Slashdot Mirror


First Pictures From Mars Phoenix Lander

Now that the solar panels have been deployed, the Mars Phoenix Lander has begun sending back pictures of the red planet to the hungry space geeks of earth. In just a few weeks the claw will deploy and they'll start digging a hole. The scientists expect to use the dirt to construct a little sand castle which they will defend with several GI Joe action figures, and a bald barbie stolen from their sisters. Oh, and maybe find water or bacteria.

211 comments

  1. Wow by tingeber · · Score: 5, Funny

    I saw the pictures of a barren landscape and my jaw fell in total awe... I was never so excited about pictures of dirt.

    --
    oh my god... it's full of stars!
    1. Re:Wow by steelfood · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nothing to see here... move along.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    2. Re:Wow by apathy+maybe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I saw the pictures of a barren landscape and my jaw fell in total awe...

      I was never so excited about pictures of dirt. It isn't dirt.

      Rocks yes, but not dirt.

      And I can't just remember what the other stuff is called, but it ain't dirt.
      --
      I wank in the shower.
    3. Re:Wow by rubycodez · · Score: 2, Funny

      at least it's a different plot of land this time, down the road from the plot where they faked the moon landing because it's busy with the faked mercury fly-by.

    4. Re:Wow by ceejayoz · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think it's called regolith.

    5. Re:Wow by FurtiveGlancer · · Score: 1

      To be fair, there's ice as well. Ice adds value to my drinks, ergo....

      --
      Invenio via vel creo
    6. Re:Wow by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Funny

      And I can't just remember what the other stuff is called, but it ain't dirt.

      Other than for scientific purposes ... is there fundamentally a difference between "dirt" and "fancy Martian stuff"?

      Anyone? I mean really, "fine particulate matter eroded from the local soil" is dirt no matter what planet you're on, innit?

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:Wow by tsa · · Score: 1

      No. It's mud.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    8. Re:Wow by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      No, ice removes value since you get less drink in your glass.

    9. Re:Wow by FurtiveGlancer · · Score: 1

      Not with a good bartender! Two jiggers of a smooth single malt on the rocks, and the ice is FREE! OK, no additional cost.

      --
      Invenio via vel creo
    10. Re:Wow by menace3society · · Score: 2, Funny

      I've decided that the government faked the Moon and Mars landings to cover up what they're really doing in space. By now there's probably a working military base on the face of the Moon, just waiting for the day that somebody else tries to claim space as their turf.

      Of course, they didn't reckon on finding the black monolith....

    11. Re:Wow by Geirzinho · · Score: 1

      And I can't just remember what the other stuff is called, but it ain't dirt. Tundra I guess. That's what NASA uses colloquially at least.
    12. Re:Wow by mdreier · · Score: 1

      Actually - finding dirt would bee cool - far over the wildest exceptions. However I suspect we will mostly find rocks and sand :-)

      --
      mdreier@dreier.no
    13. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yee ignorant /.ers...

      Here's a beginner's introduction to 'soils', i.e. dirt, of which there are actually many, many types:
      http://www.buzzle.com/articles/different-types-of-soil.html

      Oh, heck, there's even soil taxonomy, for pete's sake (for those of you who are truly twisted enough to find out more):
      http://www.itc.nl/~rossiter/research/rsrch_ss_class.html

      In other words, there ain't no such thing as just plain 'dirt!'...:-)

      Enjoy, and have another closer look at that dirt that's all around you, and what it may (or may not) contain...

      Personally, I'm very excited to learn more about the undoubtably unique characteristics of Martian dir...er, I mean, soil.
      I wonder how it compares to various Earth and Lunar soils, etc.?

    14. Re:Wow by Cesa · · Score: 5, Funny

      move along Well, except that it...can't.
    15. Re:Wow by Forbman · · Score: 1

      well...there's a difference between dirt and soil. Dirt = finely ground rock particles of various sizes, from "sand" to "clay".

      Soil = Dirt + organic material.

      Pure dirt would be roughly [sic] equivalent to regolith.

    16. Re:Wow by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      On Earth, dirt is part of the Regolith. I'm not sure if dirt, sand, etc. are always regolith.

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    17. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When 1 woman goes there it it is fun there, when more go it is not when all go it is fun here!

    18. Re:Wow by pintpusher · · Score: 3, Funny

      No No No, all of you are wrong. George Carlin put it best when he said (paraphrasing) "Dirt is just stuff that's in the wrong place." When it's in a flower pot, it's potting soil, when it's in the compost pile it's, well, compost, or at least on the way there. When it's falling off your shoes onto the couch it's dirt. Get that dirt out of here!

      Likewise, I tell my kids that "weeds" are just "plants" that are growing somewhere someone doesn't want them. We all like dandelions, so when the neighbors complain about the weeds, I say, what, you mean that grass there?

      --
      man, I feel like mold.
    19. Re:Wow by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Pure dirt would be roughly [sic] equivalent to regolith.

      So, Martian dirt. We're done. The presence of organic matter hasn't been established yet.

      I'll ignore your random insertion of 'sic' in relation to your own typing since it makes no sense in context. ;-)

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    20. Re:Wow by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 2, Funny

      And I can't just remember what the other stuff is called, but it ain't dirt.


      I think the fancy word you may be looking for is sand. NASA uses all sorts of fancy words, such as dirt & soil.

      Go ahead and call it dirt.
      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    21. Re:Wow by jesse285 · · Score: 1

      Well every since the 60s when I was 13 years old I know that this day would come, now that we are almost there let keeping going thank God for the insight of his house.

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

      move along
      Well, except that it...can't.

      OK, how about "+1 Digg!" :)

    23. Re:Wow by pahappo · · Score: 1

      Yes, they were battling Nazis on the moon!

    24. Re:Wow by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I saw the pictures of a barren landscape and my jaw fell in total awe... I was never so excited about pictures of dirt.

      They purposely picked a visually boring flat area to simplify the landing and digging. The real meat of this mission will be the soil and ice sampling.

      However, maybe later in the year we'll be able to see the progress of whitish ice and/or frost forming on the surface (although we saw a little of this with Viking 2 already).

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

      Nothing to see here... move along. Developers, developers, developers!
    26. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      No. Soil processes vary *enormously*. This one is likely a type of gelisol in a pretty exotic environment, and in the pictures there are obvious indications of "patterned ground" which (everybody hopes) is due to ice below the surface.

      If you think there isn't anything technical about dirt, well, it means you have about as much knowledge of soil science as a computer newbie has about assembler. That's okay, but don't assume that because it looks ordinary it actually is ordinary to someone knowledgeable.

    27. Re:Wow by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      That not the bartender, just the drink. You drink something that doesn't take up the whole glass, of course there's room ice. You order a pint of coke, say, you'll get less coke if you have ice (the trick is to order it without ice, drink a few mouthfuls [it's still cold at this point, since it's just come out the soda gun], then ask for ice). Incidentally, why would you have ice with a smooth single malt? Good whisky doesn't need ice - just the cheap stuff.

    28. Re:Wow by Teancum · · Score: 1

      If you go back to basic Anglo-Saxon English, the proper term for the stuff you can run your fingers through that is found naturally on the ground is:

      (Drumroll please)

      Earth!

      That is where the name of our planet comes from, together with similar names in other languages like "terra".

      So, is there "earth" on Mars, or is it something different, like calling it "mars" (lower case deliberately)? As in "I am planting my corn in the mars tomorrow." Substitute the word "earth" in the above sentence if you think this sound funny.

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

      Nope. Dirt contains organic material which is used to feed plants. If it has no organic material and is just crushed rock, then it's regolith. So by "other than for scientific purposes" what you're really saying is, "other than describing reality accurately." We understand this intuitively on Earth, because we understand that sand is different from dirt, but even sand has particles of shell and other organically sourced components. Thus, regolith is fundamentally different from dirt, and unless they actually find organics on Mars, then it's regolith and not dirt.

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

      It's probably a lot closer to that red clay that they use to surface baseball diamonds. With some iron ore pellets thrown in, and perhaps enough water in it to make a sticky mud - provided that it wasn't frozen to permafrost conditions. But yeah, you can call it sand.

    31. Re:Wow by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      Real dirt is an organic byproduct of life--shit and rot, to be precise, of living things.

      But I agree that it's semantics~

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

      And I can't just remember what the other stuff is called

      I think it's called Mars.

      - Peder

    33. Re:Wow by stoofa · · Score: 1

      Phone call between two NASA press officers:

      "Hello?"
      "Hi David, it's Mike."
      "Oh, hi Mike, what's up?"
      "We're getting the first pictures back."
      "Oh great."
      "Well, not really."
      "Oh crap, they haven't... have they?"
      "Yep, they put down in a boring bit."
      "How many times did I mention this in the meeting?"
      "I know, I know, but you know what they'll say."
      "What?"
      "There was a memo from Bob's team."
      "What did that say?"
      "Bob says it's safer to land on the flatter bits."
      "I am not suggesting we land the bastard on a fucking mountain! But at least somewhere flat where we can see a distant hill or something!"
      "Yeah, I said that, but he went off into that techno-babble."
      "So what have we got?"
      "Rocks and dirt."
      "Shit."
      "So how do we pitch this one?"
      "How clear are the rocks?"
      "Not too bad."
      "Any dubious shadows that look like figures?"
      "Nope."
      "Do we still have Photoshop on that server with the MP3s on?"

    34. Re:Wow by muhadeeb · · Score: 1

      "Nothing to see here... move along." You are right, nothing of any extra ordinary to see, just pebbles and a barren vista. They should have landed closer to the white stuff for a more awe inspiring exploratory search. Hey, shouldn't they have had a rover there instead.

    35. Re:Wow by bonehead · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure about a rover like the ones we've already sent. But a little bulldozer would sure be cool. My biggest WTF? moment learning the details of this mission was when I found out that the robotic arm could only dig down about 3 feet. 3 feet? What if it finds the beginning of something interesting just as it's reaching maximum depth? With a little robotic bulldozer, it could just keep digging deeper. With the arm, we're pretty much stuck designing a new craft and waiting for it to get there.

      On a side note, I found this picture and caption interesting. http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/phoenix/images.php?fileID=9353

      Does anyone know the criteria that was used to pick out the quarter million names that they put on the DVD? Seems like too many to choose them individually, at some point they almost certainly had to resort to a "pick random names from the phonebook" methodology. Would be interesting if the list was available online somewhere so we could all go and see if our name made it to Mars.

    36. Re:Wow by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      I remember reading the Dragonriders of Pern series and having an issue with the locals of planet Pern referring to digging/planting in the "earth".

      I theorized maybe the inhabitants were long descendant from Earth, and the word stuck... maybe if I read all the books I'd find out, though I'm sure one of you nerds could fill me in.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  2. damn you slashdot by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    I'm working on my seeminly hundredth coffee this morning after reading and watching Mars stuff until the wee hours. Now you do this to me.

    Expect a bill from my employer.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  3. Colour? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why are the photos black & white?

    1. Re:Colour? by nawcom · · Score: 0

      looking for the 1080p version? Some people are too hard to satisfy, I swear.

    2. Re:Colour? by Chmcginn · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's more scientifically useful to put a really good black & white camera onboard, and then include some filters, than to put a color camera.

      IIRC, pretty much all the color images from previous landers are composites of multiple images with different filters, making a human-eye approximation.

      --
      Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
    3. Re:Colour? by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      They need to be processed - there are some color shots up now and more to come I'm sure.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    4. Re:Colour? by Rastignac · · Score: 1

      Not enough money to buy colour cameras, perhaps ?

      --
      -- Rastignac was here.
    5. Re:Colour? by compro01 · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, just that black & white sensors give better detail. They've got a set filters that will allow them to make pretty coloured pictures.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    6. Re:Colour? by jj421 · · Score: 1

      Why are the photos black & white? The purpose of these photos is to confirm that the lander has deployed correctly. Because of the limited bandwidth size == speed and black and white pictures are smaller.
    7. Re:Colour? by theurge14 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It might be more publically useful to maybe, perhaps, on one of these multi-million dollar missions to see fit to at least put one "real" camera on board one of these landers to placate the taxpaying plebians such as myself. If NASA needs it, I might have a spare Canon digital camera and some duct tape.

      The Titan lander was a huge disappointment in this regard.

    8. Re:Colour? by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Many of the photos taken during the early Apollo missions were shot with hand held Hasselblad cameras. On the first moon landing Armstrong took a fairly well known shot of Aldrin on the surface. As far as I know all our manned missions since have had Hasselblad on board.

      These are more pleasing to the eye than what is being transmitted from the Phoenix lance but a little less scientifically useful. They are also limited to missions that will return, since the film has to be developed.

      A good portion of the gear used now shoots photos in stereo so objects can be more accurately scaled and located. And B&W only sensors can be made more accurate in that regard than color (a quick look at any decent graphic explanation of one will illustrate why). As previous posts have noted, filters can be used to determine color.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    9. Re:Colour? by TSDMK · · Score: 1

      That's a fair point actually. JAXA's SELENE lunar probe had a HDTV camera on board and it produced some stunning imagery. I can understand that a Mars lander will have greater constraints on what you can bolt on though.

    10. Re:Colour? by david.given · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why are the photos black & white?

      Because with that particular camera, taking an RGB photo involves making three separate exposures with different filters, transmitting the result back to Earth, and combining them. Given that the lander has been on the ground for less than 24 hours so far, they're still at the quick-glance-around-to-see-where-we-are stage and don't want to waste bandwidth taking the same picture three times. Give them time. Given the PR value of RGB images I'd expect some to start showing up within a few days.

      (In fact a two-colour image has shown up already, but it's not true RGB and probably isn't what you're looking for.)

    11. Re:Colour? by camperdave · · Score: 3, Informative

      Do you know how your spare Canon camera works...? You guessed it, by having a monochrome sensor with appropriate filters in front of certain elements. The cameras on the lander will no doubt out-perform your canon in terms of sensor quality, lens quality, focal range, etc. The only advantage the Canon might have is in the number of megapixels.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    12. Re:Colour? by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      >Homosexuality: not even mentioned in the Gospels, and the Old Testament has more to say about the evil of pork.

      Thou shalt not pork thy neighbor or thy neighbor's wife? (Sorry, not enough espresso yet.)

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    13. Re:Colour? by Rob+Carr · · Score: 1

      Every digital camera uses black and white sensors with filters to make pretty coloured pictures.

      Frack it, now you got me spelling "coloured" wrong. Took me years to break myself of the "haemoglobin" habit...

      --
      This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
    14. Re:Colour? by Rob+Carr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your Canon digital is a black and white camera with filters that make approximate color images.
      Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go back to photoshop to make the photograph of a color chart come out close to the same on the screen as it looks in real life. Then there's the real fun -- getting the thing to print out so that it's close to the chart and the computer screen.
      There are times when I'm about ready to switch to all black-and-white.

      --
      This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
    15. Re:Colour? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bestiality is only mentioned in the old testament once

      Amazing. So, bestiality is better (relatively speaking) than: homosexuality, mouthing off to your parents, failing to pay tithes or taxes, wearing mixed-fabric clothing, and working on sabbath?

      This is a new and fantastic viewpoint. Somebody find me a sheep. It's biblical!

    16. Re:Colour? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually, the photos are in color. Mars is black and white. The color pictures you see of Mars are actually "false color", meaning that there is no color there whatsoever and NASA just added it so people looking at the pictures on their TVs or the Internet wouldn't be confused.

      It's the same principle as colorizing old movies.

    17. Re:Colour? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as the thing being photographed doesn't move. Let's hope they don't have the green filter on when it passes by.

    18. Re:Colour? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      and my Mom was one of the people that developed that film.

      which made her kinda cool in the eyes of a proto-nerd like myself

    19. Re:Colour? by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      Also, at least one false-color image has already been generated from combining photos with different filters.

      http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00001461/

      It looks pretty spectacular.

    20. Re:Colour? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a new and fantastic viewpoint. Somebody find me a sheep. It's biblical!

      Find your own damn sheep!

    21. Re:Colour? by dns_server · · Score: 1

      You mean he used the spelling that a majority of countries use, just not yours so it must be wrong.

    22. Re:Colour? by Rob+Carr · · Score: 1

      The majority of countries don't spell it either way. I live in the United States. I write for a living for people in the United States. For me, it's wrong.

      --
      This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
    23. Re:Colour? by sam_v1.35b · · Score: 2, Informative

      Digital imaging equipment doesn't see the world in colour. In a digital camera light causes electric charge to build up in photoelectric elements (CMOS or CCD) inside the camera. Lots of light makes lots of charge, less light makes less charge. In other words, an image that the camera sees is translated into brightness values - black, grey and white to you and me.

      To turn this back into a colour image you need to take more than one photo, and place a filter over the top of the camera so that only light at certain wavelengths is seen.

      If you do this for red, green and blue light then you get three different black and white images like this:

      red green blue

      If you combine these together using a program like Photoshop or GIMP you get a a false colour composite. You can then tweak this to make it look how you want it.

      Does it look like you'd really see it? I guess it depends on the person, but it's close enough for most of us.

      * Note that I'm only guessing that the above Phoenix images were taken using red, green and blue filters - I have no information about them - but they seem to be pretty close.

    24. Re:Colour? by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      This is one your mom joke I don't get ;)

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    25. Re:Colour? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole "red planet" thing was communism-related, not explicitly referring to the color red, but that has since led to confusion over the years.

  4. Re:This is really starting to get old now. by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

    You are right, ACs posting stupid comments does get old. But the freedom to post anonymously is highly valued around here- so the best thing to do is just ignore them. Browsing higher rated comments makes this easier if you are so inclined.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
  5. A Stupid question by unixcrab · · Score: 1

    Why does it takes weeks to deploy a spade? Surely if it landed safely, they just click the 'Deploy spade' button...

    1. Re:A Stupid question by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      ...just click the 'Deploy spade' button...

      Ok, here goes...

      --
      What?
    2. Re:A Stupid question by JustOK · · Score: 5, Funny

      Its not that. It's waiting for the Cancel/Allow dialog.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    3. Re:A Stupid question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They take their time with their $400 million baby. There'a bunch of functional checks to make sure the robotic arm survived the 7 g or so (plus vibrations) of launch, the 8 months of freezing in transit, the scorching hot re-entry, the bumps and rattles of landing, etc. Even then its joint motors are geared low for torque, and each move has to well considered to make sure they don't break it or anything like that. It would suck to get careless and knock off an antenna or something. They'll also want to get thorough photography of the surrounding area so they can pick the most scientifically promising locations to dig.

  6. Where on the planet did it land? by Cthefuture · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is there a picture or something that shows roughly where it landed on the planet? I spent some time on their web site but couldn't find anything.

    --
    The ratio of people to cake is too big
    1. Re:Where on the planet did it land? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      It landed on the North Pole of the Planet.

    2. Re:Where on the planet did it land? by nawcom · · Score: 1, Informative
      if you wanna go 3d theres a mars overlay for google earth - http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/download.php?Number=73974 and i'm sure they are going update for phoenix locations.

      Community forum for Google Earth - Mars section: http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/postlist.php/Cat/0/Board/mars

    3. Re:Where on the planet did it land? by Kifoth · · Score: 2, Informative
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7411113.stm

      There's a map at the bottom showing Phoenix's position relative to the other landers.

      Not sure if it's on the NASA site?

    4. Re:Where on the planet did it land? by Kifoth · · Score: 2, Informative
      To answer my own question...

      http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/phoenix/images-all.php

      That seems to have just about everything, plus some earth comparisons that should give you an idea of where on Mars it landed.

    5. Re:Where on the planet did it land? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for all we know these crappy B/w or B/s pictures were taken here on earth
      they wont show us the real images ie: blue sky and other interesting mars features

    6. Re:Where on the planet did it land? by CraftyJack · · Score: 1

      This will show you location and local (Mars) time for Spirit, Opportunity, and now Phoenix.

    7. Re:Where on the planet did it land? by JamieF · · Score: 1

      Here's a graphic of where it is on the Martian globe:

      http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/multimedia/ra1-gloabal.html

  7. Awesome by stoolpigeon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Those are some amazing shots. I was just looking at them with my 5 year old son. Hopefully by the time he is my age, pictures from Mars will have people in them.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    1. Re:Awesome by turgid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm sure my father said exactly the same thing when the Viking craft landed back in the 1970s.

      It would be great if space exploration went at a faster pace, but as long as there are wars to be fought, don't hold your breath.

    2. Re:Awesome by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 4, Funny

      Photoshop doesn't take that long to start up...

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

      we need a +1 sad, but true modifier

    4. Re:Awesome by Teancum · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In all fairness to your father, there was reasonable expectation in the early 1970's that manned missions to Mars would be not only happening but routine by the 1990's. Apollo not only showed it was possible, but even well within our technological realms to accomplish that task.

      What happened was a group of politicians who looked at the huge cash cow that was NASA in the 1960's and deliberately sabotaged the agency to fund their own pork barrel projects of various kinds.

      Unknown to ordinary taxpayers at the time, when Neil Armstrong was stepping on the Moon, NASA as it had been known previously was being dismantled... and that dismantling of NASA along with the layoffs from NASA research centers that basically threw away all of the talent that was accumulated at significant expense.

      This resulted in a glut of electrical engineers at the beginning of the 1970's, which IMHO is one of the things that fueled the "digital revolution" by having teams of engineers who had experience with complex systems from Apollo and the earlier NASA projects that were re-directed into building personal computers and working with modern semi-conductors. It also forced engineers like Steve Wozniak to become entrepreneurial when older engineers were taking positions in private industry for far less than what would be considered typical wages due to this glut.

      You can only guess at what NASA might have accomplished had they been able to maintain their 1966 funding levels in proportion to the overall federal budget to today. I think it could have been done if there had been leadership at the top of the U.S. government willing to spearhead the issue, but those who might have pushed for this sort of future were either killed (JFK and RFK) or involved in other politics such as the Vietnam War (LBJ) that proved to be unpopular and a turn-off to other voters. Ted Kennedy was never really able to pick up the mantle from his older brothers other than to make a significant career in the U.S. Senate.

      When I'm talking to older people (older than myself... I'm more of a GenXer myself) who lived through the Apollo era, they are quite surprised that so little of the Federal budget is spent on NASA. They thought that the 1960's style of spending continued throughout the rest of the 20th Century and beyond, and that NASA has been accomplishing less due to sheer mis-management.

      There is also an assumption that space travel is a difficult task, and along that line of thought that perhaps travel to Mars is simply impossible because with all of the hundreds of billions of dollars we have spent on NASA each year (yes, I know this is incorrect, but bear with me here) that NASA can't figure out how to build anything that can get past the moon unless it is robotic. With the "smartest guys on the planet" trying to figure this out, it must therefore be impossible.

      I would argue that they are somewhat correct in that assessment, but in all fairness to what is NASA today has to do with incredibly unpredictable budgets from year to year and earmarks that had to be spent in certain ways that weren't exactly the most efficient method of spending that money in terms of an overall vision of space exploration.

      We'll get to Mars eventually, but I'm not sure if it will be in the lifetime of my kids or my grandkids.

    5. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh look son, it's daddy and he's on mars,... that's right daddy is an csomonat, and an hero!

  8. This clip... by thrill12 · · Score: 3, Funny

    here looks like the start of a BSG Episode. It's almost as if Moore has directed it - I expected number Six to turn up any minute, laughing, and invading our computer systems only to begin a sneak attack on the 13th colony.

    Oh wait... this is reality ? In that case, I have another beer - make that five please.... And some peanuts.

    --
    Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
  9. Somewhere in the red circle... by Chmcginn · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here. The blue ellipse was the intended landing zone, the red the actual, and the green box was... umm... a Martian football field? I dunno.

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
    1. Re:Somewhere in the red circle... by houghi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And that card, is that the side of a table, or the size of 250.000 football fields? As I have no frame of reference, I have no idea if I must be impressed or not.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:Somewhere in the red circle... by Geirzinho · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia lists Mars' radius as 3,396 km, so I guess 1 degree translates to about 60km. That should make the semi-major axis of the target ellipse (very roughly) about 30km.

    3. Re:Somewhere in the red circle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct on the green box. The American public can't comprehend the size of something without relating it to football fields, so the green box was included for the casual viewers.

    4. Re:Somewhere in the red circle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a Google Mars link for that area. I think the light blue is a sort of smooth valley or plain, the brown is a highland area, the orange circle is the inside of a crater, presumably the splattery yellow stuff is where the mission planners believe ejecta may be. I can't even guess what the dark blue is...

    5. Re:Somewhere in the red circle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I find the following bbc article much better.
      Shows landing(crashing?!;-)) sites of ALL Martian spacecraft, as well as photo of the Phoenix and its major equipment, etc.
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7411113.stm

    6. Re:Somewhere in the red circle... by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      presumably the splattery yellow stuff is where the mission planners believe ejecta may be. I suspect that you typed that into the wrong IRC window.
      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    7. Re:Somewhere in the red circle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, they didn't stick a scale on it. The latitude/longitude grid helps, but only if you remember that Mars is smaller than Earth and do the calculation. Here's something more tangible, assuming you know how big Long Island, New York is. According to the text on that page the landing ellipse is 70km long.

  10. Colour Imaging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not that I don't appreciate NASA's false-colouring of images, but why is it that they never just send a visible spectrum camera up there?

    1. Re:Colour Imaging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everyone perceives the visible spectrum in the same way. It's more useful to use the various colored filters which are certainly "precalibrated". Don't retail digital cameras also use internal colored filters of some type as well?

    2. Re:Colour Imaging? by theurge14 · · Score: 1, Troll

      They did this on Titan as well. It irritates the heck out of me when the answer is usually "it isn't scientifically relevant". Really? The whole reason we send a probe to Titan is to see what is under the clouds and we don't put an adequate visual camera on board because it isn't 'scientifically relevant'. And space-types wonder why the general public is usually apathetic towards these probe missions.

    3. Re:Colour Imaging? by Rob+Carr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Situated atop an extended mast, SSI will provide images at a height two meters above the ground, roughly the height of a tall person. SSI simulates the human eye with its two optical lens system that will give three-dimensional views of the arctic plains. The instrument will also simulate the resolution of human eyesight using a charged-coupled device that produces high density 1024 x 1024 pixel images. But SSI exceeds the capabilities of the human eye by using optical and infrared filters, allowing multispectral imaging at 12 wavelengths of geological interest and atmospheric interest.

      My Nikon D50 captures some of the UV and IR as well. That's the other reason everyone uses a UV filter on their lenses (the first being, it's a cheap way to protect the camera lens that might well be worth more than the camera). With a special filter, I can take IR pictures with my Nikon. Even your eyes pick up a bit of the UV -- if you look at a blacklight bulb, it's hard to focus on -- the lenses in your eyes focus visible light and don't do as good a job on the UV.

      --
      This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
    4. Re:Colour Imaging? by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

      Well, they did. Are you telling me you saw nothing in those images? :-) But seriously, they do capture visible spectrum. They need to be able to use the cameras for simply verifying the physical health of the spacecraft, instrument deployment, etc. so visible spectrum images are useful.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    5. Re:Colour Imaging? by Btarlinian · · Score: 1

      Not that I don't appreciate NASA's false-colouring of images, but why is it that they never just send a visible spectrum camera up there? You do realize that you get the exact same result as a color camera (in fact better) by taking three pictures with red, green and blue filters in front of your black and white camera?
    6. Re:Colour Imaging? by theurge14 · · Score: 1

      Interesting I get marked as a troll as I'm not the only one who has complained about this. Feel free to pay a visit to Google and you will find many blogs from 2005 saying the same thing. The Wikipedia entry on the Huygens probe mentions the loss of 350 of the 700 pictures the probe took due to a 'operational command error' on ESA's part, and then they further mention how the amateur community took it upon themselves to attempt to clean up the quality and artifacts on the images that were provided.

      I don't believe I'm being overly harsh when I say the images from the Titan mission are a disappointment.

    7. Re:Colour Imaging? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      I have no idea why you are getting modded as a troll, and I hope that the meta-moderators will get this correct and mark this as bad moderation.

      I happen to agree with you, and it seems as though even efforts by the "space enthusiasts" community to help with providing rationale and even funding for more "visible spectrum" filters is deliberately torpedoed by the NASA management.

      The "public" is paying for these images, and certainly deserve to get something for their investment, even if it doesn't provide the maximum value for science at those frequencies. The scientists involved will claim that there is a limit to the number of filter you can put into the camera. I call that obfuscation of the issue.

      Yes, I know it costs huge amounts of money to send something to Mars of Saturn, but please, don't feed me BS that you can't include some filters that ordinary people can get with a $50 digital camera.

  11. Interesting Object? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Anyone know what the object in the back right field is? Sticks out..

    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/phoenix/collection_16/SS000EFF896228773_10CA8R8M1_8877.jpg

    1. Re:Interesting Object? by Ixtl · · Score: 5, Funny

      Can't say for sure, but my guess is it's a rock.

    2. Re:Interesting Object? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Slartibartfast.

    3. Re:Interesting Object? by DougF · · Score: 1

      I don't know, but a couple of guesses: 1) A piece of the Phoenix' entry system, such as the parachute or the heat shield; 2) An artifact on the lens (but then wouldn't it show up in the same location on other pictures--is there only one camera taking pictures?); 3) Glare off of something shiny (water ice?); 4) Phoenix isn't alone....

      --
      Impetuous! Homeric!
    4. Re:Interesting Object? by ivan_w · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's probably either the heat shield or the chute --Ivan

    5. Re:Interesting Object? by future+assassin · · Score: 1

      What more interesting is the way the pixels look like to the right of the object right at the top of of the white pint. That don't look natural.

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    6. Re:Interesting Object? by heikkile · · Score: 1

      I noticed the same thing in http://fawkes4.lpl.arizona.edu/images/gallery/lg_440.jpg (same image, it seems), and posted to the first slashdot article about it: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=563849&cid=23542289 So far only one funny comment, nothing much to go on. But it sure looks interesting. My bet is still a rock, but if it has moved when they take the next picture... -H

      --

      In Murphy We Turst

    7. Re:Interesting Object? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't say for sure, but my guess is it's a rock.
      I agree, for what little my opinion is worth. Some of the closer rocks have what appears to be a light reflection and all appearing to be pointed in the same angular direction reflectionwise as the object "that sticks out". Whether the light is being reflected directly from sunlight, reflection of sunlight off the lander, or a light from the lander to aid in photography is a question for more thought or maybe answer is somewhere on the JPL or NASA websites.
    8. Re:Interesting Object? by MouseR · · Score: 0

      Moo?

    9. Re:Interesting Object? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously space ghost is obvious.

    10. Re:Interesting Object? by nawcom · · Score: 0

      *squints at picture* well, that's obviously a martian stripper pole.

    11. Re:Interesting Object? by JambisJubilee · · Score: 5, Informative

      When an object is too bright for a CCD camera, it causes excess charge to "bloom" into adjacent pixels. It's a common artifact.

    12. Re:Interesting Object? by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      Maybe a dust devil?

    13. Re:Interesting Object? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Looks like a martian middle finger coming up from the ground...

    14. Re:Interesting Object? by decosterthomas · · Score: 1

      I would guess some kind of reflection

    15. Re:Interesting Object? by sohp · · Score: 1

      I saw that also. If it's not a trick of the light, then it would most likely be a part of the backshell, having drifted a little downrange while the lander was diving more or less straight down on the retros.

    16. Re:Interesting Object? by rpj1288 · · Score: 1

      Before the landing, they were talking about being worried about landing on a "hill" near the center of the possible landing area. The hill was only a couple meters tall, so this could be it.

      --
      Marvin knew: "Think of a number, any number..."
    17. Re:Interesting Object? by tbischel · · Score: 1

      It appears to be a prop left on the "mars hollywood set". Don't worry, we'll have those mistakes ironed out by the time of the human "mars landing".

    18. Re:Interesting Object? by Pedrito · · Score: 1

      Nah, it's nothing interesting. Just a martian groundhog looking for his shadow.

    19. Re:Interesting Object? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I tried pasting that URL 3 times and cannot get it to work. I didn't see extra spaces either. What am I doing wrong? Do I need to have my geek card revoked?

    20. Re:Interesting Object? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The object is standing up like a pole, and in one picture you can see three prongs on the top,in a uniform shape. The object is not of a natural origin, and it reflects light as though it is made of shiny metal.

    21. Re:Interesting Object? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I tried pasting that URL 3 times and cannot get it to work. I didn't see extra spaces either. What am I doing wrong? Do I need to have my geek card revoked?

      I finally figured it out. The right side of the URL is chopped off without wrapping. I had to copy-and-paste the whole page to text to get it. You guys probably have your monitors set to higher resolution. My eyes get tired at the end of the day reading small fonts, so I leave it at default resolution.

      So I get my nerd card back, but my "good eye" discount card is revoked.

    22. Re:Interesting Object? by rts008 · · Score: 1

      *looks at picture*
      *looks out window into back yard*
      *looks back at picture*

      Hey, that's my house! OMG! I live on mars!

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    23. Re:Interesting Object? by Eil · · Score: 1

      The description for that image said that it was a mosaic of other images (stitched together, I presume?) so it's probably an artifact from that process.

      Or the lander has done its job and found a martian.

    24. Re:Interesting Object? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In higher resolutions you can see that is an artifact from stitching the images together.

    25. Re:Interesting Object? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could be the metallic glint from the heat shield or the backshell. They are detached at, oh, I think it was a kilometre or so off the ground, and impact onto the surface quite some distance from the lander. That was the case for Spirit and Opportunity, the latter of which even drove up to the heat shield and took a closer look.

      They will probably be able to tell if that is what it is when the MRO orbiter takes pictures from orbit. If it is the heat shield or backshell it will be in the direction from which the Mars entry occurred.

    26. Re:Interesting Object? by Mr_Reaper · · Score: 1

      Its a Weather Balloon.

    27. Re:Interesting Object? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When an object is too bright for a CCD camera, it causes excess charge to "bloom" into adjacent pixels. It's a common artifact. Well, as I see it, this "bloom" is casting a shadow.
    28. Re:Interesting Object? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It looks like Mr Burns. "I come in peace..."

      - Peder

    29. Re:Interesting Object? by Petersson · · Score: 1

      When an object is too bright for a CCD camera, it causes excess charge to "bloom" into adjacent pixels. It's a common artifact.

      Common? OMG it's the first Mars artifact I ever heard of!

      --
      I'm not insane. My mother had me tested.
    30. Re:Interesting Object? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps, but it looks like it has a matching shadow.

  12. Looks like a glacier by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Well, I'm a Canadian I know what glaciers look like and it certainly looks like the machine is sitting on top of one. Just my tuppence worth.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Looks like a glacier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, cant wait till they drill 1 m deep hole in it

  13. Coloration ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be nice to know if this is the actual color of the surface as a man would see it as Sunlight filtered though the Martian atmosphere? or is this image taken from some local illumination local to the spacecraft? , of course if from local illumination this might mean the coloration is false.?

    1. Re:Coloration ? by argent · · Score: 1

      The raw images often have quite a different color than the released images. NASA typically colors their images to match the calculated color of the martian surface, based on other sensor data than just the camera.

      I wrote an article about this in 2004: http://scarydevil.com/~peter/io/vision.html

  14. I was about to ask that... by argent · · Score: 1

    But in the higher resolution frame you posted it looks like an artifact. The top few scan lines have noise before and after the one-pixel-wide white area.

    it could also be the sunlit side of a larger rock.

    1. Re:I was about to ask that... by Rob+Carr · · Score: 1

      It might be the shield that got jettisoned. Darned if I remember where I read that...

      --
      This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
  15. I hope they don't find life by Kieckerjan · · Score: 1

    I for one don't hope they find any signs of any kind of life whatsoever. Here's why:

    https://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/20569/

    An intricate argument but well worth the read. (Bugmenot has passwords if you're too lazy to sign in.)

    --
    Being well balanced is overrated. -- John Carmack
    1. Re:I hope they don't find life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a crock of shit that is.

    2. Re:I hope they don't find life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could pull some vague notions out of my ass regarding how life might develop throughout the universe, but I'm sorry, it would be nothing at all useful to think about, let alone to shape the course of scientific exploration.

    3. Re:I hope they don't find life by StaticEngine · · Score: 1

      I concur. Any article based on a false dichotomy isn't worth the paper it's printed on, nor the electrons it uses on the WWW.

  16. Cool, but by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    Let me know when a picture comes down with clear images of the little green men. Then I will get more excited...

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Cool, but by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Let me know when a picture comes down with clear images of the little green men. Then I will get more excited...

      Hey, whatever floats your boat. Me, I'll get excited when I see the pictures of the little green women. ;-)

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Cool, but by deft · · Score: 1

      I doubt anyones going to want to go wake up someone so utterly unimpressed with anything... sorry man.

      Dont wait by the phone.

      --

      There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
    3. Re:Cool, but by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      Ummm... You do realize I said that as a joke, right? Personally I think the Mars missions are very interesting in their own right, even if we don't uncover any signs of life up there.

      Although you are probably appropriately concerned about the real chances of people still expecting little green men to come crawling out of Martian rocks. After all, some very powerful people who shall remain nameless have been known to claim that "the jury is still out" when asked about evolution.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  17. Prime Meridian / I Had No Idea by FurtiveGlancer · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the lat/long! Now, the prime meridian on Mars, what's that near?

    I had no idea the Air Force was involved in this mission. It's clear they are because of the green blobs in the right lower corner of the map which are apparently a golf course adjusted for lower gravity and reduced atmosphere.
    --
    Invenio via vel creo
    1. Re:Prime Meridian / I Had No Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had no idea the Air Force was involved in this mission. It's clear they are because of the green blobs in the right lower corner of the map which are apparently a golf course adjusted for lower gravity and reduced atmosphere.
      Alan Shepard was US Navy and the first extra-terrestial golfer. Your comment woke old memories of watching the coverage.
    2. Re:Prime Meridian / I Had No Idea by FurtiveGlancer · · Score: 1

      I must admit, I watched the live coverage as well.

      The reason they chose a Navy man, was he was used to not retrieving the balls! Splash!

      --
      Invenio via vel creo
  18. You mean by future+assassin · · Score: 3, Funny

    well have to Register "Registration is now required to read magazine articles from Technology Review." before we talk to the aliens. Then those fuckers will space spam us with their Miagra.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  19. Why Mars all the time? by gilesjuk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While I can understand that they're looking for water and getting as much information for a future human mission to Mars, there's other places which could be more interesting such as Europa.

    The mission to Europa was canned which is a shame.

    1. Re:Why Mars all the time? by FurtiveGlancer · · Score: 1

      Don't you remember, the monolith placed Europa off limits?

      --
      Invenio via vel creo
    2. Re:Why Mars all the time? by cowscows · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While Europa is certainly well worth studying, I think mars makes a lot of sense for a couple reasons. First, there's still plenty to learn about it. Second, when you're talking about planetary distances, mars is pretty close, so you get feedback on your missions much quicker. Not only scientific data, but also about how your spacecraft did/didn't perform, which should help improve the designs of future spacecraft. And third, there's a decent amount of satellites already orbiting mars, and the newer landers and such can utilize those satellites to facilitate their mission.

      Basically, I think you get a lot of bang for your buck with mars. Europa would be great, no doubt, but it's likely that for the same cost, they'd only be able to send a smaller probe with less instruments on it, and would get significantly less data out of it. But hopefully we'll get there one day.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    3. Re:Why Mars all the time? by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      You can always compile your own space agency from scratch.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    4. Re:Why Mars all the time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...with blackjack, and hookers!

  20. Dear NASA: Hire an editor, please! by myvirtualid · · Score: 1, Insightful

    There is a repeated error on http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/phoenix/images.php: The caption used for many images should read Team Members Celebrate and not Team Members' Celebrate

    (Unless they really meant to write Team Members' Celebration?)

    Let's just hope there are no misplaced apostrophes in any of the wee beastie's code. Especially in the firmware update upload controller. That would be delightfully ironic....

    --
    I'm here EdgeKeep Inc.
    1. Re:Dear NASA: Hire an editor, please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

  21. Take life to Mars by mcbutterbuns · · Score: 1

    I've always wondered why NASA doesn't take life to Mars and see what effects the planet has on it. Take bacteria, a small plant, I dont know, anything. Maybe if Mars never had life, we could bring life to it.

    1. Re:Take life to Mars by DougF · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because that could irrevocably contaminate Mars before there was any proof of life that may have arisen independently. Besides, we already know what the surface conditions are like from the various probes, landers, and rovers sent there. We can duplicate Mars' surface conditions in labs here on Earth and get a good idea of what would happen to various kinds Earth-based living things.

      --
      Impetuous! Homeric!
  22. Looks familiar . by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

    Those rocks look familiar, looks like the place I ride my dirt bike. WTF.. BRB....

    --

    Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

  23. So why don't they support FireFox? by PhilipPeake · · Score: 1

    The UofA website really doesn't work well with FireFox. Half the time you click on a thumbnail and don't get the the image to show, and the downloads just doesn't work at all.

    I would have expected a university run show to do much better than this.

    1. Re:So why don't they support FireFox? by jefu · · Score: 1

      They seem to be using flash to display images. Who knows why - it is surely simple enough to just load the image into the browser (img tag, anyone?). Does anyone know of any other sources for the images that doesn't require flash? For some reason on my machine about half the flash stuff I try to load doesn't load at all. I think I have the right flash, but it still occurs.

  24. Color Camera == 3 B&W Cameras by foniksonik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just so peoples know... a color camera is not as good as a set of Black and White Cameras which only capture light from specific light spectrums... ie: think of it as 1 Red camera, 1 Blue, 2 Green and probably 1 pure Black/White camera, where camera == CCD.

    Look up CCD for more details on what it is/does and why using 3 separate CCDs for imaging will get you the highest quality image.

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    1. Re:Color Camera == 3 B&W Cameras by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      The opening image looks like a 2-filter image, and I only found 2 black-and-white originals in the list. True color would use 3 filters (at least). Thus, it may be a partial fudge with tint correction added for the missing filter.

    2. Re:Color Camera == 3 B&W Cameras by Tablizer · · Score: 1
      Yip, a fellow slashdotter found the smoking gun in another story that it's a 2-filter "partial" fudge:

      http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/images/press/false_color_postcard_edr.html

      "This is an approximate-color image taken shortly after landing by the spacecraft's Surface Stereo Imager, inferred from two color filters, a violet, 450-nanometer filter and an infrared, 750-nanometer filter."

      When the press copies it, they usually fail to mention such.
    3. Re:Color Camera == 3 B&W Cameras by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 3, Informative

      CCDs are only one kind of imaging technology. It's not necessarily the best, there are trade-offs. The other major type is CMOS, which has several sub-types and variations.

      The rovers Pathfinder, Spirit and Opportunity use a lot of different color filters that are placed in front of the imaging sensor. Because the filters are fixed, 3 CCD, or 3 CMOS cameras isn't very good for science, it's good for making a pretty picture.

    4. Re:Color Camera == 3 B&W Cameras by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I meant to say that CCDs aren't the only imaging technology. Oops.

  25. False color? by Otter · · Score: 1
    ...pictures of the red planet ...

    This issue was discussed in a series of posts on the last Mars mission, that left me more confused than I was before: is the red color in the photo on the main page the real color of the Mars surface (or at least an accurate reconstruction of what a human eye would see with ambient light there) or is it something NASA arbitrarily adds to impress viewers with notions about "the red planet"?

  26. Will they find money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will they find money to support schools and hospitals?

    1. Re:Will they find money? by seededfury · · Score: 1

      Oh yes! I heard about this. The great money tree of mars conspiracy... if it's all true then there will be plenty of money to go around.

  27. I guess it doesn't NEED to be said... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    Mars needs women.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:I guess it doesn't NEED to be said... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Pssst... Over here

      --
      What?
  28. Mars is ugly by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    And its momma dresses it funny.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:Mars is ugly by ggvaidya · · Score: 1

      Tell me you didn't just say that about the God of War?!

      Man, are you in trouble.

  29. Now what? by Animats · · Score: 1

    OK, the poles look pretty much like the other locations where landers have taken pictures. Now what?

    So far, from what we know of Mars terrain, it makes Nevada look exciting.

    1. Re:Now what? by slashdotjunker · · Score: 1

      Now we start digging. Previous missions revealed that the Martian surface looks the same everywhere. Now, we are hoping to find interesting stuff by going downward.

  30. Color Pics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'd think they'd spend an extra $60 for a freakin' color camera.

  31. I modded the parent -1 Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi Henry V .009, I just wanted to let you know that it was me, YA_Python_dev, that modded as troll your racist and homophobic comment above.

    I'm writing as AC because you can't mod and write comments on the same story.

    1. Re:I modded the parent -1 Troll by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 1

      I'm interested in your explanation of why the above comment was "racist" -- unless you simply use the term as a synonym for "bad m'kay." And are you one of those Christians who think that homosexuality is a choice? You fucking homophobic moron.

      No, homosexuality has a cause. It can't be genetic, because the fitness deficit is too big for that to be a realistic explanation. That leaves pathogens of some sort, probably a childhood disease that every now and then causes some sort of damage to the hypothalamus.

      YA_Python_dev, please go away and hang out with your kind on the fundamentalist Christian websites or wherever your kind go to hate on gays. The rest of understand that it's a biological condition with an actual biological cause: it's not "the devil in you." Gays are normal people like you or me, who have to live with a condition that causes severe social and health problems for them, one that most of them would never wish for another person to be born with.

    2. Re:I modded the parent -1 Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know pretty well that being gay or lesbian is not a disease, the consequence of a disease or a choice. If you think that it can't be due to genetic, you should read some good book on evolution and natural selection; hint: it's all about the survival and reproduction of genes, not organisms.

      Being gay it's simply how a small but significant percentage of all humans are born (I think it's something between 5% and 10%).

      This is exactly why I consider racist acting on homophobia (even only with words, like your comment above).

      And, no: I'm not a Christian. I'm an atheist, and proud of it, thank you very much.

      -- YA_Python_dev, still posting as AC for the reason given in the GP

    3. Re:I modded the parent -1 Troll by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 1

      Ok, maybe you're just an atheist who can't count. Homosexuality has a fitness hit bigger than any known genetic disease. At 3% of the male population (your 5% to 10% numbers are widely quoted in the media but don't jive with the literature), it's simply too common to be genetic. At the wacky 5% to 10% numbers you quote, it would be even more improbable.

      The most frequent genetic disease we know about with the same kind of fitness hit is sickle cell, which is as high as 1/500 births among African Americans. (Abount 1 in 34,000 births among everybody in the US.) And the genes that cause sickle cell have the benefit of fighting the most deadly killer in human history: malaria.

      It order for homosexuality to be genetic, every male homosexual must provide a fitness benefit to his nephews and nieces somewhere on the equivalent of that provided by mother love to make up for the kids he doesn't have. Yet no one -- in any society, much less all of them -- has ever noticed any huge fitness advantage to gay uncles. It's not there.

      More damning, we haven't found any genes that cause homosexuality. If the genes were there, we would have seen them 10 years ago. The chance that we would have missed it in the Hap Map (I hope to god that you know what that is with your "read a book on natural selection" shit) is negligible.

      And yes, some gays have had some children (not as many as straight men by all accounts) throughout history. However even a gene with a 5% fitness hit will be weeded out over time (a 5% fitness hit would mean that a gay man would have only 95% of the children a straight man would have -- a wild overestimate compared to the conclusions of the only study I know of on this).

      The idea that homosexuality is genetic does not jive with theory nor with evidence. There are simply no genetic diseases that common with anywhere near that fitness impact. Homosexuality genes would have shown up in genetic studies long ago.

      If it's not genetic, there's not too many other things it could be. A pathogen is by far the most likely cause, and that's where the smart money has been for the last 5 years at least. If it were exposure to a chemical or some such, we would most likely have noticed by now. The most likely pathogen is a virus, a very common (perhaps unnoticed) childhood disease that causes this side effect in a small number of cases. There are lots of people (though perhaps not enough) looking into the causes of homosexuality.

      And finally, your claim that gays are a race is silly and a terrible misuse of the English language. Say what you mean with words that mean it.

      If you have any intellectual bollux at all, your next post will be an apology for the race-baiting, and be posted under your real username.

    4. Re:I modded the parent -1 Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      I think it's liklier that strict homosexual and strict heterosexual orientation are sexually and culturally selected for within several human populations, and that it's unclear whether this selection is heritable.

      That is, while I agree it's possible that homosexual orientation is not a strictly heritable condition, it is equiprobable that heterosexual orientation isn't either.

      It seems more probable that H. sapiens are more like P. pansicus in which we see sexual and cultural selection pressures that favour bisexual behaviour. (Non-frotting males tend to be excluded from socialization with fertile females except in some favour-trading interactions).

      Indeed, there are a number of human cultures, past and present, in which male-male and female-female sexual activity is an important part of ritual. (In the USA for example, displays of female-female intimacy and sexual activity is widely seen both in recorded media (especially but not exclusively porn) and in night clubs (girls performing a kissing/make-out display); in Japan there is a substantial market for YAOI (male-male erotic illustrations-animations-literature); and even in the USA there is a substantial market for "slash" fiction).

      The Pathogenic Hypothesis to which you allude is at best a feasible hypothesis for which there is no current evidence. Attempts to gather evidence (epidemiological studies of self-declared homosexual men and women noting population concentrations in urban areas) have been unable to differentiate themselves from other common clusterizations which are probably non-pathogenic (ethnic, age and occupation ghettos and gentrification follow similar patterns). Moreover, there is a huge problem in pursuing a pathogenic hypothesis in the absence of a likely pathogen, especially one that is found in a number of species not closely related to H. sapiens. Species-hopping that grossly preserves symptoms is certainly a known phenomenon, but with inevitably diverging contagiousness.

      So while I agree with you that eventually a strong theory of sexual orientation in humans will arise, and that it will not have a strongly genetic basis, I think that there are better hypotheses than the gay germ one. I think it would be funny if the Freud-Fliess model turned out to be a close fit, however there is more evidence for malleability and fluidity of sexuality in humans and other social species (including non-mammals! including even several invertebrate species!), so searching for an evolutionary argument in favour of apparent malleability/fluidity seems like it would be more fruitful right now.

      (One obvious area of research is a coupling of free reproductive energy to incidence of homsexual behaviour in a sizable population of a species in which homosexual behaviour is observed[*] -- if there is a clear positive correlation, than one argument would be that by satisfying sexual urges without producing offspring, homosexual preference acts to prevent a population explosion that leads to a subsequent collapse. Large scale feedback loops are known in evolutionary biology and would not be especially surprising in, say, insect populations. Selling this sort of pattern to researchers focused on more intelligent social animals is somewhat more difficult...)

      [*] Conveniently this includes Drosophila melanogaster per Baghemihl's Biological Exuberance and discussed at length in J. Neurogenetics with respect to the fru alleles, controlled mutation of which causes heterosexual courtship to be strongly attenuated, but not homosexual courtship. The reason that fru is interesting is mainly because its genes have few homologs even in other Drosophilidae, and the gene is not present at all in vertebrates. However, it is an easily induced mutation, and can arise naturally, particularly in environments in which reproductive energy is abundant.

      Finally, there is simply no scientific consensus yet on the cause(s) of homosexuality in H. sapiens. Speculation is fine, but runs the ri

  32. Dirt vs. regolith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dirt is a mixture of regolith (from the weathering of rocks) and decaying organic matter. The scientists will call it regolith until they know otherwise, because finding dirt on Mars would be a very, very big deal.

  33. Re:Colour Imaging? - Cost and Compromise by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Informative

    As far as space missions and human-friendly color images, the bottom line is that transmission of images is expensive. Thus, they don't use the human-friendly wavelengths very often. However, there are various mathematical ways to approximate such using the other filters plus some sample calibrations, and this is usually what we see in press-release images from most missions.

    For example, the rover missions usually use infrared filters instead of "red" filters for that end of their range; but they can use that one to approximate the red filter with some adjustments.

    I suspect they will do similar things with this mission once it gets up to speed. The preliminary color images are 2-filter approximations. If they do what the rovers did, they'll use 3 filters that don't match human eyesight but compensate with digital processing to give us "human" approximations. They'll be better than these early 2-filter approximations.

    If you as a human are upset at this approximation; fish, birds and reptiles will be even more angry because they have 4 color cones instead of 3. (We'd probably have four if our mammalian ancestors were not nocturnal. Damned those mammal-squishing dinosaurs who made us hide in the darkness! I wish meteors on you for limiting our color!)

  34. Photos comparison with permafrost on Earth by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Informative
    Space biologist-turned-blogger Keith Cowing of NASA Watch was one of the participants in the Mars settlement analogue project over at Devon Island neart Earth's north pole. He posted yesterday that the photos that Phoenix has been sending back from the Martian north pole remind him a -lot- of the permafrost-created ground patterns he observed near Devon Island, and posted some comparison photos:

    http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2008/05/deja_vu_on_mars.html

    I had a rather strange case of deja vu tonight as the first images from Phoenix flashed on my computer screen. The image on the left was taken on 25 May 2008 on Mars at 68 deg North. I took the picture on the right on Devon Island, 75 deg North in July 2007. I'm just saying ... those polygonal patterns on Mars are VERY familiar.
  35. They caught it on way down by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Informative

    Apparently they were able to image the thing from orbit while on its way down on the chute:

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/main/index.html

    They mentioned giving it a try at a press conference, but gave it really small odds because the image size is much smaller than the potential landing range drift. Lucky hit.

  36. Except that.... by DrYak · · Score: 1

    ...in NASA's case that's way much more than 3 filters. They are using about a dozen to by able to study other wavelenght too. linky

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  37. SOIL Polygons by kritz112358 · · Score: 1

    looks like soil polygons from the arctic ... What causes them? Are they proof of water?

  38. Re:Colour Imaging? - Cost and Compromise by Rob+Carr · · Score: 1

    For the record, it appears that it's only some birds that have four color cones. Budgerigars (parakeets for us Americans) see UV -- you can ruin a bird's sex life by putting sunscreen on its forehead.

    --
    This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
  39. Brine? by Vandil+X · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They called the dirt layer drudged up while driving in Meridani (Opportunity's site) "brine". But that's because it's a salty, slightly moist soil.

    Not sure what that means for the polar region's dirt, but just tossing that out there.

    --
    Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
  40. And the game is all tied up!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.bio.aps.anl.gov/~dgore/fun/PSL/marsscorecard.html

    Earth scores another point with her Phoenix lander, tying the game at a score of 20-All! Ladies and gentlemen, the game hasn't been this exciting since its inception in 1938!

  41. Re:Colour Imaging? - Cost and Compromise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who cares fuck about all of that - where are the fucking aliens on Mars?

  42. Cosmic ray hit by JetJaguar · · Score: 1

    In all likelihood, this is an artifact caused by a radiation event that hit a few pixels of the CCD chip while the image was taken. These are often called cosmic ray hits, although most of the time it's due to the radioactive decay of something local.

    Artifacts like this aren't very unusual, most raw data from any CCD camera will have these if the exposure time is long enough. The raw data from Hubble is littered with these. In addition, the reason it's a streak is that the charge often bleeds to some degree, usually along the path that chip is read out from in the electronics.

    I'm actually rather suprised at how cagey the Phoenix team has been about responding to questions about this artifact. These things are well known, and there's no big secret about them.

    --

    Shop Smart, Shop S-mart!

  43. Re:Colour Imaging? - Cost and Compromise by slashtivus · · Score: 1

    Actually, some women are "tetrachromats". They have 4 cones, the additional one somewhere in the orange range. Our regular vision is also not strictly RGB, but our brains compensate by using the differences so it works out the same.

  44. Re:Colour Imaging? - Cost and Compromise by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Actually, some women are "tetrachromats". They have 4 cones,

    The evidence for such is inconclusive, at least having "usable" extra cones.

  45. Re:Colour Imaging? - Cost and Compromise by slashtivus · · Score: 1

    You are correct. There some question of the optic nerve handling the extra information. I was just recalling a rather long article in SciAm and thought it might be a good contribution to the discussion.

  46. Flash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, why in hell is the arizona site using flash for the enlarged images. Just to annoy those of us who don't use it? Or are they embedding ads in it? Or are they just clueless fucktards?

  47. Shoulda' snuck a Mars bar in there by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    Shoulda' snuck a Mars bar in there so it fell out when the panels deployed.

    Funniest. Prank. Ever.

    --
    No sig today...
  48. Random comment about the habitability of Mars by sarahtim · · Score: 1

    Somewhat off topic. Sorry 'bout that.
    It is pretty easy to gather the data that show that Mars would be a very demanding place to live. Some folk like to say it's all crazy talk. I reckon it is useful to turn the question around and ask it this way; apart from Earth, where would be the easiest place for long term habitation? Assume we are talking about something that might be done in our lifetimes.

    The Moon would come second simply due to its proximity to earth but the low gravity would mean we wouldn't really be talking about long term. Most other places are so hostile that building a rotating space station with serious levels of radiation protection is probably more practical.

    So, if we are talking about colonising anywhere of the planet, I think it has to be Mars. There really aren't any other contenders. All you have to do is work out a sustainable logic for doing it. To me it's a no brainer. The last few hundred thousand years of our evolution have hard-wired us to be tempted by the benefits of exploration. We are an invasive species and it has paid off handsomely. Having filled the available space down here we can continue to expand up there.

    But, if you want a practical, terrestrial pay-off for the investment then consider this. The folks on Earth need to cease being hunter-gathers completely and create a sustainable ecology. One excellent way to accelerate the development of technology to facilitate this is to create a crucible in which there is essentially no other option but to use all resources very wisely and to recycle damn near everything. Bases or colonies on the Moon and Mars would be perfect places for this to happen. They would be artificially created pockets of geographical isolation such as very often lead to bursts of innovation, evolution and creativity. There would be risk. It focuses the mind wonderfully. There are many who would love to be given the chance to take that risk. *waves hand... damn ... too old*

  49. A few in 3D by whizbowl · · Score: 1

    Looks like a few 3d pairs have been posted to NASA's site and picked up here. Hope some more, wider views come out soon.

  50. Errrrr Where is the ICE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I seem to be the only one asking this question.

    i see no surface ice.

    or was the plan to wait for winter and have the lander be burried in it?

  51. Sadly.... by Chmcginn · · Score: 1

    Since (normal) golf balls are not biodegradable, it's now a violation of MARPOL to drive off the flight deck. (Not saying it doesn't happen, but you can get in trouble for it.)

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
  52. bald barbie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have my attention!