Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Phoenix Mars Lander Updates

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the still-no-water-yet dept.

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.

36 of 138 comments (clear)

  1. First Mars Blooper Released by NASA by sysusr · · Score: 5, Funny

    First Mars blooper released by NASA

    --
    \x72\x6D\x20\x2D\x72\x66
    1. Re:First Mars Blooper Released by NASA by antirelic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      20th century Marxism is not progress...
    2. Re:First Mars Blooper Released by NASA by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:First Mars Blooper Released by NASA by deroby · · Score: 5, Funny

      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" ?

      --
      If there is one thing to be learned on slashdot, it has to be sarcasm.
    4. Re:First Mars Blooper Released by NASA by YttriumOxide · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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!)

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    5. Re:First Mars Blooper Released by NASA by going_the_2Rpi_way · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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. ;)

      --
      =======
      Science -- Sealed, Delivered.
  2. hmm by apodyopsis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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...

    1. Re:hmm by maxume · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:hmm by Yvanhoe · · Score: 4, Informative

      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
      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    3. Re:hmm by spacemandave · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

  3. False color? by Otter · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.

    --
    What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
    1. Re:False color? by Ihlosi · · Score: 5, Informative
      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.

    2. Re:False color? by _bug_ · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:False color? by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    4. Re:False color? by Tim+C · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      No they won't!

      --
      It's official. Most of you are morons.
    5. Re:False color? by rk · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

  4. Re:so let me ask the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    no digging allowed here. this is slashdot.

  5. More Pictures at NASA Website by peterd11 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  6. Re:This might be a dumb question... by Ihlosi · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

  7. Re:Anonymous Coward by chebucto · · Score: 4, Informative

    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!

    --
    The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
  8. Re:This might be a dumb question... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  9. Re:This might be a dumb question... by Drive42 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?!

  10. Re:Resolution by hcdejong · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

  11. One thing that bothers me by Thelasko · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    1. Re:One thing that bothers me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:One thing that bothers me by DerekLyons · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.
  12. Re:Anonymous Coward by mangu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re:so let me ask the question by ChromaticDragon · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  14. Re:so let me ask the question by fizzup · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  15. Re:so let me ask the question by Cesa · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  16. Re:so let me ask the question by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  17. Re:Anonymous Coward by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Funny

    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! ;)

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  18. Re:This might be a dumb question... by YttriumOxide · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
    Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
  19. Re:This might be a dumb question... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  20. Re:This might be a dumb question... by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  21. Re:Anonymous Coward by iso-cop · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.