton").

    Another interesting fact is that a (metric) ton is equivalent to approximately 5.495 standardized slashdot readers.

  103. That Dilbert list by Clueless+Nick · · Score: 1

    MS must love it! Not a single mention of Microsoft or Bill Gates anywhere. Guess the intersection of Dilbert.com readers and Slashdot.com readers includes just you and me. -clueless

    --
    Chat with other atheists http://secularchat.org
  104. Spag Monster going down! http://tinyurl.com/cyqph by newpath4comVersion2 · · Score: 0

    The Flying Spaghetti Monster is going down! http://tinyurl.com/cyqph . Too much uhghh! Gravity. Liked your comment about Mars splatting us. Gives us all a goal. All dimensions are visible galaxies: http://tinyurl.com/eyf8b . Universal Vacuum Energy of Outer Space is pulling us apart, or at least to where we are today. Perhaps the FSM creature should travel to Alaska. They're going to be a very important City-State once the planet explodes & they go flying off as Planet Alaska: http://tinyurl.com/axb3p !

  105. viewing by Digitus1337 · · Score: 1

    My roommate and I drove off campus to one of the darker parts of the area to watch the planet and got hassled by police at about 11:20, which wouldn't be so bad in itself except we were made to stand facing them with an unneccesarily strong spotlight in our eyes, killing any hopes of seeing very well.

  106. Re:For those who aren't in the 19th century anymor by dascandy · · Score: 1

    You do care what a mile is? There are around 8 different types of miles, which means that if you're driving 70 mph on your speedometer you could be pulled over for both speeding and driving too slow, since there are at least two different miles that are either longer or shorter. If you'd just invent some sort of system to make it all logical and in a certain base system (so you have ONE unit for something, not hundreds of units) you would be all set. And somebody did, lo and behold, and the only people that are practically ignoring it (officially everything is even metric!) are the US. Why?

    You tell me.

  107. Mars Swings Unusually Close to Earth by g_b_hall · · Score: 1

    'Fraid to say, but this info comes 2 years too late!