Slashdot Mirror


Orbiter Successfully Enters Orbit

dylanduck writes "Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter has slipped safely into orbit - unlike two of the last four orbiters NASA sent to Mars. Remember Mars Climate Orbiter and the mix up between metric and English units? MRO is going to send back 34 trillion bytes of data, more than all the previous missions put together." From the article: "The spacecraft will use a suite of six instruments, including the most powerful camera ever sent to another planet. This will image objects as small as 1-metre wide and should be able to snap pictures of the Spirit and Opportunity rovers. The instruments will track the planet's weather, geology and mineralogy, and even probe about a kilometre beneath its surface to hunt for water."

156 comments

  1. For more information by iced_773 · · Score: 5, Informative


    NPR has an area on their website covering not only this orbiter but past probes as well.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=5257061

    1. Re:For more information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How about just "Mars Orbiter successful"

      Because it's not successful yet. The orbit will be useless until months of further atmospheric braking are complete. The original headline more accurately describes the status.

    2. Re:For more information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the title of the article, FFS. The "Orbiter" has been successful... once you get into the article you provide more detail on its future tasks.

  2. should be interesting by majortom1981 · · Score: 1

    I watched the special about this on the discovery channel. Even though europe's orbiter images below the surface this one does it with more detail. This is basically being used to make more detailed full planet maps of the surface. Can't wait to see the first pictures from it.

    1. Re:should be interesting by Cicero382 · · Score: 1

      Not bad for a bunch of smelly apes just down from the trees, eh?

    2. Re:should be interesting by SlySpy007 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, the radar instrument on Mars Express (MARSIS) and the radar instrument on MRO (SHARAD) are made by the same group from the Italian Space Agency. The MARSIS radar is capable of detecting features further below the surface than SHARAD, but as you mentioned SHARAD will have a greater amount of detail.

      All in all this will be a fantastic mission -- it's been well thought out. For instance, HiRISE (the extremely high resolution camera, made by Ball Aerospace) is co-aligned on the spacecraft body with CTX (the context imager, built by Malin Space Science Systems), so that during the science phase they'll take a context image (which will cover a few miles squared) and then do high-res imaging of the same area with HiRISE.

  3. Just read about it by FST · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just read about this two hours ago. Apparently, the orbit insertion was a critical moment in the mission, as two of the last four orbiters NASA sent to Mars (mentioned in summary) did not survive the final approach. Mars Observer spacecraft fell silent on approach in 1993, probably because of a leak caused when its propulsion system was pressurised. And the Mars Climate Orbiter probably broke up in the planet's atmosphere in 1999 due to a mix up between metric and Imperial units (also mentioned in summary).

    --
    46487 466780 252994 376409 96920 39622 205366 244315 622115 512361 668040 63608 259203 955314 811176 652718 166330 23922
    1. Re:Just read about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Thank you for summarizing the summary.

  4. Late Breaking News: by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 3, Funny
    Today a mysterious object began appearing in our sky. The population panicked after they heard rumors saying that the object came from the evil blue planet. To calm the population, K'Breel, speaker for the council of Elders, said:

    We are not to worry. Let us remember that our cloaking technology will keep
    us safe from being noticed by the inhabitants of the evil blue planet. Our scientists are studying the artificial satellite and have concluded that it is a very primitive technology. We are not to fear.

    Besides, our plan to destroy the evil blue planet have not been hindered in any way.


    When someone asked why this satellite couldn't be destroyed as the other two alien satellites that were sent by the blue planet inhabitants, K'Breel ordered the traitor's immediate execution. This was the first case of someone being executed for stripping the word "evil" from the phrase "evil blue planet", according to the new law.

    (My apologies to TripMaster Monkey)
    1. Re:Late Breaking News: by node+3 · · Score: 4, Funny

      (My apologies to TripMaster Monkey)

      Don't worry, he still owes us an apology for his sig.

  5. trillion? by mtenhagen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "34 trillion bytes of data" who on earth (or mars) wrote this? Dont we have mega/giga/tera any more?

    For christ sake this is slashdot!

    --
    200GB/2TB $7.95 Coupon: SAVE90DOLLAR
    1. Re:trillion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      No we don't. We're in a transition period. To be clear people have to use "trillion bytes" or "tebibyte". "terabyte" is currently ambiguous.

    2. Re:trillion? by NitsujTPU · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, I don't think that it's so much that it's actually ambiguous as it is that people are willing to nod to some imbiguity to keep their corporate funding sources out of hot water. Simple fact, a megabyte is 1024k, and a kilobyte is 1024 bytes, and a byte is 8 bits. Any other definition only allows you to pass of cheap hardware as if it were a more expensive counterpart.

    3. Re:trillion? by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 1

      272 Trillion Bits of Data

    4. Re:trillion? by jandrese · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, at least it's a real unit. They could have reported it in Libraries of Congress or some other useless unit.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    5. Re:trillion? by pe1chl · · Score: 1

      Maybe they wanted to avoid confusion about units this time?
      When it says gigabyte, who knows if it is 10^9 or 2^30 ???

    6. Re:trillion? by greylion3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You mean, like 4.7 GB DVDs?
      Or 400 GB harddrives?
      Or (now obsolete) '1.44 MB' floppies? (which was actually 1.44x1000x1024 bytes).

      Sorry, but the (SI) metric system's prefixes for binary numbers isn't going to be changed, just because you think kilo should mean 1024.
      Use kibibyte(1024 bytes), mebibyte(1048576 bytes), gibibyte(1073741824 bytes) and so forth. Otherwise, you wouldn't know whether a kilohertz is 1000 or 1024 hertz, or if a kilobit is 1000 or 1024 bits - which one is your linespeed measured in?

      The misconception has also been magnified enormously, because Windows shows this incorrectly.
      If there are 5,000,000,000 bytes of free space on a partition (called 'drive' in Windows), it shows '4.65 GB' of free space, which is wrong.

      Even Microsoft isn't consistent in using one or the other way - I've read many articles in their support-database, where they use both (although rarely in the same article).

      --
      Privacy begins with ..
    7. Re:trillion? by Zaatxe · · Score: 1

      Maybe that's because they use commercial hard disk units to store this data. A 40-Gigabytes hard disk, for an instance, can hold 39,999,500,288 bytes. This is so confusing... what were I talking about again?

      --
      So say we all
    8. Re:trillion? by Ignominious+Cow+Herd · · Score: 1

      Just because some people or companies present their information incorrectly, doesn't mean we ever needed a new 'standard'. When discussing length, mass, volume, etc. kilo == 1000. When measuring data kilo == 1024. It is and always has been easy to distinguish the two. There is no ambiguity and no need for Mebbibytes. The solution is still searching for its problem.

      --
      Lump lingered last in line for brains, and the ones she got were sorta rotten and insane.
    9. Re:trillion? by ferd_farkle · · Score: 1

      Apparently, you haven't been keeping up with developments in metrology.

      34 trillion bytes == "as much as contained by a video store"

    10. Re:trillion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Do you believe that they are going to send back exactly '34 trillion bytes of data'. What, does it blow up after sending '34 trillion bytes of data'.? Maybe some common sense wouldn't go amiss. Obviously it is an approximation, so who give 2 shits whether each kilobyte has 1024 or 1000 bytes in it.

    11. Re:trillion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is windows incorrect in this respect? 5*10^9/(2^30) ~=4.65 and giga when referring to data has long meant the corresponding power of two exponent.

    12. Re:trillion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like video stores?

    13. Re:trillion? by Zenmonkeycat · · Score: 1

      But is it in terabytes or tebibytes?

      --

      *****
      Dear Mary,
      I yearn for you tragically,
      A.T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.

    14. Re:trillion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exceptions are fun. Let's have kilo == 1016 when weighing strawberries, and kilo == 1043.7 when measuring land properties. See where this is going? Use NEW NAMES for your fancy new prefixes and leave the metric system alone.

    15. Re:trillion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donald Rumsfeld is giving the president his daily briefing. He concludes by saying: "Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed in an accident" "OH DEAR GOD NO!!!" George W. Bush exclaims. "That's terrible!!" His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as the president sits, head in hands. Finally, the President, devastated, looks up and asks.......... "How many is a Brazillion??!" from Bash.org

    16. Re:trillion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From my experience on slashdot, if they would have said "34 terabytes", some n00b would have asked "metric or binary terabyte?" and a thread 10x bigger than this whould have followed trying to answer that question, even if you and me don't give 2 shits about it.

    17. Re:trillion? by rossdee · · Score: 1

      Bytes aren't a 'Metric' unit. They are not even decimal, they are binary. It doesn't make sense to confine powers of 2 to units of powers of 10.

    18. Re:trillion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prefixes don't relate to what meters or bytes "are", just how many of them you have.

  6. Beagle 2 by mallardtheduck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If it can spot Spirit and Opportunity, maybe it can find out what happned to Beagle 2?

    1. Re:Beagle 2 by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      Hopefully so. But then again, there's quite a chunk of area it could be in.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    2. Re:Beagle 2 by tigerc · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, the Mars Global Surveyor did take a picture of (albeit farther away) of Spirit's landing site-tracks, heat shield, and parachute. You can't see the actual rover. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mgs_mer.gif

      This might be of interest to you. From the nasa website: "The Mars Orbiter Camera can resolve features on the surface of Mars as small as a few meters or yards across from Mars Global Surveyor's orbital altitude of 350 to 405 kilometers (217 to 252 miles). From a distance of 100 kilometers (62 miles), the camera would be able to resolve features substantially smaller than 1 meter or yard across" Take a look at the pictures on this site: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/mg s-images.html especially the Mars Odessey as seen by the Surveyor

      The Surveyor orbits at 235 miles above Mars.

    3. Re:Beagle 2 by SlySpy007 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In addition, there is a real hope that we'll finally be able to find the remains of MPL (Mars Polar Lander, failed lander mission which probably crashed due to an improperly interpreted sensor measurement).

    4. Re:Beagle 2 by uncoveror · · Score: 1

      Beagle 2 was about to discover something it wasn't supposed to see, so the Zhti Ti Kofft blew it to hell.

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
  7. most powerful camera? by wildzer0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why is the new camera with a resolution of 1 metre better than the current camera on Mars Global Surveyor, which is able to deliver some images with a resolution of 50 cm? See here for example pictures with this resolution.

    1. Re:most powerful camera? by JetJaguar · · Score: 5, Informative
      The msss specifications are a little misleading. They are sampling at 50 cm/pixel, but that isn't really the same as the resolving power. The actual resolving power is roughly twice the sampling rate, or 1 meter.

      HiRISE, under the best of conditions, will do about 30 cm/pixel sampling, giving it a resolving power of just over half a meter. So it is indeed the most powerful camera in Mars Orbit.

      --

      Shop Smart, Shop S-mart!

    2. Re:most powerful camera? by mopomi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      HiRISE also doesn't need to use extra spacecraft fuel to achieve its 30 cm resolution; MOC has to slew the entire spacecraft against the velocity vector in order to stay on target. HiRISE gets its high resolution from superior optics (this is the largest telescope ever sent on an inter-planetary mission) and from superior camera design (14 CCDs, insanely fast electronics, etc.).

    3. Re:most powerful camera? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      It will depend upon orbit distances and locations.
      From what I remember, the MGS orbits usually take it further away from the planet, its only on a number of very low sweeps that it can get close enough for the really high detailed images.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    4. Re:most powerful camera? by master_p · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they will photograph Cydonia in daylight with this camera, to set the dispute over the Mars face once and for all. One or two good photographs will do. But they most probably will not, for some unknown to me reason, fueling conspiracy theories and damaging NASA's credibility.

      I know that NASA has published photographs that prove the "face" of Mars is not a face at all, but the published material is heavily edited...

    5. Re:most powerful camera? by JetJaguar · · Score: 1

      They will most certainly image Cydonia, but it doesn't matter what they find, because no amount of contrary evidence will convince Richard Hoagland and his woo-woo followers that its not a face. Your comment about material being heavily "edited" are exactly the kinds of things that Hoagland and his cohorts say to keep up the hoax. What Hoagland doesn't say is that his original pictures went throught far more processing than anything that the latest pictures have gone through. The modern cameras produce far better data, with the far less processing needed to create usable images than anything that Viking ever did.

      --

      Shop Smart, Shop S-mart!

    6. Re:most powerful camera? by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 3, Informative

      They already re-imaged it: Linky

      Though, like you said, it doesn't matter: If you disagree with him, you're part of the conspiracy!

    7. Re:most powerful camera? by macpeep · · Score: 1

      The new HiRISE camera has a maximum resolution of 30 cm - not 1 m. MGS on the other hand, has a resolution of 1 m. Howerver there's a trick you can do. The MGS camera, like many other spacecraft cameras, consists of a single sensor line. When you fly in orbit on mars, that field of view of that single sensor line sweeps over the terrain like a broom being pushed. This push-brooming technique with a single sensor line means you can get an image that is as wide as the sensor line, but as long as you want. You just keep recording data and the result is an image that has arbitrary height. Now here's the trick: if you roll against the forward motion the "broom" will not move forward in the terrain with the same velocity as the spacecraft. This is similar in idea to sitting in a moving car and turning your head to view something on the side of the road rather than just looking straight out and let the object on the side of the road go by your field of view quickly. As a result, they can roll the spacecraft so that any given spot in the terrain basically gets imaged twice (because each recorded "scanline" will overlap). This gives higher resolution in one dimension (in the direction of spacecraft travel). That's why MGS has produced certain images with 50 cm resolution in one dimension and 1 m resolution in the other dimension.

      Peppe

    8. Re:most powerful camera? by master_p · · Score: 1

      That's exactly the kind of image that fuels the conspiracy. Could we have a natural daylight image without any processing?

  8. ONE TRILLION DOLLARS!!!! by Kittie+Rose · · Score: 5, Funny

    Man, that's a lot of data to be sending back. I just hope those funny little Green Men aren't going to be using up all the space bandwidth looking at porn from Uranus.

    --
    EpiAdv - if you like Pokey the Penguin, try this comic!
    1. Re:ONE TRILLION DOLLARS!!!! by shmlco · · Score: 1
      Porn? No. But torrents are a major issue, as they find the caterwauling of your Britteny Spears to be rather soothing. In fact, so much so that we have...

      Oh frack! Belt-azr-ses, I've blown my cover! If you're monitoring this secure communcations channel I request immediate evac!

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    2. Re:ONE TRILLION DOLLARS!!!! by TrevorB · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I had to actually check out what the MRO bandwidth actually *was*

      According to the MRO telecommunications page, the max bandwidth from MRO is 6 mbps. That's faster than my Cable internet connection!

      Also, according to this page, our slashdot article summary is wrong. MRO is sending back 34 terabits, not 34 terabytes. Still that's a lot of (geology) porn. Looking forward to it. I wonder if the DSN guys will throttle their bandwidth?

    3. Re:ONE TRILLION DOLLARS!!!! by barnzi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the ping is astronomical.

      --

      Official threat to Homeland Security
      University of Surrey - http://www.surrey.ac.uk

  9. Not English by Gonoff · · Score: 3, Informative

    Pounds, miles, hogsheads etc are not "English" units. Please call them by their correct name "Imperial Units". This is not a joke name, it is what I was taught to call them when I was a child.

    I went to an English "Public School" and am now over 40. I only know my weight in kilogrammes. We went metric a long time ago!

    --
    I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    1. Re:Not English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never did say english.

    2. Re:Not English by Decaff · · Score: 5, Funny

      I went to an English "Public School" and am now over 40. I only know my weight in kilogrammes. We went metric a long time ago!

      If only we had. There are miles to go yet before we have fully.....

    3. Re:Not English by Quirk · · Score: 1
      I went to an English "Public School"

      But are we to take it you went to what we call a private school? Did you place "Public School" in quotes to show you meant private school, or, did you place "Public School" in quotes to show you meant public school as we mean public school, which is to say funded by the government and open to all?

      English and American, two people separated by a "common language"... can't remember who said that... Mencken?

      --
      "Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
      Cohen
    4. Re:Not English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I only know my weight in kilogrammes. We went metric a long time ago!

      What's your weight in stone?
      How fast do you drive on the motorway?
      What size containers can you buy milk in?

    5. Re:Not English by ajpr · · Score: 1

      And we use kph! and i never measure my weight in stones.

    6. Re:Not English by Smauler · · Score: 1

      I went to an English "Public School" and am now over 40. I only know my weight in kilogrammes. We went metric a long time ago!

      Then you're pretty unusual - everyone I know who I tell my weight to in kilos just stares at me blankly. We have a long way to go before we go metric, everyone uses miles as has previously been mentioned, and most people still quote their weight in stones, which no one in the world uses apart from us. The funny thing is I accidently used stones to an American a while back, and he said he didn't understand our stupid metric system.

    7. Re:Not English by bloobloo · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, "English units" is an accepted term for a relatively consistent set of units including feet, BTUs etc. Any set of engineering steam tables comes in SI and "English" units. And most of the time they don't match imperial either (eg US gallons)

    8. Re:Not English by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Informative

      English? The English don't use them any more. Imperial? That went out in the 1950's (something to do with a guy named Ghandi).

      If you want to be clear and accurate in your adjectives, pounds, feet, miles and such are referred to as part of the "US customary system" or "USCS" (contrast with "SI"). You abandoned it, we're still using them (and helped make the improvements to them that you didn't adopt until 50 years later), you don't get to claim them as yours any more. :P

    9. Re:Not English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but American Gallons are English Units - We ripped the Americans off by giving them 6 Imperial pints to the gallon :)

    10. Re:Not English by Seraphim1982 · · Score: 1

      The U.S. Customary System is not the same thing as the British Imperial System.
      As a random example, a gallon in the British Imperial is about 120% of the size of a gallon in the US Customary System.

    11. Re:Not English by Zaatxe · · Score: 1

      "Imperial Units"? And what are meters, kilograms and liters? "Rebel Alliance Units"?

      Well, besides the jokes, I must say I got pretty amazed when I went to London last november and noticed that the metric system is pretty much present there. All the products I saw in the supermarkets were measured in grams, kilograms or liters. The (few) termometers were even showing the temperature in degrees C! Not mentioning the road signs measuring distantes in kilometers or meters and speed in kilometers per hour. The only two exception were two old road signs, one showing a distance in yards and the other one showing speed at miles per hour.

      Kudos on english people! They turned down the "Dark Side of the Units"!

      Legal disclaimer: calling the Imperial Units System "the Dark Side of the Units" is just a Star Wars joke. If you live in a place in a place that uses Imperial/English units, please, no ofense intended

      --
      So say we all
    12. Re:Not English by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      I expect he meant private - he'd have said "State school" is he meant a government funded school - it's the standard term in England and one that's easy to understand despite "common languages".

    13. Re:Not English by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      Road signs in London are in miles. They rarely actually specify units, so what made you think they were kilometers?

      Speed limits that are explicitly stated are usually either "30" or "40" - both meaning mph. 30kph is very slow...

      But yes, supermarkets have everything in metric, by law. I think you can specify imperial units as well, but everything has to be sold in metric units. For example, we get 568ml bottles of milk (although most milk is now sold in integer or half integer numbers of litres - it's just delivered milk [which is getting quite rare] that's still pint bottles).

    14. Re:Not English by whitehatlurker · · Score: 1
      Our pints are bigger too ... pour me another, barkeep.

      Cheers.

      --
      .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
    15. Re:Not English by MrFlibbs · · Score: 2

      According to quotationspage.com, it was George Bernard Shaw:

      "England and America are two countries separated by a common language."

    16. Re:Not English by JohnsonWax · · Score: 1

      I must be older than you. They were called "Trade Federation Units" when they were taught to me.

    17. Re:Not English by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "a gallon in the British Imperial is about 120% of the size of a gallon in the US Customary System."

      Yes, but 9 times out of 10 you're not allowed to use them as a unit of measure.

    18. Re:Not English by lisaparratt · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don't know - I know what it is in kilos, but I'm sure as hell not letting you geeks know what it is.
      Don't drive.
      1 litre, 2 litres, and 3 litres. /me waves from the UK.

    19. Re:Not English by Timmmm · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ok here is a definitive list:

      People weight: Most people use stones colloquially, lots use kg though.
      Milk: Supermarkets sell in units of 1,2,4,6 pints (though they are marked in ml).
      Some shops sell in 500ml etc but it isn't very common. Delivered milk is in pints.
      All other food: Sold & marked in metric units.
      Road signs: All in miles, mph, and yards.
      Petrol: Litres
      General distance: Miles
      Clothes dimensions: Inches.

      All science/engineering is done in SI units. God knows why you would use anything else.

    20. Re:Not English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /me waves from America, wondering if it the custom of all Brits to answer questions not addressed to them.

    21. Re:Not English by bohemian72 · · Score: 1

      This is somewhat a blanket reply to many of the replies to this metric comment.
      Everytime this comes up, you see a bunch of people getting all superior about the metric or SI units and maybe they should. I'm not going to judge that now. You also get a bunch of comments from people saying "In Europe we... ", "In England we... " "Everywhere, except the United States,... " The thing is, no one really knows how true that is. What everyone means is "I was taught..." and "I'm assuming everyone in my region (nation, continent)..."
      While I'm sure there are places in England that have largely completed the conversion to metric units, I can tell just watching British television and reading BBC on the web that it's still not uncommon for people there to use the English or Imperial units. This is especially true of miles and English speaking places will never lose their "pint". Whichever pint that may be.
      I would expect France to be completely metric, but I don't KNOW that. There are little pockets of people doing their own thing the world over and France is no exception.
      As much as everyone would like to say "Everyone in my *fill in the blank* has gone metric," There's always going to be someone who is the exception. About the best one can say is that "Everyone in my experience uses the metric system."

      I don't know if this added anything particularly useful to the conversation, but hopefully it addresses the habit around here of using generalities.

      --
      The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return.
    22. Re:Not English by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      What's your weight in stone?
      somewhere between 15 and 16

      How fast do you drive on the motorway?
      i don't drive myself but the speed limit is 70 mph and in reality lots of people go arround 80 mph

      What size containers can you buy milk in?
      doorstep deliveries still come in 1 pint glass bottles. Not sure what the supermarkets are doing.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    23. Re:Not English by Diag · · Score: 1

      Ok here is a definitive list:

      We're a bit more metricised here in Australia...

      People weight : Most use kilograms
      Milk : Litres
      Other food : Grams, litres
      Road signs : Kilometers
      Petrol : Litres
      General distances : Kilometers (my grandfather would still use miles, were he still alive)
      Clothes : We have the wonderful situation where half of our clothing is in "US sizes" and the other half in "UK sizes". It can make buying shoes difficult. A pair of leather shoes will probably be UK size, but a pair of Nike runners will be US size. The same can happen with shirts. Regardless, inches it is.

      The interesting one is a person's height. Most still use "imperial". I am 6'1"

      --
      Serving Suggestion: Defrost
    24. Re:Not English by Nick9000 · · Score: 1

      Hmm All other food: Sold & marked in metric units. Yes, very carefully put, Sold in metric because it's the law, and as described here if you do otherwise you'll be in trouble (thanks EU). Thing is though, most people (I know) don't go the local market to buy half a kilo of carrots, they'll still go buy a pound. I'm English and agree with have a mishmash here. I walk four miles to work but still have another 5Kg to lose (and another 2 inches of my waist). It's even more complicated than that. For temperature, I tend to think in Centigrade (or should that be Celsius now?) in the in the winter (Hmm, minus 2 tonight) but Fahrenheit in the summer (gosh, must be in the eighties today!).

    25. Re:Not English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I went to an English "Public School" and am now over 40. I only know my weight in kilogrammes. We went metric a long time ago!

      Weight in kilogrammes... hmmm, I think I tried putting that on a physics quiz in middle school once and got a big bright red X on that one.

      Once the majority of the US figures out how to measure a weight in a mass unit, we'll make the switch. For now, we'll measure weight in a quirky weight unit. :)

    26. Re:Not English by barnzi · · Score: 1

      Brits (Including Welsh, Scots, NI, et al) are truly the cosmopolitans of measuring systems.

      I guess that the mix is more to do with circumstances. For example, when I'm cycling I tend to work exclusively in Km and km/h, because it's easier (well, at least to me, anyway). When I'm driving, I work in miles and m/h, because that's how the speed limits are defined. When I'm doing scientific type stuff (e.g. playing with satellites) I work exclusively in metric SI units because it's far easier and less prone to error. However, if you asked me my weight in stones/ounces I wouldn't be able to tell you.

      So, yeah. A mix. However, I guess that it is more because of historic hangovers from imperial units rather then preference. A lot of the time when we work with imperial units it's just because it's convenient.

      --

      Official threat to Homeland Security
      University of Surrey - http://www.surrey.ac.uk

    27. Re:Not English by Bobsledboy · · Score: 1

      I think the reason everyone still seems to use imperial for height is that it's just a lot easier to picture in terms of a largish unit, rather than really large (feet) or really small (cm).

    28. Re:Not English by BeardsmoreA · · Score: 1

      No one seems to have pointed out the example that leaps to my mind (and you've omitted above)
      Beer, pints (by law still I think)
      spirits, ml (25/35/50)

    29. Re:Not English by lisaparratt · · Score: 1

      On a forum where the entire point is ad hoc group discussion? Why certainly!

  10. At the press release... by Centurix · · Score: 1

    "Well, ladies and gentlemen of the press, we have successfully received 34 trillion bytes of data from our orbiting probe around Mars. Thanks to the support of top compression and encoding experts from the Join Picture Experts Group, we think we've found a pair of breasts near the polar ice cap. This, of course, is not only a strong indication of life on Mars, but states that the alien adult entertainment industry is very popular."

    --
    Task Mangler
  11. Four out of five ain't bad ... by eck011219 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well, shoot - I guess you can't hit Mars EVERY time you shoot something at it ... still, an 80% strike rate is pretty good for wartime.

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  12. Thanks Zonk, for 'editing' by Gothmolly · · Score: 0, Troll

    Good job, leaving the troll in the submission.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  13. "Orbiter Successfully Enters Orbit" by C-Diddy · · Score: 1

    This certainly must be the bottom story of the day, just like "Fireplace Was Source of Blaze"--headline, Mobile (Ala.) Register, March 6.

    --
    "Me fail English? That's unpossible." - Ralph
    1. Re:"Orbiter Successfully Enters Orbit" by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      I am Orbiter! I orbit! I like to orbit! Watch me orbit! Orbiting makes me happy! My purpose is to orbit! I am Orbiter!

      Orbit! Orbit! Orbit!

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:"Orbiter Successfully Enters Orbit" by Aidski · · Score: 1

      But, seeing how 2 orbiters DIDN'T properly enter orbit, it's not a given that an orbiter will enter orbit. Therefore it is news. Just like not all fireplaces cause fires. Otherwise we'd have a very ravaged society.

  14. google mars by demmer · · Score: 1, Interesting

    it would be cool if they added the 1m data to google maps.

  15. Love the title by rholliday · · Score: 4, Funny

    Orbiter enters orbit.

    In other news Voyager has gone on a voyage, Mariner has ... marinated ... okay, the joke's falling apart now.

    --
    Xbox reviews.. We think they're funny.
    1. Re:Love the title by Winlin · · Score: 2, Funny

      And Magellan is gellin' like a felon. Please forgive me.

  16. The fallback mission. by expro · · Score: 4, Funny

    and even probe about a kilometre beneath its surface to hunt for water

    This was the fallback mission in case it deorbited by mistake.

  17. Orbiter slips into orbit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course is slipped into orbit; it's an orbiter, and that's what orbiters do best!

  18. resolution of camera by Froze · · Score: 1

    Can someone with some knowledge of orbital cameras tell me why the resolution is only ~1 meter?

    I remember reading a Pop. Sci. article back in 1980 or so that showed declassified spy satellite images of someone in Central Park NY holding a book and you could read the title (approx. 1 inch high lettering). Is it not useful to have that much detail or what?

    --
    -- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.
    1. Re:resolution of camera by odyaws · · Score: 2, Informative
      The pixel size (what most probably think of as resolution) is really 30-60 cm, enabling scientists to resolve features around a meter in size with a few pixels, so "1-meter resolution" is a little misleading. For more information on the camera see the mission web site.

      Are you sure the pics in that Pop. Sci. article were from orbit? Many very impressive "spy satellite" pictures out there actually came from U-2 spy planes. I don't think we had that kind of resolving power from orbit 25 years ago.

      --
      Still trying to think of a clever sig...
    2. Re:resolution of camera by DestroyAllZombies · · Score: 1

      Because they only have to loft those telescopes into earth orbit; it's a lot more expensive to send it to Mars. And people are willing to pay for images of the Earth (althtough we may never know exactly who they are, or how much). HiRISE is a pretty big instrument, for Mars.

      --
      This login name for sale.
    3. Re:resolution of camera by JetJaguar · · Score: 3, Informative
      To get resolution that high, you would need a much larger mirror. The resolution is inversely proportional to the diameter of the mirror. Even though MRO will be in the lowest orbit of all the current orbiters, it would still need a much larger (and heavier) mirror to be able to resolve sub-centimeter features on the surface. Such a requirement would have made MRO much bigger, much heavier, and much more difficult to send out to Mars. I don't have the figures handy, but I'm guessing that the HiRISE camera would probably need about a 2 meter mirror to even begin to come close to this resolution, which is about 4 times larger than what it has.

      Also, be wary of stuff that has been "declassified." The spy satellites can do some pretty amazing stuff to be sure, however I am a little skeptical of this claim. I've got a little experience with some of the people that do this work, and to be sure they can do some incredible stuff, but reading 1 inch tall lettering on the ground from space would be quite a stretch even now, and likely impossible back in 1980.

      --

      Shop Smart, Shop S-mart!

    4. Re:resolution of camera by mopomi · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm entirely not convinced that was from a spy satellite (to read 1-inch high lettering, the targetting and stability problems alone would be quite difficult to solve for such high resolution; you'd have blurring (from spacecraft issues and the person holding the book), mis-targetting, etc.). Given that:

      All of the electronics have to be radiation hardened. This usually puts back the technology by a few years to even a decade compared with what one could afford without the rad-hardening.

      Given that, the actual resolution is 20-30 cm per pixel (depending on distance from the surface). That's 10 or so inches. However, you can't actually resolve/recognize anything that's only a pixel across. The canonical requirement is 3+ pixels to be sure you're detecting what you think you're detecting. So, the actual resolving power is about 1 meter.

      If the spacecraft (and camera) had been designed to orbit at a lower elevation, the resolution would have been higher, but as it is, it's pretty darn close to Mars' atmosphere and you don't want to orbit there. MRO's orbit is going to be about 320 km above the surface. Some satellites at Earth (I have no idea if they're "spy" sats) orbit at around 150 km above the surface--much closer. Many spy planes fly over the surface at only a few tens of km. With that and some amazing engineering to reduce smear, they could easily resolve very small objects.

      One of the major issues with HiRISE is going to be spacecraft jitter (the spacecraft shakes, other instruments move, etc.). This could effectively limit the resolution by a few factors if it's not resolved. There is a high stability mode in which nothing is allowed to move and the spacecraft holds itself still while HiRISE images very important targets (future landing sites, etc.), but that mode is resource intensive and excludes some instruments from doing certain activities. What HiRISE is trying to do is equivalent to trying to take a picture of the street through a glass-bottomed car at 125 about miles per hour.

      Another problem is context--sometimes the MOC images are uninterpretable because we don't know what's going on around them. With too-high resolution images, we'll just be looking at... well, noise, essentially. We can't really understand things without context to place them into. That's why we have a MOC-equivalent "context" imager bore-sighted with HiRISE.

      All-in-all, this is the most powerful telescope/camera sent to another planet.

    5. Re:resolution of camera by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      From what I've read, the best resolution you can get from a reconnaissance satellite using adaptive optics and a main mirror about the size of the Hubble Space Telescope is about 2-3 inches, mostly due to the refractive effects of the Earth's atmosphere and the fact our KH-11/12 digital imaging reconnaissance satellites orbit at around 300 km (186 miles) altitude. This isn't like the older film-based reconnaissance satellites that at times dipped as low as 145 km altitude to get pictures.

      The limitations of Ikonos and QuickBird is about 100 cm resolution, based mostly on the limitations of the size of the main mirror on these satellites and the near-300 mile orbit of them.

    6. Re:resolution of camera by eck011219 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Before I begin, let me say that I am a space idiot and an optics idiot. I'm a graphic designer, for God's sake, and I admit up-front that I know NOTHING about this.

      HOWEVER, I wonder out loud (and ask for all your input as I'd like to learn) if some of the resolution issues discussed here aren't VERY different between Earth and Mars based on the atmosphere. Earth has, as I understand it, a very heavy atmosphere, and Mars (according to a quick Google search) seems to have a thin, light atmosphere. But whether you assume light to be a wave or energy (or both or neither), would it not follow that all the water and crap in the atmosphere wouldn't create a somewhat unpredictable lens (or more to the point, several layers of lenses) that would obviously have to be accounted for? I'm sure this is figured in to the calculations of the orbiter lens designs, but I can't help but wonder if the relatively low resolution is also a product of the variation in the relative sludge (compared to from-space or from-the-surface shots) through which the pictures will be shot.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    7. Re:resolution of camera by Brett+Buck · · Score: 3, Informative

      >I'm entirely not convinced that was from a spy
      >satellite (to read 1-inch high lettering, the
      >targetting and stability problems alone would be
      >quite difficult to solve for such high resolution;
      >you'd have blurring (from spacecraft issues and
      >the person holding the book), mis-targetting,
      >etc.). Given that:
      >
      >All of the electronics have to be radiation
      >hardened. This usually puts back the technology by
      >a few years to even a decade compared with what
      >one could afford without the rad-hardening.

            I don't know why this keeps coming up. In applications like this, computing power *is not* and *has not* been a limiting factor on spacecraft performance. Period. "Faster computers" have provided nearly no improvements in performance in applications like this. In fact, if you are really serious about high-bandwidth control systems you are still better off with *analog* and the requisite technology for that has existed for 50 years with negligible improvements. In fact, most if not all of the sensors (like earth sensors, star trackers, and any variety of gyroscopes) still use analog at the lowest level.

              If anything, the advent of "better computers" and "better computer languages/programming practices" have probably *set the industry back* in terms of performance, and certainly set it back in the area of productivity. OO programming is probably great for some applications, but a control system implementation is essentially a procedural task. I've been in the business long enough to see the switch from analog/logic matrix hybrids, to procedural (done in FORTRAN, JOVIAL, and assembly) to OO. Some of the most efficient, clearly written, and maintainable code I've seen was implmented *using only IF statements and gotos*. Yes, you CAN write spaghetti code with FORTRAN, etc, and you CAN write clear and straightforward procedural code with C++. I've seen some absolutely incredible examples of both. But, if nothing else, in the good old days, you couldn't use the sort of stuff that you see in OO programming, because your GET and SET functions alone would suck up the entire memory and/or CPU. All that "better computers" have allowed is massive bloat, and associated explosion of questionably-applied OO programming. For this application the desired level of abstraction is the *bit*. But I feel another rant coming on...

            More computing power and digital flight control systems provide much more flexibility and more easily-implemented features - but they DO NOT necessarily have anything to do with improving pointing performance.

            In any case, the limiting factor in getting high-resolution has absolutely nothing to do with rad-hard technology dragging down performance. Sufficient controls performance can be acheived without computers at all, and was possible and achieved in the 60's

              Structural exitation (jitter, bending) IS a limiting factor on performance, and most of the items that need to point some device accurately are designed with this in mind. But it's always a tradeoff between rigidity/damping and weight.

                In any case, the ultimate limiting factor on the resolution is the size of the objective (almost always a mirror), and there's only so much glass you can launch to Mars with a relatively inexpensive rocket. You want to double the resolution, come up with 10x the money, and I'm sure we can figure out a way to get it.

                Brett

    8. Re:resolution of camera by RevRigel · · Score: 1

      If an Earth-orbiting satellite dipped as low as 150km, it would burn up/reenter. Mars has a much thinner atmosphere -- the same distances do not apply. ISS is generally in the 300-400km range and it loses on the order of 1km/week due to atmospheric drag.

    9. Re:resolution of camera by mopomi · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbiting_sa tellite

      ISS's orbit does not define the orbits of all satellites.

    10. Re:resolution of camera by mopomi · · Score: 1

      Hmm... Perhaps you have an axe to grind and misread my post. I never said rad-hardening drove down performance. It drives up cost. . . Re-reading my post shows me where you probably picked that up from.

      Of course the telescope matters. If you can't get a good telescope to Mars, you can't get decent resolution images. However, we COULD NOT collect the data coming through those optics with a MOC-equivalent computer/CCD. We had to have something faster and more reliable.

      HiRISE's computer drives the electronics faster than any other computer ever sent out of Earth orbit (I don't know if it's also faster than any DoD stuff, as I'm not privy to that information). To get such a sensitive computer to Mars (well, to be sure it worked once it got there), radiation hardening has to be performed. That added to R&D cost, and it added to mass cost, not to mention the R&D cost of creating a computer that could collect the data fast enough as we zip along relative to the surface.

      HiRISE has 14 CCDs, with two channels each, for a total of 28 channels. Each of those channels is 1024 pixels across. There are also 28 line-calibration pixels on each channel, for a total of 1052 columns per channel. It is a push-broom style camera, and it has what's called Time Delay Integration (TDI). TDI allows us to add up to 128 lines of data into a single line so we can collect enough signal. There's more: there are also 20 pixels of column-calibration, giving us a total of 1052x168 pixels per channel. Thus, there are 1052*28*168 pixels that need to be driven through the camera electronics for each of up to 60,000 lines. This is slightly misleading as each channel has independent electronics, for the most part, so you can consider it to be 1052*168 pixels per line of data that need to be driven through the electronics to the A to D converter and then stored on the solid state recorder (writing to the SSR is when the 28 channels are put into one large file). This all needs to be done as MRO orbits Mars at a speed of a little more than twice per Mars day. This is a VERY fast computer.

      The problem with analog data is that you cannot interpret brightness values quantitatively. Without digital, we'd just be looking at photographs, which ARE nice, but they don't tell us what we want to know.

    11. Re:resolution of camera by mopomi · · Score: 1

      Atmospheric conditions do matter. Those are, of course, taken in to account when designing the "best" instrument to send to a planet. We use imagers that are sensitive to wavelengths of light through which there is a relative "window" in the atmosphere. At times of dust storms on Mars, HiRISE won't be able to see the surface. We can't get around that; the basic physics of light extinction does us in there. We also sometimes have to worry about whether what we're seeing is a cloud or some other atmospheric anomaly. However, for the most part, we can see through the atmosphere quite well. Consider being on a mountain top and looking at the stars--it's probably about that clear as we look down on Mars, usually.

      A better example (for the extremes) is with Cassini. Cassini's ISS is a decent resolution telescope/camera. On airless bodies such as Enceladus, the distance to the object defines the resolution. However, at Titan, which has a massive atmosphere, the distance only partially defines the "resolution".

      I put resolution in quotes because, and there's a discussion in this thread, being able to resolve objects and the telescope-camera's intrinsic resolution are different. Anyway, Titan's atmosphere actually diffuses light in such a way as to limit the ISS's resolving power by a couple times what it would be based on distance to the surface. It's like on a foggy day in San Francisco: you can't see nearly as far or as well as if the day was clear.

  19. Yeb, I'll believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahah, "objects as small as 1-metre wide" so all it takes to fake Opportunity and Spirit is one pixel each.

  20. "English" units?? by thisisauniqueid · · Score: 2, Informative

    Why do Americans like to call Imperial units "English units"? It's like they're trying to pass the buck or something. Come on guys, the English stopped using Imperial units a long time ago. Own up to your own antiquated ways and call them "American units". After all, you're the only ones in the world using them now anyway.

    1. Re:"English" units?? by Liam+Slider · · Score: 1

      Funniest thing is...our "Imperial" units are not even the same as English "Imperial" units, and there are a number of old English "Imperial" units that we don't really use at all. Add in the fact that technically, our units are actually defined around metric standards anyway, and we're a "dual" society with both metric and Imperial units in use....the idea that we only use Imperial being a stereotype.

    2. Re:"English" units?? by stienman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where did they originate? England. There is no "imperialand." (hey, no wisecracks).

      For better or worse, they are units that the English came up with, used for quite some time, and we still use. If you don't like it, pour money into a metric USA campaign.

      In the end, it's just a system of measurement. It's no better or worse than any other system. It's not good, it's not evil, it just is. One may be able to make the case that in some circumstances (or even most circumstances) another system is easier to use. For instance, those who can't deal with fractions may have some difficulty with the English system. Likewise, those that can't deal with decimal prefixes (milli, micro, nano, pico, femto, atto, etc) may find it easier to say "4 feet, 3 inche") even while acknowledging that they'd have difficulty multiplying that by 5 and expressing it correctly.

      I believe that the more tools I have at my disposal, the better equiped I am at solving problems. Perhaps you feel more comfortable learning and using one system, and that's also a valid choice.

      Complaining about the name of a system of measurement is petty, especially when everyone perfectly understands what is meant whether one calls it english or imperial.

      -Adam

    3. Re:"English" units?? by stienman · · Score: 1

      As soon as you start referring to so-called metric units as "SI" units, we'll start calling english units "imperial".

      -Adam

    4. Re:"English" units?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they were english units. You guys changed your own units after the american revolution, and changed the name to imperial. We're just using (well, parts of) your old system.

    5. Re:"English" units?? by javaDragon · · Score: 1

      To make matters more humiliating for "freedom fries" american chauvinists, the metric system originated in... france.

      --
      -- javaDragon is an instance of JavaDragon.
    6. Re:"English" units?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call the two systems "metric" and "stupid." Keeps all my bases covered.

    7. Re:"English" units?? by turgid · · Score: 1

      It's no better or worse than any other system.

      It's a hell of a lot worse than the metric or SI systems. Would that be pounds mass or pounds force you're talking about? What's with that Farenheit scale anyway? And don't get me started on pints, gallons and fluid ounces.

      Or pounds, shillings and pence. /me winces.

  21. Of course it did! by kimvette · · Score: 1

    If it did not successfully they could not call it an orbiter now, could they? They'd call it a meteor - or "mass of molten junk". :D

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    1. Re:Of course it did! by trendyhendy · · Score: 1

      The parent raises a good point: is it still an orbiter when it's not orbiting? Does the spacecraft, the thing have purpose? Or are we... what's the word...anyway, this mission is very exciting. I can't wait for the first high-res pictures to - imbue. That's the word.

  22. They're still mixing units by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 1
    Remember Mars Climate Orbiter and the mix up between metric and English units?
    While I was watching the MRO do its burns to enter orbit on NASA TV yesterday, one person was giving altitude readings in metric while another was giving them in English units. You'd think they would have learned by now!
    1. Re:They're still mixing units by teaenay · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I honestly thought it was a typo in the summary when I read, "metric and English" units and had a bit of a chuckle to myself. "hee hee, the mix up between metric and metric units". England are on the metric system too and I don't know anyone that refers to the Imperial system as the 'English' system.

      I just found this description on nasas site that has a nice summary of the state of the metric system:

      Most of the world uses the metric system. The only countries not on this system are Burma, Liberia, Muscat, South Yemen, and the United States of America.

      There's also a nice summary of the history of the metric system in the US here. Too bad we missed out on our chance to measure things in decades, roods and furlongs as proposed by Thomas Jefferson in his own metric system equivalent.

  23. In Space... by Kittie+Rose · · Score: 1

    ... nobody can hear you illegally download "Ween" albums.

    --
    EpiAdv - if you like Pokey the Penguin, try this comic!
  24. "Slipping" is not a very good word here by DestroyAllZombies · · Score: 1

    I've really enjoyed the press coverage, but the funniest parts are the gentle adjectives used to describe the orbit insertion burn. "Slipping" is new; I've also seen "eased" and "braked." MOI changed the speed of the spacecraft by a tad over 1 km/sec, or 2238 mph for users of the system-formerly-known-as-English. It turned out to take about 1641 seconds to do so, 33 seconds longer than expected. That peaked out at about 0.08G, not bone-crushing but not exactly a lullaby.

    --
    This login name for sale.
  25. google acquires solar system by plexium_nerd · · Score: 1

    How long before google creates "Google Mars"?

    --
    ____ plex
    1. Re:google acquires solar system by PhotoBoy · · Score: 1

      Just what I was thinking, I know there's not much to see on Mars aside from the Rovers, the Beagle 2 crash site and that pyramid with a face on it, but it would be cool none the less to be able to look at any place on the surface.

    2. Re:google acquires solar system by mopomi · · Score: 1

      It's already on its way. I can provide no proof except that I know that people from the THEMIS instrument at Arizona State University http://themis.asu.edu/ were recently seen on Google's campus.

    3. Re:google acquires solar system by Kynn · · Score: 1
      --
      Kynn's page: http://kynn.com/
  26. Here's BitTorrent's chance! by Yeechang+Lee · · Score: 1
    MRO is going to send back 34 trillion bytes of data, more than all the previous missions put together.

    Great! Here's BitTorrent's chance to prove that it's designed to speed up downloads and not just to trade movies! Only problem is the lack of peers, as Spirit and Opportunity's ISP is running packet filtering. (Clearly, this story should have been filed under the heading "Your Rights Online.")
  27. Sprint Carrier-Pigeon Internet Service by illumynite · · Score: 2, Funny
    Hey hey, big generalization there pal.

    I, for one, enjoy the relative safety and comfort of my fine tree. I am at a sufficient altitude to avoid the dangers that you "land-lubbers" deal with everyday. I'm shaded from... well, some of the harmful UV rays that you terra-firma-loving peeps drive your cars around on that spew out ozone-depleting compounds. I have fresh air to breathe, and best of all, those SEC officials will never find me out here!

    Of course there are some downsides

    • My solar-cell charged batteries die in the middle of the night
    • Mosquito's in the summer
    • Chicks don't dig dudes in trees. :( Maybe I need some tree-bling?
    • No phone, ergo, no DSL. My beloved conifer is 264,000' from the CO. I'm connected via Sprint Carrier-Pigeon.

    And you guys complain about the slow 300 baud acoustic-coupled modems back in th.... WHAT THE?!?!

    HOLY HELL, there's a goddamn hunter aiming at my carrier pige *BOOM*

    NO CARRIER

  28. To the OP by JohnsonWax · · Score: 1

    The title's a little redundant, no? What would the title of this entry have been if it had failed?

    "Non-Orbiter Fails to Enter Orbit"
    "Parabolic Object Fails to Enter Orbit"

    "Orbiter Successful" would have been sufficient, no?

  29. Re:Beagle 2 {may already have been found} by Infosquawk · · Score: 3, Informative
    --


    OoO

    Please do not publish outside of /.
  30. Re:Beagle 2 {may already have been found} by mallardtheduck · · Score: 1

    From the aritcle:
    Nasa's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter spacecraft, which will photograph Mars in unprecedented detail once it reaches the planet next year, could confirm the tentative identification.

  31. tinfoil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The spacecraft will use a suite of six instruments, including the most powerful camera ever sent to another planet."

    But not the most powerful ever put into an orbit.
    I'll accept that Hubble class units are more powerful. But I wonder how this camera compares to the ones the U.S. gov is spying on us with?

  32. I've got it! by peterpi · · Score: 1

    D'ya reckon that's why they call it "obiter"!?

    1. Re:I've got it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No dude, you only call it an "obiter" if it fails to achieve orbit, thereby requiring an "obituary." (See: Beagle 2, Mars Climate Orbiter, Polar Lander)

  33. My first score 0! by Kittie+Rose · · Score: 0

    I managed to achieve 4 and a 5, and now a 0! Yay! So what deems me a "troll" anyway, how is it any different from any of the other jokes I've cracked that got me between 2 and 5?

    --
    EpiAdv - if you like Pokey the Penguin, try this comic!
  34. New measurement standard by From+A+Far+Away+Land · · Score: 1

    From Newscientistspace:
    "It will then begin a two-year science phase, during which it will collect more data than all of the previous Mars missions combined - 34 trillion bytes of data or about as much as contained by a video store."

        Video store as a standard unit of measure. Move over Library of Congress!

  35. Is your glass half empty or half full? by Cutie+Pi · · Score: 1

    "unlike two of the last four orbiters NASA sent to Mars"

    Another way of saying it would be "just like two of the last four orbiters NASA sent to Mars".

  36. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe it a Microsoft product?

  37. Consider it done! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1
    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  38. Also news: Lou Gehrig dies of Lou Gehrig's disease by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

    See the story in the Onion.

  39. Not always. by meringuoid · · Score: 1
    Pounds, miles, hogsheads etc are not "English" units. Please call them by their correct name "Imperial Units". This is not a joke name, it is what I was taught to call them when I was a child.

    There's a difference in some cases. For instance, the English pint, as used by Americans, is significantly smaller than the Imperial pint, as used by the English. To be fair, if you had to drink their beer, would YOU want a larger glass?

    And then there are at least three different definitions of the mile to contend with...

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  40. That's not how resolution works by p3d0 · · Score: 1
    The canonical requirement is 3+ pixels to be sure you're detecting what you think you're detecting. So, the actual resolving power is about 1 meter.
    Resolution isn't defined as how small a thing a human can recognize. It's defined as the ability of an imaging system to separate the images of two closely adjacent objects. That's why you need three pixels: one for object A, one for the gap, and another for object B.
    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    1. Re:That's not how resolution works by mopomi · · Score: 1

      Umm. . . No.

      Resolution is the physical size of a pixel's footprint on the object in question. The pixels on HiRISE cover about 20-30 cm on the surface of Mars, depending on distance from the surface. That is the resolution of the imaging system. You are right in that it is independent of any human or computer recognition algorithm. That's also why I made a distinction between resolving and resolution.

      The resolving power, or how large something must be to be recognized, by a human or computer, as a distinct object, is always larger than what a single pixel covers. Your example is flawed. Usually you need three or so pixels, but it's not necessarily so you can separate one object from another. It's because one or two pixels are nearly always ambiguous as to what they represent. Three is where you start to have some confidence. The more pixels that cover something, the better-->hence higher resolution => higher resolving power => recognizing smaller objects.

    2. Re:That's not how resolution works by p3d0 · · Score: 1
      You're making a distinction that does not exist. Check out "spatial resolution" on Google. The first two hits I see are "Number of pixels horizontally and vertically in a digital image" and "The ability to form separable images of close objects". On Wikipedia, "spatial resolution" redirects to angular resolution which defintes "resolution" as "the minimum distance between distinguishable objects in an image". Strangely, I have yet to see a definition that refers to the effective size of a pixel.

      But the point is that none of them refer to the power of a human to interpret the image. That's the part I was objecting to.

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  41. Reminds me of... by �berhund · · Score: 1

    The funny thing is, this gave me the same impression as reading the old "TCP/IP stack released for TRS-80". You know, nothing practical, just somebody messing around with their old hardware.

    --
    -Uberhund
  42. Not much to see on Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing to see on Mars? Get real, it's like going to the Amazon rain forest and coming back saying: "There's nothng but trees and water, and oh yea a few animals".

    How about the two largest peaks known, then there is the Hellas Basin, and lets not forget the deepest gorge known.

    It'd be quite amazing to see some of the pictures from Mars.

    PS: It was the first thing I suggested to Google about "Google Earth" - Why not a Google Mars, Google Saturn, Google Jupiter, etc?

  43. Awesome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When a bloody Yank mission fails we must crow joyously forever, but as soon as somebody mentions a Brit failure we hastily attempt to change the subject by bringing up the failed American missions again.

    It makes me immensely happy to be neither yank nor pom.

    1. Re:Awesome. by SlySpy007 · · Score: 1
      Hmm...I wasn't aware that mentioning a similar failure was changing the subject. FYI, I was attempting to state that with the resolution of the new camera we'd be able to look for the remains of not one but two of the more prominent Mars failures in recent memory.

      Next time, how about replying to the content of my message, not the overtly opinionated subtext that you decided to add. Otherwise, keep your thoughts to yourself.

      Fuck /., I should go to ars where at least I have a reasonable shot at having a technical discussion sans the uber-trolls who stalk the forums here.

  44. Re:Yeah yeah by iced_773 · · Score: 1



    You're just jealous because I got FP and you didn't.

  45. so, "nothing to see here" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in that case?

  46. give it a rest by PMuse · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter has slipped safely into orbit - unlike two of the last four orbiters NASA sent to Mars. Remember Mars Climate Orbiter and the mix up between metric and English units?

    Don't you hate it when you make a mistake and even your friends never let you live it down? I mean, isn't it galling to do something right and all people want to talk about is the one you screwed up years ago?

    --
    "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
  47. Great headline by .com+b4+.storm · · Score: 2, Funny
    Thanks for the great headline, Zonk. In other news...
    • Iron Successfully Irons
    • Light Successfully Emits Light
    • Runner Successfully Runs
    Sheesh.
    --
    "Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
    -- Ryan Stiles
  48. Sojourner by John+Marter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If it can spot Spirit and Opportunity, maybe it can also spot Sojourner. It would be cool to see if Sojourner made it back to Sagan Memorial Station and circled it.

  49. good name... by Doppler00 · · Score: 1

    I guess it was a good idea they named it "Orbiter" instead of "Crasher". I hope they can keep this level of quality up, NASA has been doing some great science lately.

  50. Lessons Learned by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Engineers learning to design bridges still see video of the Tacoma Narrows bridge failure. Good examples, lessons learned and all that.

    Plus don't underestimate the power of americans wanting to bash europeans over their mistakes and europeans who aren't familiar with space science wanting to bash americans over their antiquated measurement systems.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  51. Re:Imperial & Metric Units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a UK Maths teacher I can tell you that while cars and speeds are still measured in Imperial units, children are taught, and expect, almost everything in metric units.

    Interestingly, it is still part of the National Curriculum to teach Imperial units and the conversions between Imperial and metric, but the only ones that are memorable to the majority are; pints (as sold in pubs, and therefore cool), and miles (but not yards, feet or inches).

    Most kids find the idea of 'feet' bizarre, in the same way as you probably did when you first heard horses height being measured in 'hands'. The fact that their feet and hands (and mine, come to that) bear little relation to the defined Imperial measure just adds to the absurdity.

    It should also be noted that while money went metric some time ago, shops were only forced to go metric in the last few years (and are still allowed to use Imperial measures if they display the metric as well). There is no suggestion that roads and speeds will be measured using anything but miles and mph for the foreseeable future.

  52. Urban legend by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
    Remember Mars Climate Orbiter and the mix up between metric and English units?
    Yes - I remember that bit of fiction quite clearly.

    What few remember is the true cause of the loss of the MCO, a low budget leading to insufficient analysis of the trajectory.

  53. GoogleMars is already here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GoogleMars exists already: see http://www.google.com/mars/

  54. Consistent? by Gonoff · · Score: 1
    12 inches in a foot
    3 feet in a yard
    22 yards in a chain
    8 chains in a furlong
    10 furlongs in a mile
    or 63360 inches in a mile


    1,000 millimetres in a metre
    1,000 metres in a kilometre


    Which sounds more consistent? - assuming I got the first section right anyway...

    --
    I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    1. Re:Consistent? by bloobloo · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying I like the system - it is a right pain in the arse when you have to run everything through unit conversion when you want to work in SI because it is safer. However, when you work in us gallons per minute for flow rate, psi for pressure, F for temperature you find that is how a lot of data for pressure drop across valves etc has been calculated (US research labs), and converting it when you have fractional powers of physical units is not fun.