Phoenix Mars Lander Updates

spandex_panda writes "There are a few pictures of the Mars Lander on the ground — you can see its parachute and its heat shield a few kilometers away, too. There's a very cool looking picture of it floating down, actually captured while it's in the air with its parachute out!" We also have a YouTube video all about the robot arm that will dig down and probably find a groundhog who we all hope will see his shadow.

Comments

so let me ask the question

[OrochimaruVoldemort]

how many days into it's mission will it send back data on what it dug?

Re:so let me ask the question

[Verteiron]

One day more than they originally planned. They just managed to reestablish communication with the probe after a Martian^H^H^H^H^H^H^H cosmic ray switched off the UHS antenna on the orbiter relay.

Re:so let me ask the question

[Verteiron]

Oops. That would be UHF, not UHS.

Re:so let me ask the question

[Anonymous Coward]

no digging allowed here. this is slashdot.

Re:so let me ask the question

[AmigaMMC]

and that would be a Cosmic Ray, not a "Martian" Cosmic Ray. They are all generated in outer space. Well... they're not even rays... ok, nitpicking now :)

Re:so let me ask the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Whizzzzz! Right over your head.

Re:so let me ask the question

[ChromaticDragon]

OK, class...

Today's lesson in Internet humor will discuss text-based simulations of real-life behavior.

Sometimes, it aids for delivery of humor to juxtapose two replies or comments together in such a way that one is hidden and the other is the official or formal one. A good example in common speech would be in Top Gun when the main character says one thing to the teacher and "coughs" a different response into his hand. The hidden, coughed, reply is shared with those nearby so they can share the deceit.

For the humor impaired, or non-human readers out there, humor is often a social construct of sharing the joke or hidden meaning. Get it?

A long time ago, before chat rooms or blogs, a common internet medium was a program called "talk". The primary difference of modes today was that each "talker" got half the screen and just typed away. You could type something and then backspace it away but the person on the other end would see the entire exchange. So they knew both the early response and the second.

"^H" is representative of Control-H which in several terminal types is basically backspace. When people now type one thing followed by a series of "^H" they are simulating this early behavior of "talk" or even earlier and more mundane habit of hiding a hidden response or comment (cough, cough).

Now, be sure to return next week (especially those semi-sentient programs out there) to tackle the more difficult topic of sarcasm.

Re:so let me ask the question

[fizzup]

-------->   Joke
   O
  -+-       You
   |
  / \

Re:so let me ask the question

[spacemandave]

The robotic arm is scheduled to start digging on about sol 10 or thereabouts. After that, it really depends on how hard the soil is as to how long it will take to dig. Some samples of the loose soil will be delivered to the TEGA and MECA instruments before that, I believe.

Re:so let me ask the question

[Cesa]

Now, be sure to return next week (especially those semi-sentient programs out there) to tackle the more difficult topic of sarcasm. Ah yes, good luck with that. I am sure you will be very successful.

Re:so let me ask the question

[Chris Burke]

A long time ago, before chat rooms or blogs, a common internet medium was a program called "talk". The primary difference of modes today was that each "talker" got half the screen and just typed away. You could type something and then backspace it away but the person on the other end would see the entire exchange. So they knew both the early response and the second.

"^H" is representative of Control-H which in several terminal types is basically backspace. When people now type one thing followed by a series of "^H" they are simulating this early behavior of "talk" or even earlier and more mundane habit of hiding a hidden response or comment (cough, cough).

There are two more facts that will help people and machines trying to understand the funny:

1) The "talk" program would send the literal backspace key to the talk client you were communicating in order to erase the character off their screen.
2) Different terminals may be using different codes for backspace, such that it was possible that when someone tried to erase something they typed it would look to be properly deleted on their end, yet on the other end it would appear as a literal series of "^H"s, making both the original word and attempt to erase it obvious.

So an additional layer of the humor in the case of using "^H"s is that it is supposed to simulate the hidden comment, revealed unintentionally and unwittingly.

Re:so let me ask the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably almost immediately.

Re:so let me ask the question

[iamlucky13]

To follow up on that, the lander will continuously send back data on the soil. First of all, there is a camera on the arm that will examine the soil before they even bite into it, allowing NASA to assess the grain size and density of the soil and look for anything interesting but too small to be seen by the pancam, perhaps even frost. The camera has its own lighting and can resolve up to 23 microns per pixel, or about as fine as the hair on a person's forearm.

As they start digging, they'll continue to examine the soil for properties like cohesiveness and fine scale layering. I'd bet they'll also be able to tease out some details that will be of interest to geologists from things as mundane as current draw on the joint motors (correlates to digging force).

The most important data will come from the MECA and TEGA instruments. The scoop will deliver small samples of dirt to each one for detailed chemical analysis via spectrometry, calorimetry, microscopy, and electrochemistry. Unfortunately, these are single use instruments. MECA has four chambers, and TEGA has eight. There's no way to flush and neutralize the chambers after use, and no way to replenish their chemical reagents. I should add, however, that the MECA experiment includes a soil conductivity probe on the robotic arm and a pair of microscopes independent of these chambers. Regardless, this means NASA will have to be very careful about their selection of soil samples. Should they come from the center or the edge of a polygon? What depths should they be taken at? How much will ammonia residue from the thrusters affect their measurements of surface samples?

There's more information about these experiments on the Phoenix site.

And while doing all this, they have to be careful not to damage anything, either on the lander or from their samples. A seemingly trivial concern they're discussing right now is where to pile the dirt from their trenches. You wouldn't want to dump it in a pile in one spot only to later decide that's where you want your second hole. Between the need for care and precision, and the physical limits of the lander, it will be slow going.

It's exciting to watch, but at the same time, takes a lot of patience. You and I both want to see pictures and spectrographs now, but we'll have to wait.

Answer:

[Ihlosi]

When it's done (digging, that is).

First Mars Blooper Released by NASA

[sysusr]

First Mars blooper released by NASA

Re:First Mars Blooper Released by NASA

[antirelic]

So now that we have landed three consecutive probes on Mars, what is the next step?

What is keeping NASA and the ESA from working together to create a tiny habitat to send to mars? I'm not talking anything fancy. How about sending a plant to Mars and keeping it alive? You have all the challenges of putting a living organism into space, getting it to mars, landing it on mars, and getting a habitat inflated, powered up, and surviving, all without having to risk the life of a human being.

Think about it. Establishing green houses on mars, while a daunting task, will be incredibly valuable, and incredibly interesting. It will challenge our ability to remotely deploy and manage habitats, and provide the appearance of starting a human habitable colony on another world (even though scientists will know, and openly and repeatedly explain that it isnt, people will still come to that conclusion and be fascinated) without having to sacrifice human life.

All we need to do is start with just 1 little plant.

Re:First Mars Blooper Released by NASA

[craagz]

Maybe try to send death roll criminals and a few self-sacrificing scientists in the name of human achievement.
Will be an excellent story for a hollywood movie. The angsty criminal vs. the good scientist vs Bad-ass martians

Re:First Mars Blooper Released by NASA

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no heavy lift rocket that can send reasonable payloads. Even the Delta IV Heavy would be lucky to be able to put 5 tonnes on the ground. The only real option right now is to wait until the Ares V is available. But even then, it wouldn't be cost effective. If you really want to establish a Mars base it is time to dust off the plans for the Sea Dragon rocket.

Re:First Mars Blooper Released by NASA

[sm62704]

NASA is posting high resolution pictures daily.

Phoenix and the American Flag on Mars
This image, released on America's Memorial Day, May 26, 2008, shows the American flag and a mini-DVD on the Phoenix's deck, which is about 3 feet above the Martian surface. The mini-DVD from the Planetary Society contains a message to future Martian explorers, science fiction stories and art inspired by the Red Planet, and the names of more than a quarter million Earthlings.

Re:First Mars Blooper Released by NASA

[Anonymous Coward]

I think NASA and co. would like to figure out about the possibility of existing or deceased life on Mars before we set about infecting the planet with biota from Earth. I can certainly see the value in a project like the one you propose, but the current NASA mandate for Mars still seems to be "Is there life right now?"

Re:First Mars Blooper Released by NASA

[ColdWetDog]

and the names of more than a quarter million Earthlings.

Great, the first interplanetary privacy breach. Good work NASA, you've managed to upstage everybody on this one.

Re:First Mars Blooper Released by NASA

[locofungus]

What is keeping NASA and the ESA from working together to create a tiny habitat to send to mars? I'm not talking anything fancy. How about sending a plant to Mars and keeping it alive? You have all the challenges of putting a living organism into space, getting it to mars, landing it on mars, and getting a habitat inflated, powered up, and surviving, all without having to risk the life of a human being.

Because there's nothing to be gained from doing that that we can't do on Earth.

With the exception of gravity, we can create an environment on Earth identical to that on Mars. So if you want to practice raising plants in a Martian environment then you can do it much more cheaply on Earth.

Instead, use that rocket launch to get more experiments to Mars to investigate things that actually need a presence on the planet.

Tim.

Re:First Mars Blooper Released by NASA

[YttriumOxide]

Criminals probably aren't such a good idea, since if they're on death row already, they're probably not the kind of people you can trust.

I've often thought that offering the chance of a "one way trip" to suitably qualified people would still bring in a lot of volunteers. Some might be perfectly healthy and fine, but I expect a lot of the volunteers would be people who don't really expect to be alive much longer anyway.

Right now, personally, I wouldn't take it... but if, for example, I found out tomorrow that I have a terminal disease with only 5 years to live TOPS (but sufficiently close to 100% chance of survival within 3 years), I'd happily take a research job on Mars to live out the end of my days doing research in the most amazingly DIFFERENT place that I can imagine.

The contract could even say that when someone is too sick to work, you simply chuck them out the airlock (what's the point in prolonging their life at that point anyway)

Re:First Mars Blooper Released by NASA

[YttriumOxide]

I've heard comments from people (not claiming you Mr AC!) that "if we find life on Mars, even bacterial, then we should leave it alone"

This is actually something I have a pretty big problem with... In the name of science, I'm quite happy to wait a while to DISCOVER what is and was around on Mars, but regardless of the results, I think we should colonise when we are reasonably able to do so (starting with the "simple" controlled habitat of scientists, going through "Mars hotels", and then finally (probably hundreds of years at LEAST from now) get in to the terraforming side of it.

I don't care if we kill the Martian bacteria - once we've studied them, it's no longer humanity's concern to preserve them. Intelligent life (even as intelligent as a very stupid fish) should be preserved, but not bacteria.

Re:First Mars Blooper Released by NASA

[Lisandro]

Priceless!

Re:First Mars Blooper Released by NASA

[karnal]

Will aliens get convicted of circumventing CSS I wonder.......

I was just thinking how we humans have a hard enough time gathering equipment to read popular data formats from 30 years ago - if DVDs go the same way, why bother?

Re:First Mars Blooper Released by NASA

[ichthyoboy]

So now that we have landed three consecutive probes on Mars, what is the next step? Uranus!

Re:First Mars Blooper Released by NASA

[deroby]

Hmm, and in 50 odd years when we find a cheap and convenient way to get there, will we be greeted by the locals with "g'day mate" ?

Re:First Mars Blooper Released by NASA

[yog]

Criminals probably aren't such a good idea, since if they're on death row already, they're probably not the kind of people you can trust.

I've often thought that offering the chance of a "one way trip" to suitably qualified people would still bring in a lot of volunteers. Some might be perfectly healthy and fine, but I expect a lot of the volunteers would be people who don't really expect to be alive much longer anyway.

Right now, personally, I wouldn't take it... but if, for example, I found out tomorrow that I have a terminal disease with only 5 years to live TOPS (but sufficiently close to 100% chance of survival within 3 years), I'd happily take a research job on Mars to live out the end of my days doing research in the most amazingly DIFFERENT place that I can imagine.

The contract could even say that when someone is too sick to work, you simply chuck them out the airlock (what's the point in prolonging their life at that point anyway)

That's a noble sacrifice, but suppose that they develop a cure within five years, and you're stuck up there on a frozen dustball with no way to come back and recover?

Re:First Mars Blooper Released by NASA

[nospam007]

You don't care for bacteria? They care about you.

"Most of the cells in your body are not your own, nor are they even human. They are bacterial. From the invisible strands of fungi waiting to sprout between our toes, to the kilogram of bacterial matter in our guts, we are best viewed as walking "superorganisms," highly complex conglomerations of human cells, bacteria, fungi and viruses...."

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2004/10/65252

Re:First Mars Blooper Released by NASA

[YttriumOxide]

I am WELL aware of how important the bacteria and other little organisms in my body are to my life. I'm also even well aware of how important Earth bacteria are to our entire ecosystem. However, Martian bacteria can all be blasted off the face their planet once we've studied them for all I care.

We are a conquering species, and we can "conquer" the bacteria of Mars and commit genocide if you want to look at it like that. I have no issues with this concept.

We, as a species, need to get out in the universe, and if we have to crush some bacteria in to non-existence to do it, that's fine. I only draw the line once I see creatures exhibiting intelligence (the natural "intelligent behaviour" of chemicals up to and including very complex multicellular life such as bacteria does NOT count in this case! But get much more complex than that (plants, dumb fish, etc) and at that point I wouldn't be fine with it)

(and yes, it IS an arbitrary line I'm drawing, and I'm comfortable with that too!)

Re:First Mars Blooper Released by NASA

[YttriumOxide]

Then... "sucks to be me", but that's a risk I'd happily take.

Re:First Mars Blooper Released by NASA

[Anonymous Coward]

greeted by the locals with "g'day mate" Oh c'mon mods, that was f'n funny!

Re:First Mars Blooper Released by NASA

[going_the_2Rpi_way]

I don't care if we kill the Martian bacteria - once we've studied them, it's no longer humanity's concern to preserve them. Intelligent life (even as intelligent as a very stupid fish) should be preserved, but not bacteria.

Aliens everywhere agree with you! We're not their concern until we're at least as intelligent as a very stupid Narfeneg.

Don't let the big filter hit you on the way out. ;)

Re:First Mars Blooper Released by NASA

[YttriumOxide]

If there's an alien race that's as advanced compared to us as we are compared to simple bacteria, then yes, I see no problem with them wiping us out without even thinking. As they re-shaped out planet in a microsecond in to exactly what they want, I doubt we'd even notice.

Re:First Mars Blooper Released by NASA

[going_the_2Rpi_way]

How accommodating of you. The Universe is maybe about 14 billion years old, and there's maybe about 500 million years between us and 'very simple' fish.

Re:First Mars Blooper Released by NASA

[YttriumOxide]

Yep, but I don't think it's really a linear progression. We took a LONG time to get from simple multicelled life to "basic animal life". From there, we got to "complex animal life" pretty quickly, but since then, we haven't really advanced that much at all. I wouldn't have a hard time believing an alien race even half a billion years older than us is necessarily as advanced compared to us as we are to the simple bacteria.

And, if they are, well, I won't hold it against them for not thinking of us as anything even worth thinking twice about.

Re:First Mars Blooper Released by NASA

[intangible]

Oblig: How are they going to deal with the poisonous gas?

Re:First Mars Blooper Released by NASA

[Cornflake917]

But get much more complex than that (plants, dumb fish, etc) and at that point I wouldn't be fine with it) I'm with you on that. If our brave leader says that humans and fish can coexist peacefully, then I say we at least give them a chance...unless they taste good.

Re:First Mars Blooper Released by NASA

[FleaPlus]

What is keeping NASA and the ESA from working together to create a tiny habitat to send to mars? I'm not talking anything fancy. How about sending a plant to Mars and keeping it alive? You have all the challenges of putting a living organism into space, getting it to mars, landing it on mars, and getting a habitat inflated, powered up, and surviving, all without having to risk the life of a human being.

Interesting story: dot-com billionaire Elon Musk was planning on funding something like this personally, but decided to just start his own rocket launch company (SpaceX) when he realized how absurdly overpriced the current launch market was. I imagine he still has that project somewhere on the backburner, though. From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk#Space-related_activities

In 2001, Musk had plans for a "Mars Oasis" project, which would land a miniature experimental greenhouse on Mars, containing food crops growing on Martian regolith.[13] He put this project on hold when he discovered that launch costs would dwarf the mission development and construction costs for the project, and decided to work on lowering launch costs by founding SpaceX. His long term goal is that SpaceX helps humanity become a true spacefaring civilization.

Re:First Mars Blooper Released by NASA

[YttriumOxide]

...our brave leader...

Maybe YOUR leader - not mine!

Re:First Mars Blooper Released by NASA

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a noble sacrifice, but suppose that they develop a cure within five years, and you're stuck up there on a frozen dustball with no way to come back and recover? Well, too bad, but he has taken his chances.

Imagine what it would be if he HADN'T taken the Mars job in the hope that they would discover a cure, and then they wouldn't...

Re:First Mars Blooper Released by NASA

[Urkki]

That's a noble sacrifice, but suppose that they develop a cure within five years, and you're stuck up there on a frozen dustball with no way to come back and recover? Well, in that case, it might be smart to not tell the doomed guy on Mars that if he didn't go, he could be cured... :-)

Re:First Mars Blooper Released by NASA

[Anonymous Coward]

I have spent the last ten years, trying to bring my garden and yard back to it's former "show case" glory after being allowed to 'go wild' for about 3 years. I tell my husband all the time, that if they want to put plants on the moon or mars, with or without greenhouses, the following could survive and flourish, just fine: sumac, poison ivy, wandering jew (just the name of a plant, no racial or religious slurs intended,) locust trees, trumpet vine, japanese knotwood (again, just the name of a plant, no national slurs intended)

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Why have we never seen similar shots of the Apollo moon landing equipment?

Re:Anonymous Coward

[chebucto]

Heck, I don't think this is a troll - it's an interesting question. So I looked, and found this:

Abandoned Spaceships on the Moon

Basically, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will get some 0.5 meter resolution pictures of the Apollo landing sites. It launches sometime after November 28th of this year (which really is 2008 - the government's telling the truth on that one). Enjoy!

Re:Anonymous Coward

[mangu]

Why have we never seen similar shots of the Apollo moon landing equipment?

The answer is very simple: because the Apollo moon landing equipment is on the moon, not on Mars.

They have never done mapping of the moon on such a detailed resolution because the moon is not considered as interesting as Mars. Since there is no reason to believe the moon has ever had the smallest chance of developing life, it doesn't have the same scientific and popular appeal as Mars, where the possibility that life existed at some time in the past hasn't yet been disproved.

Re:Anonymous Coward

[Chris Burke]

The answer is very simple: because the Apollo moon landing equipment is in a warehouse in Area 51, along with the "moon" set, not on Mars.

Fixed that for you! ;)

Re:Anonymous Coward

[iso-cop]

A thorough mapping of the moon is about to be done by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) http://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/ in preparation for NASA return to the moon to establish a permanent base via Constellation http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/multimedia/aresV_orbit.html.

Re:Anonymous Coward

[Zerbey]

To small to be imaged by current technology (which makes the Moon Hoax Theory loonies very happy).

When the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter launches we'll be able to get images (albeit fuzzy) of the equipment on the surface.

It won't shut up the Moon Hoax theorists but it will make them look even sillier.

Eternal Winter

[the4thdimension]

My guess is that the groundhog will show us that Mars will probably be in Winter for 6 more we- err, 6 million more weeks.

Groundhog?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh, it's nearly June. A bit late for a Groundhog Day joke, isn't it? Man, you geeks are so fucking lame.

Re:Groundhog?

[Bohnanza]

Uhh, Groundhog Day on Mars is June 2nd.

Re:Groundhog?

[GonzoPhysicist]

How do you figure? Right now it's late spring in the northern hemispheres of both Mars and Earth, shouldn't the Martian groundhog's day still be in the winter on Mars (about six months ago)?

hmm

[apodyopsis]

nah its when the real volume of pics from the surface arrive that it gets interesting. Once again we can start looking for wee little people fishing from the rocks...

See more... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3232035.ece

Shame they did not land near the other probes, then they could have filmed each other. Yes, I know that is scientifically pointless, but you have to admit it would have been cool.

On the same note I always thought that Spirit or Opportunity should have been sent to visit Beagle crater...

Re:hmm

[maxume]

Part of the descent was filmed by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080527.html

Not quite what you want, but close.

Re:hmm

[Yvanhoe]

Shame they did not land near the other probes, then they could have filmed each other. Yes, I know that is scientifically pointless, but you have to admit it would have been cool. We have pictures of the descent however. And beautiful pictures :

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/230838main_PSP_008579_9020_descent.jpg

The wikipedia also has a link to an image from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter that lcoates the Phoenix spacecraft. It is 10 pixels wide but you still recognize the solar arrays.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/images/press/PSP_008591_2485_RGB_Lander_Inserts.html

Re:hmm

[IchNiSan]

They really should have sent one of them to take photos of the pyramids and face on mars, we really need to find out how if the pyramids are built like ours.

Re:hmm

[Doug Neal]

Can anyone explain why this photo appears to show Phoenix descending on its parachute into a huge crater, when everything else is saying that it landed on a flat plain, including the photos from Phoenix's camera?

Surely if Phoenix was in a crater, it wouldn't be able to see the horizon, just the sides of the crater?

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Can anyone explain why this photo appears to show Phoenix descending on its parachute into a huge crater, when everything else is saying that it landed on a flat plain, including the photos from Phoenix's camera? Surely if Phoenix was in a crater, it wouldn't be able to see the horizon, just the sides of the crater?

The same image was in the article and the f-ing caption says,

Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter's High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) camera acquired this image of Phoenix hanging from its parachute as it descended to the Martian surface. Although it appears that Phoenix is descending into the crater, it is actually about 20 kilometers (about 12 miles) in front of the crater. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona

Good enough for you?

Re:hmm

[spacemandave]

The photo is taken from a very oblique angle. Phoenix is actually about 20 km in front of the crater, but the viewing angle makes it look like it's inside. The crater is called "Heimdall" crater, and it's just NE of the landing site.

False color?

[Otter]

I asked this on the last story and got no responses so I'll try again...

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 these photos and the other Phoenix images 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"? Previous discussion focused more on whether the people complaining were or were not NASA-denialist kooks than on whether they were factually correct.

Re:False color?

[Ihlosi]

is the red color in these photos and the other Phoenix images the real color of the Mars surface (or at least an accurate reconstruction of what a human eye would see with ambient light there)

It's as close as you can get to reconstructing the real color from a series of monochrome images taken with different color filters.

or is it something NASA arbitrarily adds to impress viewers with notions about "the red planet"?

That Mars is pretty much reddish all over, with some white at the poles, can be easily verified from Earth with a telescope.

Re:False color?

[Otter]

It's as close as you can get to reconstructing the real color from a series of monochrome images taken with different color filters.

Thanks! That's precisely what I'd meant by "an accurate reconstruction of what a human eye would see".

That Mars is pretty much reddish all over, with some white at the poles, can be easily verified from Earth with a telescope.

Even without a telescope you can look up and see that the thing is red. But a) even that was disputed here last time and b) that aside, it seems like the color seen from Earth isn't the same as that seen from the surface. IIRC, before the Viking mission the Mars sky was expected to be blue from the surface.

Re:False color?

[christurkel]

Mars is red. The pictures Nasa releases are tuned to be as accurate as possible to what'd a person would see if they were standing on the surface.

Re:False color?

[Anonymous Coward]

The false colour is generally when the sky is coloured in some reddish tone instead yellowish-blue as it would be perceived by the eye. See here [mars-news.de]

Re:False color?

[_bug_]

or is it something NASA arbitrarily adds to impress viewers with notions about "the red planet"

It's a fairly accurate representation of what Mars would look like to the human eye.

The thing is none of the cameras on board the rovers or Phoenix take pictures in a "conventional" manner. Instead the imaging devices have a series of filters designed to focus on a specific range of wavelengths (ultraviolet, infrared, etc.). Those black and white images you see are the results of a picture being taken through one of those filters. This is why some images of the same scene will appear darker than others.

NASA can then take these images and composite them together to give a representation of what the surface would look like to the human eye.

Re:False color?

[sm62704]

It's as close as you can get to reconstructing the real color from a series of monochrome images taken with different color filters

Meaning they are at least as accurate as photos from your digital camera, which work exactly the same way. The three primary colors combined to make up your digital color photo are made using color filters.

Re:False color?

[brianc]

Phoenix has a neat little tool from the University of Central Florida
to help with the color-

http://news.ucf.edu/UCFnews/index?page=article&id=002400410f556ad3011a10e25439031e

They're called color-calibration targets and are about the size of hockey pucks. Each device is covered with color chips, designed by University of Central Florida Physics and Astronomy Professor Dan Britt and two students. When Phoenix's camera takes pictures of the terrain, it will also capture the calibration targets, allowing scientists to compare the colors in each photo and determine the actual hues.

Re:False color?

[Anonymous Coward]

There was some colour calibration stuff on a previous probe iirc:

http://www.goroadachi.com/etemenanki/mars-hiddencolors.htm

Re:False color?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the parachute, it's white! Yeah I know they could have touched up, but why bother. Mars is red the parachute is white. Now it could have been even better it the gores on the parachute were red, white and blue.

Re:False color?

[Otter]

An interesting tidbit in your link, though:

With past color-calibration targets, Britt and his team -- which has included a University of Florida professor and UCF students -- have helped scientists learn more about Mars' surface, which Britt says is actually yellowish-brown and not red.

Re:False color?

[pnewhook]

IIRC, before the Viking mission the Mars sky was expected to be blue from the surface.

The colour of the sky as seen from Mars will change depending on the weather. As there is typically a lot of dust in the atmosphere on Mars, the blue and green components get scattered so all you see is the red, giving you a red sky. This is the same effect as looking at a sunset with a lot of smoke or pollution in the sky here on Earth - the sunlight goes through more of the atmosphere than normal and the blue is scattered away leaving the red.

If you managed to look up on Mars when there was little dust, yes the sky would be blue, but due to the ever present dust storms and the thickness of the atmosphere, it would usually appear red.

Re:False color?

[Chris Burke]

Even without a telescope you can look up and see that the thing is red. But a) even that was disputed here last time

Idiots will dispute anything. Don't let them bother you.

Re:False color?

[Tablizer]

There's generally two issues I've seen. The first is that they may use 2 filters instead of 3. If they use 2 filters, then they usually have to fudge the tint to match the actual color that a human would see. It also means that some color variations may not show up in the image because 2 filters is "lossy" in the color realm. Some of the first Phoenix color images were 2-filter images according to the descriptions.

The second issue is when the filters do not represent the wavelengths that the human eye sees (even if they do use 3 or more). Most missions since the Voyagers carry approximately a dozen filters that span into infrared and ultra-violate, as well as the visible spectrum we are familiar with. It is usually too expensive to send back an image of the same scene through all 12 available filters. Thus, they tend to pick a few that span a wide range or that highlight features of a particular subject[1]. In most cases, these don't match what the eye sees, even if there are filters that could if used. But often one can approximate what the eye sees if the colors of the subject are fairly well known based on previous images or earth-based observations. One can then re-process the images accordingly in the lab. This was done a lot with rover images.

The bottom line is that the color images are usually only approximations for one or both of the above reasons. Because transmitting images costs lots of money, picking filters that match the human eye accurately often conflicts with the scientific goals of the mission.[2]

I'm sure better color images will come in the coming weeks and months. They're just getting their bearings right now. But they are likely to still be only approximations.

[1] For example, it was discovered from Earth scopes that one can see the surface of Titan through its clouds on a very specific wavelength. The Voyagers didn't have such a filter, but one for that very specific wavelength was added to the Cassinni probe.

[2] Another compromise technique is to send very low-resolution images of a given scene in more filters, such as human-friendly wavelengths. These are then combined with hi-res images such that the detail (texture) is clear, but the colors may bleed a bit. This is because the texture info comes from the hi-res image but the color info from the low-res ones.

Re:False color?

[Tim C]

Idiots will dispute anything. Don't let them bother you.

No they won't!

Re:False color?

[nahdude812]

Idiots will dispute anything. Don't let them bother you.

No they won't! Wikipedia disagrees with you!

Re:False color?

[nahdude812]

I don't know if this is true with Phoenix or not, but it is true for Spirit & Opportunity and I have no reason to suspect it would be different for Phoenix.

The scientists are not really that interested in the visible light spectrum, the camera captures other wavelengths which are more telling of material composition and the like. They then use software to approximate that to colors the eyes would see, and which takes into account the likely appearance of objects (eg, Mars is likely to have a reddish tint on most things), but this is an approximation.

This is different from digital cameras which are also an approximation of sorts, but the wavelengths being captured by a standard digital camera is measuring the same wavelengths it's intending to output so the approximation is mostly a 3-channel color space approximation vs mapping non-visual spectrums to the visible spectrum.

That's why it's called false color - it's possible though unlikely that something is extremely reactive in a very narrow green band, but the camera completely missed it because it wasn't mapping that band.

Re:False color?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mars is rusted. Really.

Re:False color?

[rk]

I don't know if this is true with Phoenix or not, but it is true for Spirit & Opportunity and I have no reason to suspect it would be different for Phoenix.

The scientists are not really that interested in the visible light spectrum, the camera captures other wavelengths which are more telling of material composition and the like.

This is half-true. It's more accurate to say that scientists are interested in a lot more than the visible light spectrum. The MER Pancam actually mostly operates in the visible portion of the spectrum. The CCD itself is sensitive from about 400 (violet near the edge of UV) nanometers to 1100 nanometers (near IR) and the two cameras have different sets of filters (and the "left eye" camera has a filterless setting).

The Mini-TES instrument on the rovers operates mostly in the IR (167 bands!). Both VIS and IR can be used to do compositional science.

Re:False color?

[Anonymous Coward]

The color is real. I checked and the carpet matches.

Youtube link

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like someone posted the wrong Youtube link -- from the video title, it seems to describe something called the 'Pheonix' Lander, not the Phoenix Lander.

More Pictures at NASA Website

[peterd11]

I didn't see any link to the NASA site with the complete set of pictures: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/images/index.html

Re:More Pictures at NASA Website

[Rams�s Morales]

Thanks.

There should always be a link to the source on all news descriptions.

Groundhog Day

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's just hope no one with Bill Murray's luck is operating that thing, progress might be a little slow.

Re:This might be a dumb question...

[Ihlosi]

but don't parachutes need air resistance to work?

Yes.

If there is no atmosphere/air on Mars, why in the world do we have a parachute on the lander?

Because Mars does have an atmosphere, complete with weather, sandstorms and such.

Also, "captured while its in the air" might not be an appropriate way to summarize the article as there is no air on Mars.

Mars does not have "air" (as in: 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, some random other stuff). Its atmosphere is mainly CO2, and is at much, much lower pressure than Earths. Still, it is definitely an atmosphere and not a near-vaccuum like you'd find on the moon.

Re:This might be a dumb question...

[Anonymous Coward]

While it's thinner than Earth's, Mars does have an atmosphere, the composition of which is obviously different to the one on earth - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars

You could argue it's not 'air', as it's not the normal mostly nitrogen/oxygen mix we call air on earth, but it's still an atmosphere, hence the parachute still works...

Resolution

[LotsOfPhil]

We can't see the landers/probes on the moon, but we can see this one on Mars. I am very impressed. Am I missing something about the relative sizes?

Re:Resolution

[hcdejong]

You're missing something about the relative distances and resolution of the observing telescope.

This is the best we have at the moment:
the shadow of a lander is just visible

relevant earlier AskSlashdot

Re:Resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

We have satellites with cameras circling mars.

Re:Resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

That is because there are no satellites orbiting the moon like the MRO in Mars...

Re:Resolution

[Tablizer]

[Why no images of moon landers taken from orbiters] We have satellites with cameras circling mars.

There have been various satellites orbiting the moon taking images since Apollo, but it seems that they send the most powerful cameras to Mars instead of the moon. The moon is not "in style" at the moment. The moon orbiter budgets have been small compared to the Mars counterparts, even if you factor in the distance.

Re:This might be a dumb question...

[smooth wombat]

but don't parachutes need air resistance to work?

Yes

If there is no atmosphere/air on Mars,

Wrong. Mars does have an atmosphere though it is much less dense than our own. Read the Wiki about Mars exploration which talks about the parachutes. A quick Google will turn up much more information about atmospheric density, size of parachutes to compensate for a less dense atmosphere, size of objects to be parachuted, etc.

why in the world do we have a parachute on the lander?

Because it was too big and heavy to use the bouncing airbag routine the two rovers used to successfully land on Mars. Further, bouncing creates much more shock to the system than a one-off parachute deployment.

Also, "captured while its in the air" might not be an appropriate way to summarize the article as there is no air on Mars.

See my second comment. You are assuming something which is not correct.

Can someone please explain why we are wasting our money putting a parachute on the lander?

I just did.

And to think I gave up the opportunity to mod you a troll to explain something so basic.

Re:This might be a dumb question...

[Drive42]

NASA does a lot just for show. Do you think those rockets need to produce all that fire and noise? Hell, those rockets could be the size of a large car and they'd still work. %90 of them are just styrofoam and cardboard. Remember, It's all for the benefit of the taxpayer. In fact, five years ago, NASA took a poll of what people wanted to see come out of the space program. Number one on the list? "A tiny stationary drilling labratory on the surface of mars. Preferably with a colorful parachute and a snazzy name."

When will the government care about science?!

Says

[Anonymous Coward]

the geek-wannabe lurker...

Re:Hot geek chick in youtube vid

[Drive42]

That's it. From now on, it's my demon sampling arm. The GF will love it, I'm sure.

One thing that bothers me

[Thelasko]

Landers such as the Phoenix use thrusters to come to a safe, soft landing. Don't these thrusters blow away a lot of the useful sand and soil they are trying to collect?

That is the true advantage of Spirit and Opportunity, not only did they use airbags instead of rockets, they could drive away from the disturbed landing site.

Re:One thing that bothers me

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps in a lot of missions, you'd be right on. This one in particular, however, involves digging beneath the top dirt to get at the "permafrost" ice beneath, which is at an unknown (though thought to be small, like a few inches to a foot) depth.

Blowing away the top layer of dust may have helped.

Re:One thing that bothers me

[DerekLyons]

Landers such as the Phoenix use thrusters to come to a safe, soft landing. Don't these thrusters blow away a lot of the useful sand and soil they are trying to collect?

In the case of Phoenix, no - as the stuff NASA is interested in is a couple of inches down. At any rate, they use multiple small thrusters to minimize the amount of disturbance and contamination.
 
 

That is the true advantage of Spirit and Opportunity, not only did they use airbags instead of rockets, they could drive away from the disturbed landing site.

That advantage comes with a pair of powerful disadvantages: First, the airbag systems sharply limit the size of the probe - both in dimensions and in weight. Secondly, the airbag systems are heavy - they take up a higher percentage of the possible landed weight.

Re:One thing that bothers me

[zopf]

This mission actually cares a lot more about the ice underneath the rover. If thrusters did remove some of the material covering that ice layer, that would only make the digging step easier.

Re:This might be a dumb question...

[Anonymous Coward]

lol. I used to think the internet was worthless for conveying sarcasm. I was wrong.

wouldn't...

[cosmocain]

...that be more newsworthy?

WASHINGTON, May 27 (Xinhua) -- U.S. Phoenix lander's arm movement and other activities scheduled on its second day on Mars are delayed because NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter flying over mars failed to relay commands from the Earth, the U.S. space agency reported Tuesday.

Re:This might be a dumb question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it's all for just the cool picture. NASA does not do anything except for the Cool factor. The first Mars rover was launched and landed to only do one thing.

It popped out a neon sign proclaiming "USA IS NUMBER 1" and then launches US flags all over the place with the words... "Everything within 30 billion miles of this is MINE!"

That really is all that NASA does. Random cool bullshit to make people smile. They are the biggest pranksters.

now you want to see worthless, look at what the FDA does, they simply burn money for fun.
NOTE: before you ask a question, know what you are talking about.

Re:This might be a dumb question...

[Dunbal]

If there is no atmosphere/air on Mars,

      What? Mars DOES have an atmosphere.

Re:This might be a dumb question...

[Hatta]

Mars does have an atmosphere. It's less dense than Earth's, but it's also a thicker layer.

What About Contamination?

[Anonymous Coward]

The wide shot in the linked article shows discoloration surrounding the lander. That makes me wonder about contamination from the descent engines affecting soil analysis.

area man

[sootman]

I know a guy who is very happy that at least one robot arm is safely millions of miles away.

Trash

[AmigaMMC]

Look, we haven't even been there in person and we're already dropping trash all over the place :)

Re:Trash

[regularstranger]

Yeah, but unlike filter tips and beer cans, this trash is really cool. I'd love to find this stuff in my backyard.

Martian printer ad?

[AHuxley]

Anyone recall the printer ad with the martians
holding up pages for the lander to see?
Anyone got a link?

Re:This might be a dumb question...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Because Mars does have an atmosphere, complete with weather, sandstorms and such."

But does it have giant sandworms?

actual telescopy images

[aXi]

Does anyone have actual telescope pictures of the rovers and phoenix. So at least no one can say that the phoenix actually landed in a studio in the nevada desert ? ;-)

Jimmy Hoffa

[cgfsd]

The Mars rover just might finally find the body of Jimmy Hoffa while digging.

We can land things on Mars....

[Kupfernigk]

We can run them for years longer than the intended mission, we can even photograph them landing from a satellite, but can we build a toilet that runs reliably in low Earth orbit? We can not. Which must go to show that poop disposal is not rocket science, it is obviously much harder.

Re:We can land things on Mars....

[cowscows]

I know you're just joking around, but to be fair, there are millions of earth based toilets being manufactured each year, and yet I still have the occasional problem with mine. I'd imagine a space station toilet is a bit more complex.

Re:We can land things on Mars....

[Anonymous Coward]

The truly amusing thing, you are correct to a degree that poop disposal is harder (or at least a bigger task) than rocket science. Consider how many facilities and how much infrastructure we have in the world dedicated to poop disposal. Don't forget the countless engineers and worker bees. My own city is just entering the final stages of a decade long, multi-billion dollar sewer system upgrade, and that only covers part of the publicly funded part. Even then it still won't be perfect.

And combining poop disposal with rocket science is basically guaranteeing the crap will hit the fan at some point. No apologies for the blatant pun.

article quote

[ionymous]

"Phoenix is healthy, everything is fine," said Fuk Li

Shet Fays added, "Phoenix is working as expected."

"The mission has been a total success", exclaimed Azzol Johnson.

Re:This might be a dumb question...

[YttriumOxide]

But does it have giant sandworms?

If so, it's gonna be pretty pissed off when it gets a drill poked in its back...

Caption in the URL??

[p3d0]

Yeah, that's secure. Try this one.

Re:This might be a dumb question...

[YttriumOxide]

And to think I gave up the opportunity to mod you a troll to explain something so basic.

Modding him troll would have been wrong, and an abuse of mod points. Clearly, it was a VERY dumb question, showing a COMPLETE lack of knowledge about the topic at hand, but it appeared to be a genuine question. It certainly didn't deserve any up-mods, but the down-mods would be equally as inappropriate.

Re:This might be a dumb question...

[khallow]

I remember that online poll and was actually the deciding vote! Honest. Democracy does work. You just need to make sure that you cast your vote 8 trillion times more than the next guy.

Re:This might be a dumb question...

[smooth wombat]

Maybe, though it would be nice if Taco and Company would add another option. Something along the lines of Stupid, Idiot, Moron or You've Got to be Kidding!

420... like, totally, man...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it a coincidence the project cost $420m and was named after a bird that burns?

I've totally got the munchies, man...

Re:This might be a dumb question...

[MightyYar]

If you look at his posting history, he's either trying to be funny in every case, deliberately trolling, or is a complete and utter idiot.

Personally, I find it hard to believe that anyone would think that there is no moisture content in feces, but maybe I'm being too generous. He even throws a Rickroll at us.

Re:This might be a dumb question...

[MightyYar]

why in the world do we have a parachute on the lander? While Mars has no atmosphere, the parachute "catches" exhaust gases from the thrusters on the front of the lander, amplifying their effect. You can observe the exact same effect by standing in a still sailboat and blowing at the sail. This is used to great effect in Loony Tunes cartoons.

Re:This might be a dumb question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, though it would be nice if Taco and Company would add another option. Something along the lines of Stupid, Idiot, Moron or You've Got to be Kidding!
I would like an option too ... something along the lines of "wrong!". Like you are now ...

I know the guy could search on google, or look it up on wikipedia ... but if he truly believed he was right regarding the lack of "air" on Mars, I don't see how asking and getting a correct answer makes him an idiot.
Maybe because he came up with this question, some other guy who just read this is searching on wikipedia about the atmosphere of Mars. Is that so bad?

I'm sure that a simple answer (like many others provided) would have been much more helpful and constructive.
It seems to me that we are much to eager to offend someone we don't really know.

Re:This might be a dumb question...

[YttriumOxide]

Yep, that would be nice, but I'd say it should be the negative version of "Funny" from a karma perspective - stupid posts don't lose karma, just as funny posts don't gain it.

(but of course, it still affects the score, and you can set a preference for further score adjustment if you like)

Should be called to photo mission

[heroine]

The photos from MRO are definitely more spectacular than the ground photos. They don't have the high gain antenna & the bandwidth on this mission that the rovers had.

Yes, I agree.

[Chicken_Kickers]

You speak the truth Commissar YittriumOxide. We must burn these heretical aliens as they are a blight to the Righteous Emperor. It does not matter whether they are microscopic cells or inferior mockeries of humankind. It is the fate of the Xenos to be killed and Heretics to be cleansed. Let the exterminatus begin!

re

[JohnVanVliet]

if any are interested here is the MRO site ( with Phoenix landing photos taken by HIRISE ) http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/mro/ hirise site ( with Phoenix landing photos taken by HIRISE ) http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/index.php --------- home page for the Phoenix Mars lander http://jpl.nasa.gov/news/phoenix/main.php

the original photo

[spandex_panda]

here: the thing in the air and the thing on the ground

You MUST look at the photos

[iamlucky13]

I'm truly serious. The picture of Phoenix descending on parachute in front of Heimdall crater is one of the most fantastic photographs in human history. It ranks right up there with the Earthrise photo taken by Apollo 8, but is more complicated.

Think about it: The MRO, stuck in a more or less fixed orbit with a period of two hours, managed to line up its camera to capture a lander that came screaming in at initially 12,000 miles per hour (probably a few hundred mph at time of photo), with an unclear amount of uncertainty in its position, based on predictions made several days ahead of time, all within the three minutes that it was on parachute. And as a sweet bonus, it just happened to be in front of a gorgeous impact crater that perhaps better than any background imaginable portrays the puniness of human endeavors compared to the universe.

This picture isn't just tough. It's unique. To the best of my knowledge, there's not even any pictures like this of the space shuttle, Apollo, Soyuz, Mercury, Gemini, or Vostok, despite there being over 250 combined entries of those craft, and many more imaging satellites in earth orbit. I really hope NASA caught this image through all three color filters on the HiRISE camera and simply hasn't composited them yet. I would love to have a giant color poster of this scene.

Re:You MUST look at the photos

[JetJaguar]

Unfortunately, no, we didn't get Phoenix in our color swath. In fact, it's going to be difficult to produce an image of much better quality than what we have already released (we're trying though).

There are two main problems: 1) The signal to noise isn't very good because we were looking through a lot of dusty atmosphere to get the shot, and 2) all the movement that was going on makes it very difficult to create a good seamless mosaic of all the CCD's together, which is what we usually do.

In short, there will probably be an improved version of this image coming out within the next couple of weeks, but it's difficult to say just how much better it will be.

Re:You MUST look at the photos

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah rats!

Well thanks for sharing! I had been wondering how it might work out, using a pushbroom camera to get a picture of a moving object. I'd imagine even the image we've seen so far had to be corrected already for the motion of Phoenix, even just on a single channel.

Even without the color channels, it remains an absolutely phenomenal picture. Congratulations to both the HiRISE and the Phoenix teams. I may yet print it out to hang on my walls (or if I get really motivated, I may try to use a mask to make a false color version of it).

~the OP