NASA Spaceship Scouts Out Prime Mars Landing Spots

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."

Comments

5,000 CD-ROMs?

[Change]

How much is that in Libraries of Congress?

Re:5,000 CD-ROMs?

[jackharrer]

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/

How many libraries of congress...?

[Lookin4Trouble]

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?

Re:How many libraries of congress...?

[flyingsquid]

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.

Re:How many libraries of congress...?

[LBArrettAnderson]

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).

Re:How many libraries of congress...?

[DaveWick79]

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.

nice

[wwmedia]

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..

Seaching for life?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Something I don't understand

[techpawn]

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...

Re:Something I don't understand

[sighted]

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.

Re:Something I don't understand

[blueturffan]

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.

Re:Something I don't understand

[DerekLyons]

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.

It REALLY doesn't matter

[zappepcs]

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.

Re:Bad Math

[mcbutterbuns]

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

Direct link to photos

[sighted]

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

We did use robots to scout landing sites

[tjstork]

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.

Re:We did use robots to scout landing sites

[Guysmiley777]

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

We used Apollo missions to scout for landing sites

[Guysmiley777]

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.