Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Spaceship Scouts Out Prime Mars Landing Spots

Posted by Zonk on from the you-know-they-limit-the-good-ones-to-give-out-tickets dept.

coondoggie writes "NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter this week sent back high-resolution images of about 30 proposed landing sites for the Mars Science Laboratory, a mission launching in 2009 to deploy a long-distance rover carrying sophisticated science instruments on Mars. The orbiter's high-resolution camera has taken more than 3,500 huge, sharp images released in black-and-white since it began science operations in November 2006. The images show features as small as a desk. The orbiter has sent back some 26 terabytes of data, equivalent to about 5,000 CD-ROMs."

78 comments

  1. 5,000 CD-ROMs? by Change · · Score: 5, Funny

    How much is that in Libraries of Congress?

    1. Re:5,000 CD-ROMs? by Orange+Crush · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Can we have a more meaningful unit of conversion than LOCs? Such as etched wax cylinders, for instance.

    2. Re:5,000 CD-ROMs? by Gertlex · · Score: 1

      Apparently it's also equal to 5000 DVD-ROMs.

      Any real nerd can measure data in CDs and DVDs. You fail :)

    3. Re:5,000 CD-ROMs? by jackharrer · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's also equivalent to Olympic-sized swimming pool full of zeroes and ones. Just to precise.

      Read amusing article here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/24/vulture_central_standards/

      --

      "an experienced, industrious, ambitious, and often, quite often, picturesque liar" - Mark Twain
    4. Re:5,000 CD-ROMs? by hitmark · · Score: 1

      hmm, how big a point size are those numbers?

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
  2. If a desk sized rock hit me by maroberts · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't be getting up again

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  3. How many libraries of congress...? by Lookin4Trouble · · Score: 3, Funny

    26TB == ~5,000 DVD (Single Layer, 4.7GB per) or ~36,000 CD-ROM (700MB per). Are those JPL guys trying to convert to/from metric _again_ or was that just Zonk being Zonk?

    1. Re:How many libraries of congress...? by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Funny
      26TB == ~5,000 DVD (Single Layer, 4.7GB per) or ~36,000 CD-ROM (700MB per). Are those JPL guys trying to convert to/from metric _again_

      Maybe the conversion got screwed up because of the difference between metric Libraries of Congress and Imperial Libraries of Congress? Anyway, the line that impressed me was "The images show features as small as a desk." Who'd have thought, a desk on Mars.

    2. Re:How many libraries of congress...? by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      another possibility is that they mixed up bits and bytes... if it were 26 terabits of data it would in fact be somewhat close to 5,000 CDs. (in fact it would be exactly 5,000 of the older CDs that held 650 MB on them).

    3. Re:How many libraries of congress...? by DaveWick79 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Too bad the camera isn't good enough to pick up the Martian sitting at the desk.

      Really, if any of the landing spots have desks near them, I'd avoid them as much as possible.

    4. Re:How many libraries of congress...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You know, an Imperial Library of Congress has a bit of a ring to it...

    5. Re:How many libraries of congress...? by Schweg · · Score: 1

      That would make more sense in terms of transmission rates too. 26 terabytes over a year works out to about 900 kilobytes per second, which sounds pretty high. 26 terabits would just be ~112 kilobytes per second.

    6. Re:How many libraries of congress...? by mcmonkey · · Score: 1

      Anyway, the line that impressed me was "The images show features as small as a desk." Who'd have thought, a desk on Mars.

      Harumph. Let me know when they can see the memo on TPS cover sheets on the desk.

      Maybe the conversion got screwed up because of the difference between metric Libraries of Congress and Imperial Libraries of Congress

      How many VW beetles is that?

    7. Re:How many libraries of congress...? by belunar · · Score: 1

      Camera zooms in, sees desk, zooms in further, sees person behind desk.."And now for something completely different..." just as a giant foot slams down on the desk and the person behind it.

  4. nice by wwmedia · · Score: 3, Interesting

    good thing that there are still people at NASA that realize the great return for dollars spent that robotic missions bring,

    they may not be as glamorous as landing people on the moon etc
    but at the end of the day its this "boring / tedious" type of science that moves us forward, not the "giant leaps" (that average people get bored of rather quickly as seen in the 60s) just steady progress..

    1. Re:nice by GreggBz · · Score: 1

      Advances to what end?

      What's the point of learning about the planets if we are never going to leave this one?

      Don't get me wrong, I see the benefits of unmanned missions, planetary science, meteorology, geology, physics and general technical advancement.. But I also see our steady progress in manned missions as necessary for any kind of permanent human presence in space. We can't stay on this rock forever. We just can't.

    2. Re:nice by wwmedia · · Score: 1

      Advances to what end?

      to a point where its hopefully a whole lot cheaper to send stuff into space, and to a point where (like this article is about) we know exactly where to go and what to do



      i can see and agree with you point
      like everyone here i grew up with star trek which made space travel look easy, but the reality is space travel is expensive and dangerous

      i think people of our generation and our kids can forget about space travel
      unless people warm up to nuclear propulsion or find other ways of generating massive amounts energy needed to escape into orbit and beyond it will remain beyond reach of an average john doe

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

      I never understood how people could get bored with seeing men on the moon.

      If only most people weren't average. :D

    4. Re:nice by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      good thing that there are still people at NASA that realize the great return for dollars spent that robotic missions bring

      Well, this sucker got into orbit in 2006, and seems to have been initiated around 2002.

      I'm sure the engineers realize the huge value they get from the robotic missions. Though, it's not entirely obvious that anyone in the administration of NASA still gets it. I certainly don't think we're anywhere near actually being able to focus on a manned mission.

      However, I couldn't agree more. These cheaper/faster missions they sent to Mars have had a huge ROI in terms of the sheer amount of basic science they've accomplished.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But we will. We will never leave this "rock". Mankind evolved on Earth and will die on Earth. Space is just too big, and we can't go faster than light. This fact strangles all of your Trekkie delusions right in the cradle.

      Space is not for us. Deal with it. It's forever removed from our reality. There will never be fleets of spaceships. There won't be Mars bases. Never.

      Accept it. Accept or suicide.

    6. Re:nice by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      So what "science" specifically have our robotic missions of the last decade done?

      And no, gathering data is not doing science.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  5. Seaching for life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    From the article: The images show features as small as a desk
    If they are looking for life on Mars, they should land where the desk is.

    1. Re:Seaching for life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would depend. Is it an African desk or a European desk?

    2. Re:Seaching for life? by Dragon+By+Proxy · · Score: 0

      ... I don't know!

    3. Re:Seaching for life? by CptNerd · · Score: 1
      I don't know, given my decades of experience with desks, you're more likely to find life forms under the desk.

      ... and sometimes inside the drawers, depending on how absent-minded the aliens are who work through lunch ...

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
    4. Re:Seaching for life? by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      If they're looking for Life on Mars, I'd have the spacecraft look for any David Bowie-shaped objects.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  6. can see the zit on the face on Mars by peter303 · · Score: 0

    Impressive high resolution!

  7. 5000 DVD's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    26TB = 27262976 MB

    With a standard CD at around 700MB thats just under 40,000 CDs.

    1. Re:5000 DVD's by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      26TB = 27262976 MB

      26TB = 20000000 MB.

      I think you mean TiB and MiB.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:5000 DVD's by meringuoid · · Score: 1

      ... Oops. Actually, 26TB = 26000000MB. Seems the rule about spelling flames invariably containing a spelling error extends also to unit conversions :-(

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  8. Clearly I have the humor of a 12 year old... by Corpuscavernosa · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ... but somehow I wish we were talking about scouting Uranus.

    --
    We figured out a long time ago that it's easier to elect seven judges than to elect 132 legislators.
  9. Bad Math by Like2Byte · · Score: 1, Redundant

    (26 terabytes) / (4 gigabytes) = 6 656

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=26+terabytes+%2F+4+gigabytes+%3D&btnG=Search

    Which equates to ~6600 DVDs, not CD-ROMs.

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=26+terabytes+%2F+720+megabytes+%3D&btnG=Search

    (26 terabytes) / (720 megabytes) = 37 865.2444

    That's 38000 CD-ROMs.

    1. Re:Bad Math by mcbutterbuns · · Score: 2, Funny

      Give 'em a break, they were using Excel to do the math

    2. Re:Bad Math by whopub · · Score: 1

      With math skills like these we'll be lucky if they land on the right planet.

  10. Something I don't understand by techpawn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why do we need Terabytes of information about landing sites about Mars but all it took was a telescope to pick a landing site on the moon? Maybe it's a distance thing and maybe there are just more difficulties with a Mars mission that I just don't understand or was there a few fly by missions to the moon I'm not remembering...

    --
    Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
    1. Re:Something I don't understand by sighted · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It didn't just take a telescope. There was all kinds of robotic reconnaissance, both Soviet and American, of the moon before the human landings. See this for example. As for Mars, there is no telescope, even the Hubble, that can come close to seeing the local details needed to pick the very best spots.

      --
      Saddle up: Riding with Robots
    2. Re:Something I don't understand by kitsunewarlock · · Score: 1

      They might just want to take less risks and therefore use this more accurate procedure...

      Plus, unlike the moon, mars doesn't have a "dark side" that doesn't face us. Plus its significantly larger than the moon. We aren't just looking for "a landing place", but "the best landing place".

      --
      Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
    3. Re:Something I don't understand by blueturffan · · Score: 2, Interesting
      There were more than just telescopes and fly-by missions to the moon.

      As I recall, the Ranger missions came first -- taking close-up photos before impacting the moon. I don't recall whether or not they orbited.

      The Surveyor missions came next. The Surveyor ships actually proved the feasibility of soft-landing on the moon. I believe it was Apollo 12 that landed close enough that the astronauts walked (hopped?) over and retrieved a portion of one of the Surveyors.

      Apollo 8 orbited the moon something like 10 times. They weren't just there on a sightseeing mission, they were taking many, many pictures and movies of the surface of the moon.

      Apollo 10 was called the "dry run", as they did everything but actually land on the moon. As I recall the Apollo 10 LM was called Snoopy because they were 'snooping' out a landing site for Apollo 11.

      And even with all the available information, the Apollo 11 LM guidance computer was steering Neil and Buzz directly toward a field of boulders until Neil Armstrong took manual control and flew the LM to a safe landing space with less than a minute of fuel remaining.

    4. Re:Something I don't understand by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      Distance to Moon: ~238,000 miles
      Distance to Mars: ~95,000,000 miles at closest approach


      Further, there were flybys and landings before hand.

      On July 19 Apollo 11 passed behind the Moon and fired its service propulsion engine to enter lunar orbit. In the several orbits which followed, the crew saw passing views of their landing site in the southern Sea of Tranquility about 20 kilometers (12 mi) southwest of the crater Sabine D (0.67408N, 23.47297E). The landing site was selected in part because it had been characterized as relatively flat and smooth by the automated Ranger 8 and Surveyor 5 landers along with the Lunar Orbiter mapping spacecraft. It was therefore unlikely to present major landing or extra-vehicular activity (EVA) challenges.[3]
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    5. Re:Something I don't understand by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why do we need Terabytes of information about landing sites about Mars but all it took was a telescope to pick a landing site on the moon?

      A telescope doesn't have the resolution to study potential landing zones/site - even at lunar ranges. Additionally, they want to be careful with the landing areas for this probe due to it's size and weight.
       
       

      Maybe it's a distance thing and maybe there are just more difficulties with a Mars mission that I just don't understand or was there a few fly by missions to the moon I'm not remembering...

      The Lunar Orbiter program put five photosats in orbit around the moon in 1966 and 67 for the purpose of studying the lunar surface with an emphasis on photographing potential landing sites. Even so, one of the main missions of the CSM pilot was conducting additional photographic studies from orbit while the rest of the crew was on the surface.
       
      There were actually three series of precursor missions to the moon in advance of the landings, the Ranger series of hard landers, the Lunar Orbiter series of photosats, and the Surveyor series of soft landers. None of them get a great deal of press nowadays, but without them the manned missions would have been much more difficult and much more dangerous.
    6. Re:Something I don't understand by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1
      Even better:

      Lovell continued to describe the terrain over which they were passing. One of the crew's major tasks was reconnaissance of the planned landing sites on the Moon, especially one in Mare Tranquillitatis that would be the Apollo 11 landing site.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_8#Lunar_orbit
      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    7. Re:Something I don't understand by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      The cool thing about Apollo 12 was they were able to set down within walking distance from Surveyor 3 and return parts of it back to Earth to study long term exposure effects on the Moon.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    8. Re:Something I don't understand by FleaPlus · · Score: 1
      Why do we need Terabytes of information about landing sites about Mars but all it took was a telescope to pick a landing site on the moon?

      If a robotic lander sent to the Moon craps out, it doesn't take too long to send up a new one. If the same happens with Mars, it'll take quite a bit longer to send up a new one.

      Also, gathering information about potential landing sites is just one of the many things the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter is doing:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Reconnaissance_Orbiter#Mission_objectives

      MRO is conducting science operations for two Earth years, from November 2006 to November 2008. One of the mission's main goals is to map the Martian landscape with its high-resolution cameras in order to choose other landing sites for future missions. The MRO played an important role in choosing the landing site of the Phoenix Lander, which will explore the Martian Arctic,[1]. The initial site chosen by scientists was imaged with the HiRISE camera and found to be littered with boulders. After analysis with HiRISE and the Mars Odyssey's THEMIS a new site was chosen. Mars Science Laboratory, a highly maneuverable rover will also have its landing site inspected. The MRO will also provide critical navigation data during their landings and a act as a transmission relay.

      MRO is using its on-board scientific equipment to study the Martian climate, weather, atmosphere, and geology, and to search for signs of water in the polar caps and underground. In addition, MRO is looking for the remains of the previously lost Mars Polar Lander and Beagle 2 spacecraft,[7] and serves as the first step in setting up an internet protocol network for the planets in our solar system. After its main science operations are completed, the probe's extended mission is to be the communication and navigation system for landers and rover probes.
    9. Re:Something I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article is slightly misleading. The 26 TB of data is not just about the landing sites. That's total since the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter began operating. Scouting landing sites is secondary mission for MRO (one which it does exceedingly well, due to the unprecedented resolution of its HiRISE camera). This is a result of it's main purpose to thoroughly map the martian geography. It also has a ground penetrating radar to look for water, a spectrometer to identify surface minerals, and a second spectrometer to study the atmosphere.

      However, that isn't to say the detailed maps of the proposed landing sites are not invaluable.

      The Apollo missions had a major benefit in that the landers were directly controlled by human pilots who knew the expected geography and were able to visually identify obstacles on the ground during the approach and respond intelligently. The Phoenix Lander (en route) and future Mars Science Laboratory both have to land autonomously. It takes about half an hour for data to make a round trip from Mars to Earth. Entry only takes 6 minutes. There's no time to respond to the unexpected.

      Additionally, Phoenix and MSL are both targeting relatively difficult landing sites. The Apollo missions were careful to select relatively level and clear landing sites (which, BTW, were scouted ahead of time). The really interesting targets, however, generally are in harder to reach places. NASA wants to pick good science targets, but they don't want to over do it and land high-centered on a boulder.

      Of the earlier missions that didn't have as much imagery to rely on: The Vikings landed on flat (although gravelly) plains. Same for Pathfinder. The MER's also landed on relatively flat areas, but had a bonus from using MGS orbital imagery.

      Hehe...I was just looking up some facts on the MRO from Wikipedia. It has a continuous scanning camera that makes 800 MP images.

  11. It REALLY doesn't matter by zappepcs · · Score: 3, Funny

    If they have been using P2P clients to download them, the RIAA/MPAA will be suing them shortly.

    The court case will be of special interest as the first attempt by a US entity to claim IP rights off world, and will be referred to for decades to come as precedent reference.

    In unusual clamor, SETI will engage the ACLU to defend NASA, and found the ETIPFLC (extra terrestrial IP Freedom Law Center) to later become the infamous Galactic Law Center. You will remember them, as this gigantic legal machine was the first recognition of the human race by other sentient beings in the universe.

    --
    Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
    1. Re:It REALLY doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol man. Google soon will put its servers on mars.
      --
      http://www.govno-dizain.com/

  12. Desk on Mars?! by bitRAKE · · Score: 1

    First faces and now furniture...maybe it's some kind of yard sale?

  13. Direct link to photos by sighted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    All of the images from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (whether measured in discs or libraries of congress) are online. Fantastic resource.

    --
    Saddle up: Riding with Robots
    1. Re:Direct link to photos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will have been soon when servers get slashdotted

  14. why use many CDs when one of these can handle it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Posted on InsideHPC blog, 48TB in 5U. 26TB isn't too much for this monster.

  15. hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is a beowulf cluster big enough to hold all those pictures?

  16. We did use robots to scout landing sites by tjstork · · Score: 3, Informative

    NASA sent a boatload of probes to the moon. There was both the Ranger and Surveyor missions. They not only photographed the lunar surface, but they also tested the soil composition to see if it was ok for people to walk on.

    In fact, on of the lunar missions, Apollo 12, actually touched down next to the Surveyor mission designed to scout for it. I think they actually retrieved some pieces from the Surveyor probe, to see how it held up after being so long on the lunar surface.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:We did use robots to scout landing sites by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yep, they returned (among other things) the video camera and the sample scoop.
      Here's the report: Surveyor III Parts and Materials/Evaluation of Lunar Effects

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
  17. I love scientific discovery too, but... by newgalactic · · Score: 1

    I love scientific discovery and exploration too, but I also respect the rule of Finance. Can we afford this? Seriously, we're spending like 1,000 "Library's of Congress's" a month in Iraq, and I don't think our coffers can handle a serious economic outlay like a trip to Mars. What does everyone think?

    1. Re:I love scientific discovery too, but... by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      I think for the amount of money we've dumped into G.W.'s Middle East Adventure in Iraq we would have already paid for a manned mission to Mars. Space exploration is a minuscule portion of the budget.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    2. Re:I love scientific discovery too, but... by sighted · · Score: 1

      Can we afford what? Robotic missions like the ones being discussed - or human missions? Two very different sets of issues financially. As for spending money on basic science, I think it's a lot more costly in the long run NOT to spend on R&D. (As for the millions wasted in sketchy military adventures, I hear you.)

      --
      Saddle up: Riding with Robots
    3. Re:I love scientific discovery too, but... by ShannaraFan · · Score: 1

      > What does everyone think?

      I think it's depressing to see how screwed up our priorities are. All of that money that we've spent to blow things up could have been spent in SOOOOO many more useful ways. Depressing...

    4. Re:I love scientific discovery too, but... by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      I love scientific discovery and exploration too, but I also respect the rule of Finance. Can we afford this? Seriously, we're spending like 1,000 "Library's of Congress's" a month in Iraq, and I don't think our coffers can handle a serious economic outlay like a trip to Mars. What does everyone think?


      I think that if we bring the troops home one day early, the savings will let us fund the space program for a decade.
      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    5. Re:I love scientific discovery too, but... by newgalactic · · Score: 1

      My bad, I didn't make myself clear enough. I wasn't referring to making cuts to all Scientific Exploration. I was referring specifically to a maned mission to Mars. I'm all for robotic exploration, I think we need more of it. I'm just not sure we're considering a Maned mission to Mars for the right reasons. When I heard Bush mention it the first time, it sounded like such an election day promise. I'm worried that under his administration, a maned mission to Mars would be more about the "pictures" and less about the "note taking". Picture this, a great PR shot of GW himself, standing on Mars in a space suit, with a huge banner behind him with the words "Mission Accomplished". Maybe we can have him bring the shuttle, or whatever brings them back to earth, in manually "from the hip". He can land it at his ranch in Texas, and have a big barbecue after to celebrate....YEE-HAW!!!

    6. Re:I love scientific discovery too, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, good point. We're a lot better off having our boys shot up in Iraq than we are learning about the universe.

    7. Re:I love scientific discovery too, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know how we can afford the war in Iraq and Mars exploration. Lets eliminate social programs and stop spending lavishly on the elderly. It is wasted money.

    8. Re:I love scientific discovery too, but... by SixAndFiftyThree · · Score: 1

      Leaving out the cowboy stuff, you have a fair point, one that some people like the Space Access Society (disclaimer: I'm a proud member thereof) have been worrying about for fifteen years and more: how do we make space travel cheap enough that we can actually afford to do all the wonderful things that we'd like to do out there? It doesn't seem impossible when you look at the technology, but if politicians are running the show for the benefit of their big aerospace contractors, it doesn't seem likely. I regard cheap flights as the main enabling factor for exploration and development of space. There has been enough noise made about it that NASA is paying lip service to the concept of getting private enterprise in there to do things more cheaply, offering prizes, and so on, but almost all the dough is still going to Boeheed, who have an incentive to keep flights expensive.

  18. Re:If you are going to copy and paste the article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you mean grammar , you pedantic cunt?

  19. We used Apollo missions to scout for landing sites by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 2, Informative

    We used the early Apollo flights (as in some of the ones BEFORE Apollo 11) to take photographs of the Moon looking for landing sites. They had already picked out candidates, but the in-orbit photos were of much better resolution than from an Earth based telescope.

    --
    Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
  20. NASA's landing site track record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Here is my opinion of the NASA landing sites chosen to date:

    • Viking 1, Chryse Planitia, boring rubble pile, but hey they got there.
    • Viking 2, Utopia Planitia, boring high latitude plain. They should have been more aggressive with this. Lost opportunity.
    • Mars Surveyor, Isidis Planitia, boring plain. Really dumb choice.
    • Mars Polar Lander, Potentially great site on south polar layered terrain. Too bad they cocked up the landing.
    • Spirit Rover, Gusev Crater, potentially interesting but turned out really bad. Thermal evidense suggested that this was a rubble pile. Don't NASA scientists look at their own results?
    • Opportunity Rover, Meridiani Planum. Boring topography but fantastic geology. The discovery of sedimentary rocks and concretions (blueberries) are the most significant results yet of the NASA lander program. Best site by far!
    • Phoenix Lander. Revert back to really boring, shity site. Why look for ground ice when there is a continental glacier a short distance away at the north pole? Pointless! The idiots are in charge of this one. A virtual replay of the Viking 2 mission.

    As you can see, NASA has a pretty bad track record of selecting landing sites. Lets hope they are more aggressive with Mars Science Laboratory in an outflow channel region or a volcanic region (Elesium, Tharsus, Valley Marineris). I think it was a huge mistake not to stick with the wildly successful Spirit/Opportunity model of cheap and numerous rovers. My fear is they will be too conservative with the newest Battlestar Galactica.

    1. Re:NASA's landing site track record by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      Actually, I've read that the Mars Science Laboratory lander design could be the basis for multiple landers on Mars. Unlike the Mars Exploration Rovers the MSL uses a radio-isotope thermoelectric generator (RTG), which allows for high-latitude operations on Mars itself. That could make it possible for rovers to operate at Mars' polar regions, carrying instruments to look for signs of life in these regions.

  21. Re:Office Space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, a desk: it's Milton's new office after he got kicked out of his spacious broom closet in the basement.

  22. Fascinating! by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 1

    The face on Mars and the desk on Mars are close enough together to suggest a civilization sufficiently advanced to have discovered the "headdesk."

    --
    Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
  23. That depends. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you pedantic?

    OP apparently is, and so am I.

    iPedantic.

  24. C&D by zappepcs · · Score: 1

    Dear Mr. Anonymous,

    After consulting "The Google" we at the Galactic Law Center feel it best to address you here in this forum as you obviously post here a lot. To wit, this is a cease and desist order. The phrase and word iPedant and iPedantic are registered trademarks (phrases and words) of the Galactic Law Center law firm. If you continue to use them in posts on /. (Slashdot.org) or other public forums (notice boards, web bloggs etc.) we (The Galactic Law Center) shall be forced and motivated to file suit upon you, your estate, and any remaining heirs. We shall petition the Galactic IP Court for retroactive recompense and punitive damages.

    For more information on how to properly use the registered trademarks and logos of the Galactic Law Center (A law firm), please install IPv14 drivers, and read the information found at HTTFP://UWW.Solaris.Andromeda.GalacticLawCenter.RTFM.law )

    Failure to respond to this C&D (cease and desist) letter within 45 standard galactic days will constitute willful and wanton infringement of our IP (intellectual properties).

    Signed

    The Galactic Law Center

    --
    Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
  25. 12 year old... Uranus. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's not go there, okay?

  26. 5,000 CD-ROMS? pointless by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1

    Tell me how many 5 1/4" Floppies that is, or give me death!

  27. prime mars landing spots by yanyan · · Score: 1

    The UAC has made the use of traditional landing spots obsolete. They call it "the Ark."

  28. Re:5,000 CD-ROMS? pointless by naetuir · · Score: 1

    Not that I figure you're serious, but in the interest of sheer amusement.....

    (26 terabytes) / (1.2 megabytes) = 22,719,146.7

    This is assuming that you are using *high density* 5.25" floppy disks. Now, if you were talking about the low density disks.....

    And.. assuming that my memory doesn't fail me...

    (26 terabytes) / (320 kilobytes) = 87,241,523.2 ...Anytime. ;)

    --
    Use what works.
  29. bits no bytes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    uhhhh, I believe that the press release is wrong. Try 26 Terabits, no bytes.

  30. MSL already being stripped down by Iowan41 · · Score: 1

    For the wont of 4% of the cost of the mission (most is usually the booster), they are pulling the thermal power source that would have let them run at night and in the Martian winter, and many of the science instruments, such as the laser weapon spectroscope for analyzing rocks you can't get to, and the water and other volatile-detecting instruments, which were also missing from Lewis and Clarke (MER-A and B) For the wont of 4%, we are getting another MER-class rover, for more money and no redundancy. Bean-counters just don't get it.