Slashdot Mirror


Mars Soil Frustrates Phoenix Again

Tablizer writes "The Phoenix Mars lander has been frustrated yet again by Mars's odd soil. The wet nature of the soil they are targeting appears to have made it get stuck in the scoop rather than drop into the oven. Past problems with similarly clumpy soil may have damaged the lander because the vibrator had to be used longer than it was designed for, resulting in a short circuit."

221 comments

  1. Neato by Datamonstar · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's pretty interesting learning about the problems encountered while analyzing alien soil, but I'm not even going to touch that vibrator comment.

    --
    The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
    1. Re:Neato by 427_ci_505 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, I'm not touching that vibrator either. Who knows where it has been shoved into.

    2. Re:Neato by chuckymonkey · · Score: 3, Funny
      --
      "Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
    3. Re:Neato by FlyingBishop · · Score: 5, Funny

      Mars, apparently. Didn't know he was into that sort of thing. But then he is Roman.

    4. Re:Neato by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Waaaaaaallllll-EEEEE!!!!

    5. Re:Neato by oldhack · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nope, I ain't touching that with my 12" pole... something like that.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    6. Re:Neato by sokoban · · Score: 1

      I'm picking up some good vibes from that planet.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
    7. Re:Neato by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is Ron Jeremy when you need him?

    8. Re:Neato by Benaiah · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Besides the fact that your post was mostly rant there were a few good comments.

      All of the problems so far could have been fixed by a guy with a hand trowel. He could dig, sieve and work the vibrator.

      I think its time for a more general purpose robot to go.

      Also this really should have been more thoroughly tested. I mean one of those things that help you get icecream off the scoop would have been useful now. Guess next time they will think "what if the soil is clumpy" before blowing a cool 1/2 billion. I'd rather watch a redneck playing golf on the moon then hear about mars landers.

    9. Re:Neato by TriezGamer · · Score: 1

      Comments like this make me feel +5 isn't enough. Well played, I haven't laughed out loud at a comment in quite a while.

    10. Re:Neato by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Yeah. And I heard he was real close with his Greek pal, Ares. Close enough to share the vibrator? Maybe.

    11. Re:Neato by bigplrbear · · Score: 1

      Just to be safe, you better fsck it afterwards

    12. Re:Neato by skaet · · Score: 1

      So Phoenix is frustrated by it's vibrator?

      Tell us something any women on Earth could confirm...

      --
      There is no knowledge that is not power.
    13. Re:Neato by jberryman · · Score: 5, Funny

      $ man vibrator
      No manual entry for vibrator

    14. Re:Neato by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Could be worse - it might have been Uranus, after all.

    15. Re:Neato by ibbey · · Score: 5, Funny

      Professor: "I'm sorry, Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all."
      Fry: "Oh. What's it called now?"
      Professor: "Urectum."

    16. Re:Neato by binaryseraph · · Score: 0, Redundant

      You sure its not Uranus?

    17. Re:Neato by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Well, your argument started out making sense, yeah it was poorly designed and a waste of time and money to begin with since it wasn't even designed to test for possible life, only whether the soil could support it. Which, you know, regardless of what they found in the soil they would say it could possibly support life to justify the money they wasted. But then somewhere along the way you made it clear what an infantile simpleton you are... by suggesting that "dumbass americans" will not believe what the *American* space program tells them and I kind of stopped reading. Also something about a Mars colony actually working... Are you retarded, or just stupid?

      The fact is, Americans are right to be skeptical about NASA's suggestions of the probability of extra-terrestrial life. While the sheer odds may be in favor of e.t. life, the probability of organic life forming anywhere else in our solar system is ridiculously low.

      I hate it when some fuck-up has to start out with a good point and then ruin it by acting like a tool. Do you realize that by acting like that, you're actually hurting your argument?

    18. Re:Neato by v(*_*)vvvv · · Score: 2, Funny

      You'd think NASA scientists knew more about the reliability of vibrating devices...

    19. Re:Neato by mjwx · · Score: 2, Informative

      Could be worse - it might have been Uranus, after all.

      Not really, the only thing we'll find by probing Uranus is gas.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    20. Re:Neato by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'll go there:
      "because the vibrator had to be used longer than designed, resulting in a short circuit" ... that's what she said!

      --
      stuff |
    21. Re:Neato by nimbius · · Score: 5, Funny

      to which phoenix replies to mars regarding the short circuit: "i swear, this has never happened before..."

      --
      Good people go to bed earlier.
    22. Re:Neato by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      You'd think NASA would've tested it more thoroughly before sending it but then I suspect the government frowns on that sort of thing.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    23. Re:Neato by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ten foot pole, you fool

    24. Re:Neato by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least its Mars and not Uranus.

    25. Re:Neato by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Well, if we would put more money into the proper design of our vibrators, instead of being so prudish about it, this would never have happened.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    26. Re:Neato by aliquis · · Score: 1

      So, people who believe in the statistic certainly of life on other planets

      What? ..

    27. Re:Neato by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vibrator in the Dirtbox... there i said it

    28. Re:Neato by steelfood · · Score: 1

      First time, I read that as "guy with a hand towel." And I thought to myself, if one could dig, sieve, and operate a vibrator with a towel, then Douglas Adams was right!

      Then I reread your comment, and it wasn't nearly as inspiring anymore.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    29. Re:Neato by Gilmoure · · Score: 1
      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    30. Re:Neato by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the lander's vibrator is making the surface all wet. It has that effect on women.

    31. Re:Neato by whopub · · Score: 1

      Poor judgement on NASA's side. We all know aliens have a huge probe fetish and we send a vibrator there! Smart move...

    32. Re:Neato by Clandestine_Blaze · · Score: 1

      True story - 8th grade science class.

      Classmate - looking proud of himself: Hey Mrs. G (I forget her last name) - I saw Uranus last night!
      (He really did observe the planet and had no clue as to what he was saying.)

      Classmates start giggling, then when the teacher starts laughing, they all burst out laughing

      Classmate: Huh? What's so funny?

      Teacher: Oh you did? You must have had a GIANT telescope!

      More laughter

      Classmate - 10 minutes later: D'OHHHHH.

    33. Re:Neato by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Now all they have to do is solve the obvious to you simple problem of scale and mass. A large high complexity, high mass droid to mars. Don't you think they would do that if they had the technology in place to be able to do so.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    34. Re:Neato by Benaiah · · Score: 1

      Ok well part 2 of my comment was, there is a certain amount of testing that should take place in real conditions. Ie out in the freezing cold digging up dirt. Not in labs.

      And yeah I know that a manned mars/super complex robot mission would cost 10x more then a probe. But it would be 100x more popular. I would be checking the nasa page every 5mins for updates. :)

      A high bandwidth satellite is needed for orbit, the one their currently using is pretty damned slow. We have to decide as a race is space important to us? If yes spend the real money and do it. If not, then why waste billions on something that you don't really care about. That could provide plenty of public housing, food, aged care... whatever.

  2. Fess up.... by WaxlyMolding · · Score: 4, Funny

    How many of you saw the word "vibrator" and clicked it?

  3. Vibrator had to be used for longer than designed.. by greenguy · · Score: 3, Funny

    There's got to be a joke in here somewhere.... Wet nature... Drop into the oven... Got to think... Lemme get another beer.

    --
    What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
  4. YHBT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real reason for this story was to get the following quote on Slashdot's front page:

    "the vibrator had to be used longer than designed, resulting in a short circuit."

    Congratulations on getting it past the Slashdot editor.

    1. Re:YHBT by exley · · Score: 4, Funny

      Considering that this is from the "pulling-out-doesn't-sound-manly dept." I think the editor was all too happy to play along.

      Timothy may also be getting an email shortly from Taco.

    2. Re:YHBT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Timothy may also be getting an email shortly from Taco.

      Fish taco?

    3. Re:YHBT by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Fish taco?

      Hey! That's Cmdr. Fish Taco to you, bub!

    4. Re:YHBT by machine321 · · Score: 1

      Does Taco have a beard?

    5. Re:YHBT by AnimeFreak · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Nah. Pink taco.

    6. Re:YHBT by exley · · Score: 1

      Fish taco?

      Nah. Pink taco

      I hate explaining the joke, but those two are redundant.

  5. Re:Vibrator had to be used for longer than designe by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 1

    Yes, it's a deleted scene from Stepford Wives Go To Mars.

  6. That's what she said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    "... the vibrator had to be used longer than designed, resulting in a short circuit."

    Time to upgrade to a real geek, I mean man, and put the toys away.

  7. Re:Vibrator had to be used for longer than designe by caffeinemessiah · · Score: 4, Funny

    There's got to be a joke in here somewhere.... Wet nature... Drop into the oven... Got to think... Lemme get another beer.

    Why stop there? Anything can be a euphemism.

    Frustrates phoenix...Wet nature...drop into the oven...get stuck in the scoop...damaged the lander...and of course, the universal problem everyone faces: ...the vibrator had to be used longer than designed, resulting in a short circuit.

    --
    An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
  8. bah! by nawcom · · Score: 1, Funny

    because the vibrator had to be used longer than designed, resulting in a short circuit.

    I'm not surprised that the martian atmosphere is causing issues gettin' NASA's baby off.

    "In later results, NASA found out out that the martian atmosphere actually helps with male ejaculation; The atmospheric pressure along with low gravity made a natural ejaculation travel 5 miles before hitting the ground."

  9. Lotta problems on Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't it seem like every Mars mission (excepting the Rovers) has some show-stopping failures?

    Almost like someone out there doesn't want us poking around on Mars... Hm...

    --
    Beer!

    1. Re:Lotta problems on Mars by gmuslera · · Score: 4, Funny

      Seems that Mars is a harsh mister

    2. Re:Lotta problems on Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't want our diseases, remember?

  10. soil problems by alxkit · · Score: 0

    vibrator not strong enough? i hear you there, NASA. that's why we're on mars in the first place, i suppose.

  11. Virbator Action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The short circuit was believed to have been caused when TEGA's oven number four was vibrated repeatedly over the course of several days to break up clumpy soil delivered to oven number 4. Delivery to any TEGA oven involves a vibration action, and turning on the vibrator in any oven will cause oven number 4 to vibrate as well.

    This is too hot for Slashdot...

  12. Definition of 'wet'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What exactly is 'wet' about the soil? I see that the soil is icy (H2O ice or CO2 ice?), but as far as I knew 'wet' and 'icy' are mutually exclusive. Perhaps 'sticky' would be a better term? Or... is this some kind of cool ice that is 'wet' at very cold temperatures as opposed to good old fashioned dry ice?

    1. Re:Definition of 'wet'? by dnwq · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Wet" and "icy" are not mutually exclusive. Go watch an ice-cube melt.

    2. Re:Definition of 'wet'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The temperature at the planet's surface varies widely during the course of a Martian day, from about 186 K (-87 ÂC) just before dawn to about 253 K (-20 ÂC) in the afternoon.

      How does ice melt when the temperature is -20C? (I'm actually a bit stuck on this and am just looking for some clarification. Indeed 'melting' ice is wet, but ice when kept in sub-zero temperatures tends to be quite 'dry'. Is the heat being thrown off by the 'oven' melting the ice in the soil?)

    3. Re:Definition of 'wet'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      the melting point of ice isn't 0 degrees C, except at one standard atmosphere of pressure, which Mars doesn't have.

    4. Re:Definition of 'wet'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh, Thanks for reminding me of that aspect. I am beginning to fear that my physics knowledge may be atrophying. :S

    5. Re:Definition of 'wet'? by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the scoop is not the same temperature as the soil.

    6. Re:Definition of 'wet'? by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ahh but the triple point of water is pretty close to zero C, so you have to check the phase diagram to see whether it melts or sublimes at mars surface temp.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    7. Re:Definition of 'wet'? by Mattsson · · Score: 1

      Icy have a tendency to get wet when in contact with something warm, like a mars rover or such.
      I thought that ice was supposed to sublimate into gas in the martian atmosphere, though. =/

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    8. Re:Definition of 'wet'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps 'sticky' would be a better term?

      Oh god please no!!!!! Please don't feed the trolls it's already bad enough with all the jokes re frustration, probes, wet, vibrator etc. So for goodness sake no, no, no we do not need "sticky" to be included in the mix as well. Perhaps "moist" or a description of the soil being of the same texture as "cottage cheese" might have been better.... oh wait... damn.

    9. Re:Definition of 'wet'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Wet" and "icy" are not mutually exclusive. Go watch an ice-cube melt.

      How about this ice cube that they used to call the Arctic?!?

    10. Re:Definition of 'wet'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Havent you been watching? Its the giant alien technology reactor that needs a human hand to activate it to terraform the planet by melting all the stored Ice thats conveniently located next to the colony!

    11. Re:Definition of 'wet'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you go down on, oh I mean like in the really deep....

      Aw, sh.., you can't go that deep in Mars.

  13. PLEASE TAG VIBRATOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    This would make my day. I'm a girl btw :)

    1. Re:PLEASE TAG VIBRATOR by khing · · Score: 3, Funny

      i'm going to be really immature and say "pics or ban" :P

    2. Re:PLEASE TAG VIBRATOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This would make my day. I'm a girl btw :)

      liar!!!!

  14. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Analyzing ?

  15. Inadequate testing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Maybe I simply do not understand the design parameters for this mission, but:

    • They send a probe out to dig in the dirt and look for water an alien planet - but didn't think to try the scoop out in the backyard?
    • How is it valid to design something that could fail if simply left on for too long?

    No offense to the hugely-talented engineers and designers involved in the creation of this spacecraft, but it seems like this probe needed an idiot-proofing pass (like consumer products having, eg: a heat sensor that shuts off a motor if it gets too hot).

    1. Re:Inadequate testing? by timmarhy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i'm guessing the lower gravity is why it didn't work scooping wet dirt like it did on earth. i'm pretty sure they tested it as well as possible.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    2. Re:Inadequate testing? by emeade · · Score: 3, Interesting

      After the loss of the first vehicle, they did extensive testing. The whole Phoenix story is truly rising from the ashes, and very interesting. I think it was on the Discovery channel.

      My first thought was gravity as well, though I'd think we have enough physics simulations that we could at least do simulated testing under low grav. Looking at the homepage for Phoenix, it looks like they are looking into heat caused by the rasping might be contributing to the problem. Digging holes on Mars just isn't the same as digging them in your backyard, at least not yet.

    3. Re:Inadequate testing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh uh huh huh. You said probe.

    4. Re:Inadequate testing? by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      i reckon they probably simulated the crap out of it, but i guess you never know until you do it for real.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    5. Re:Inadequate testing? by typo83 · · Score: 1

      How are you going to test materials handling when the environment where the experiment takes place has a gravity less than half earth normal? Testing in an earth normal gravity doesn't reveal physical effects that are unnoticed in a 1G environment.

    6. Re:Inadequate testing? by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      I agree with the other repliers that its a difficult thing to test for, but do you really think consumer electronics are highly tested for possible failures?!? I just returned a coffee maker that died on its fifth cup of coffee.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    7. Re:Inadequate testing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, if only we had an outpost in low Earth orbit where such material-handling experiments could be performed and where prototype equipment could be tested.

    8. Re:Inadequate testing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I do believe consumer products are designed to mitigate operator error. Successful consumer brands slowly make their products easier to use. The very best consumer products turn dangerous modes of failure into an inconvenience.

      This is why GM cars shut off the lights if they've been on for 20 minutes after the ignition is turned off - so your battery doesn't run flat.

      Auto makers are also slowly including tire pressure monitoring systems - so you don't have a blowout on the highway. Cars will also automatically turn on your windshield wipers if it rains - and the lights when it is dark.

      Heat sensors are common in consumer electronics. Everything from computers to halogen lamps to vacuum cleaners will temporarily shut down if they aren't properly ventilated and start to overheat. This is because catching fire is an unacceptable mode of failure.

      This type of engineering doesn't necessarily increase the reliability of the product. But I'm sure the coffee maker you returned probably had a sensor to prevent it from overheating and burning the coffee.

    9. Re:Inadequate testing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Phoenix Lander isn't a consumer electronic device...

    10. Re:Inadequate testing? by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

      How is it valid to design something that could fail if simply left on for too long?

      Um, about anything will fail if left on for too long. Especially if it has moving parts.

    11. Re:Inadequate testing? by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      I wish I lived in your reality. Car companies are adding more features. Having more features increases the probability that one of them will fail. When it does, there is only one place you can really go to replace a tire pressure monitoring system: the dealer. They don't release the spec on how to fix all of those little gadgets. I have been driving in a car overloaded with computer controlled features when it went batshit haywire. It was not fun. I've also seen a halogen lamp start a fire and vacuum cleaners kill themselves due to overheating.

      Also,I disassembled my coffee maker before I returned it. The cause of death: burned out pump.

      I don't buy the cheapest products either. They're not the most expensive but I usually do opt for a mid level device by a known brand.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    12. Re:Inadequate testing? by John+Sokol · · Score: 1

      I guess then never figured on digging in Mud.

      --
      I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
    13. Re:Inadequate testing? by zaxus · · Score: 1

      Very true, but the correct engineering solution to this is a time or heat based automatic cutoff so that the machine doesn't kill itself on you. I think that was the GP's point.

      --
      /. zen: Imagine a Beowulf cluster of Beowulf clusters...
  16. A phoenix using an oven! by pagewalker · · Score: 5, Funny

    A Phoenix putting something into an oven... there go our tax dollars! Any competent phoenix would wait until its body burst into flame, then use the spare heat to analyze the sample.

    I don't know about you, but I intend to write to my Congressperson.

    ---
    Thousands are enslaved every day: http://www.riverofinnocents.com/

    --
    Thousands are enslaved every day. A River of In
  17. And we all know what a problem it is when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    your vibrator cuts out early.

    1. Re:And we all know what a problem it is when... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 0, Redundant

      your vibrator cuts out early.

      Wha? Are the results rather anticlimactic?

  18. Re:Vibrator had to be used for longer than designe by RuBLed · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The research data collected from this event would be used to pave the way for human colonization of Mars. I hope...

  19. Preparation Oversight by Joebert · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't mean to troll, but I'd like to think that in a mission they're hoping to find water or ice or something along those lines, they'd anticipate the possibility of moist soil when designing their instruments.

    Hopefully the next mission includes an icecream scoop.

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    1. Re:Preparation Oversight by moteyalpha · · Score: 2, Informative

      I agree with that, I can't imagine sending something that far away and not testing it with every weird thing that you might find in a child's room like gum in hair, silly putty, slinkies, plastic peanuts, ice cream, cheese whiz, dry ice and on and on, It does seem a rather large oversight in testing. BTW the jokes were great and I assume that the article was somewhat of a setup for that. Now -that- is good planning, informative and easy jokes.

    2. Re:Preparation Oversight by thewiz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sounds like the soil is the consistency of clay. Trying to get clay out of a scoop takes water and a lot of patience.

      --
      If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
    3. Re:Preparation Oversight by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Hopefully the next mission includes an icecream scoop.

      Or they could just send along some space ice cream, which isn't wet at all. Hopefully the Martians won't complain.

    4. Re:Preparation Oversight by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I can't imagine sending something that far away and not testing it with every weird thing

      It's a relatively inexpensive mission so they could not include everything under the sun. What if they did include everything under the sun, but there was no ice to sample? You just don't know until you go there. The next "ice" mission can now be more focused instead of trying to be everything, making it cheaper.
                   

    5. Re:Preparation Oversight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. I didn't know that getting a -1 Troll to turn into a +5 Insightful simply required that you say that you aren't trolling first!

      I didn't mean to troll, by the way.

    6. Re:Preparation Oversight by Khyber · · Score: 1

      They did test it in every conceivable condition. Even though this thing got stuck, that in itself provides valuable data. You can't just look at just the obvious in a mission like this.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    7. Re:Preparation Oversight by NotmyNick · · Score: 1

      Wow. I didn't know that getting a -1 Troll to turn into a +5 Insightful simply required that you say that you aren't trolling first!

      You must be new here.

      --
      Notmysig
  20. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    If you use the vibrator, obviously the scoop is going to get wet.

  21. My wife has that problem too. by ClioCJS · · Score: 1, Funny

    (couldn't resist)

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  22. Bad vibrator by mdemonic · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's how it goes when they send a vibrator to do a mans job. Anyway, are the exploring that hole they found a while back?

    1. Re:Bad vibrator by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's how it goes when they send a vibrator to do a mans job. Anyway, are the exploring that hole they found a while back?

      Oh come on!

      You can send 1000 vibrators for the price of one man.

      Vibrators always do what they are told.

      Vibrators never get tired...

    2. Re:Bad vibrator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vibrators never get tired...

      "[T]he vibrator had to be used longer than designed, resulting in a short circuit."

  23. Unmanned missions by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The nice thing about robomissions is that they are so much cheaper than manned missions and there are no widows when things do wrong.

    Because they are relatively cheap you can screw up plenty and still do the work for less cost than a manned mission.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Unmanned missions by RetroGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The nice thing about robomissions is that they are so much cheaper than manned missions and there are no widows when things do wrong.

      And yet all it would take is for a human to crumble the soil in his hand.

      --

      - - - - - - - - - - -
      I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
    2. Re:Unmanned missions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then get frostbite and suffocate.

    3. Re:Unmanned missions by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      The nice thing about robomissions is that they are so much cheaper than manned missions and there are no widows when things do wrong.

      And yet all it would take is for a human to crumble the soil in his hand.

      robotic-monotone ***Bzzzt***... Alas, I, POLAREXPLORER, for all the power of my mighty hydraulic crushing claw, cannot duplicate the qualities of a human hand. ***Bzzzraaat*** Next you will tell me cold logic circuits cannot match the sublime qualities of the human heart. ***gzzzzrp*** Tell me of this thing you fleshlings call love.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    4. Re:Unmanned missions by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because they are relatively cheap you can screw up plenty and still do the work for less cost than a manned mission.

      The problem is, they aren't relatively cheap. You pay a fraction of the cost, and you get less than a fraction of the science.

    5. Re:Unmanned missions by jd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On the other hand, humans are far more adaptable and can modify plans and experiments in a way no robot yet built could. Sometimes, you have to take the risks. If you want to consider costs, then let's say a robust manned mission costs fifty times as much as a robot mission. If you consider the missions that produced uncertain results (Viking landers and early probe photographs), minimal results (Phoenix) or no results at all (everything that has crashed), you are beginning to approach the cost of a manned mission, where a manned mission could have produced ALL of the useful data so far collected AND much of the data that has been lost due to unexpected conditions and unforeseen circumstances.

      Yes, manned missions are extremely risky, and that means a danger of bereavement, but it is better to die with your boots on, making the discoveries of a lifetime, than to live in fear at the back of a cave. Indeed, if we look at places that are most risk-averse, we see that unexpected risks (when they arise) are actually the more dangerous for it. Risk aversity is no healthier than plunging straight into danger without care. Indeed, in a way, it is the same thing, except being risk-averse means you are always plunging into unknown dangers, never known ones. The correct solution is always to be risk-aware, to anticipate and minimize, but never to eliminate, danger. Eliminating danger is probably the most dangerous thing you can ever do.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    6. Re:Unmanned missions by blind+biker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I strongly agree. One of my life mottos is:

      "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
      Mark Twain

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    7. Re:Unmanned missions by Shihar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are two very large problems with a manned Mars mission.

      1) It cost a shit ton of money. Don't give me "but it just costs X days of Iraq war!!!" crap. That might be true, but Americans will open up their pocket books for "making the world a safer place". They lynch presidents that spend a few trillion on science experiments. Sure, we did it with Apollo, but that fell into the "making the world a safer place... by kick the ass of the communist in a metaphorical sense". If it Apollo had been pure science, it would have never of flown. Because Apollo was about one upping the commies, we were okay with it.

      2) It is a suicide mission. Sure, there are plenty of people that would sign up for a suicide mission if it meant they got to stick their boot print on Mars first. That doesn't change the fact that it would never fly. Americans, and even more extreme, Europeans, are extraordinarily risk adverse to the point of absurdity. Pools kill thousands of kids and no one really cars. Unhealthy food kills an absurd number of Americans (millions) and we just shrug it off. Toss an airplane into a building and kill a couple thousand and all of a sudden it is OMG OMG LETS CHANGE SOCIETY AND TOSS OUT CIVIL LIBERTIES TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS MINOR AMOUNT OF DEATH NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN!!!11!!! KILL ALL THE ARABS!!!! NEVER AGAIN!!!1!!!! Europeans are even sillier these days where NATO and UN have to beg plead and extort to get a handful of European soldiers to come within a few hundred miles of a place where they might possibly get shot at. NASA blows up a shuttle filled with adrenaline junkies every quarter of a century, and now we can't fly the foolish things if a bird happens to fly by and drop a shit on one before it takes off.

      Our (western) priorities are so far out of whack and screwed up that this will never happen. The monetary argument is at least logical and something I can get behind. The utter terror at letting someone willingly sacrifice themselves doing something they want to do is a sign that our lives are way the hell too comfy.

      Space exploration is dead to humans until someone finds a cheap way for individuals to get into space, governments to damned. The second you can head west, hit the California coast, and go up a few thousand miles, you will have the US population drop by 10% as the crazy pioneer genes that are still floating around from the crazy immigrants that pushed into the US over the past few hundred years reassert themselves and people throw themselves into space.

      Until that day, the pragmatic and rational folks are going to tell you to fuck off once they see the price tag, and the people begging for a nanny state will break down into tears cry about the inhumanity of it all to let a person willing sacrifice themselves.

    8. Re:Unmanned missions by BarlowBrad · · Score: 1

      So why not create a scoop that functions more like a human hand and could "crumble" it out? (Of course, hindsight is 20-20.)

    9. Re:Unmanned missions by johannesg · · Score: 1

      Europeans are even sillier these days where NATO and UN have to beg plead and extort to get a handful of European soldiers to come within a few hundred miles of a place where they might possibly get shot at.

      Speak for yourself there. Why exactly should we come and clean up after you start not one, but two illegal and pointless wars? Wars that we strongly advised against? That is the reason you don't see too many European soldiers in Afghanistan or Iraq. It has precisely nothing to do with risk adversity, and everything with the american attitude of "we can do it alone".

    10. Re:Unmanned missions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet, here you are: posting on Slashdot.

    11. Re:Unmanned missions by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      Be it as it may, NASA will have to bite the bullet sooner rather than later, and send a manned mission to Mars. Because it's cheaper - one manned mission will collect more scientific data than 2000 (succesful) robotic probes. Let's count the cost of unsuccesful robotic probes, and the value-for-money calculation becomes quite clear.

      I bet this fuckup here is going to force their hand.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    12. Re:Unmanned missions by aepervius · · Score: 1

      And yet all it would take is for a human to crumble the soil in his hand.

      FOr what ? 100 times or more the prices of a robotic mission ? By the time you sent you "human" crumbling in his hand a little soil on Mars, and he comes back, the next bazillon robots which will land , will have taken into account the sticky nature of the soil.

      --
      C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
      http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
      visit randi.org
    13. Re:Unmanned missions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Speak for yourself there. Why exactly should we come and clean up after you start not one, but two illegal and pointless wars?

      As a European (a Finn), I'd like to correct you: The war in Aghanistan has at no point been illegal and maybe your memory isn't all that good but European strongly supported action against Aghanistan as a consequence of their decision not to hand over Osama - NATO members to the point that they for the first time in the history of the organization invoced the collective defence clause. One source of many:
      http://www.euractiv.com/en/general/nato-invokes-collective-defence-clause-support-us/article-113773

      The war in Iraq was illegal because international law states (in brief) that
      (1) military action against another country is illegal except in two cases:
      (2) it's legal as an immediate defensive action
      (3) it's legal if it has a UN mandate

      Arguably, neither case was true and ironically any military action by Iraq against the US would've been legal but actually probably only resulted in making action by the US slightly legitimate instead. Considering that the US had recognized Iraq's independence and is a UN member and in its constitution talks about honouring all treaties with foreign powers (and I'd say that UN membership is a treaty with plenty of foreign powers) it wasn't necessarily illegal under international law only... But that's for Americans to decide and sort out appropriately.

      And just in case your curious, I'd like to add that when the Iraq war began, I was personally in favour of it (to some extent as a consequence of an Iraqi friend here being cautiously optimistic about it then). With the benefit of hindsight, I'm tempted to say that once Saddam was toppled, the US should've pretty much gotten the fuck out and left the Iraqis to shape their country into something better. That way the action would only have served to speed up what would've happened anyway at some point - eventually the Iraqis themselves would've gotten rid of him one way or another. The result now could hardly be worse than the current situation and I fail to see why the US couldn't have gotten back in, if necessary. The worst case would of course have been a country with various factions fighting each other, which isn't very tempting to invade so any estimate of the number of casualties made beforehand would've been made higher (and thus probably closer to what the number has turned out to be now) and such an invasion would obviously have been harder to sell to a domestic audience - not to mention to explain to the masses when there's no single "bad guy" to get rid of anymore. Sadly, I've - whilst following the news - seen signs that the Iraqis just might have done a pretty good job. To me the suggestion many Iraqis made to instead of creating a new Iraqi army "clean" the existing one and let that maintain order. It was a functioning army so simply trying officers suspected of war crimes could've gotten it in shape quickly. But all that is of course pointless speculation.

    14. Re:Unmanned missions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even with all the risks or even a 100% chance of death. Volunteers would line up for the chance to go to mars.

    15. Re:Unmanned missions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Toss an airplane into a building and kill a couple thousand and all of a sudden it is OMG OMG LETS CHANGE SOCIETY AND TOSS OUT CIVIL LIBERTIES TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS MINOR AMOUNT OF DEATH NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN!!!11!!! KILL ALL THE ARABS!!!! NEVER AGAIN!!!1!!!! Europeans are even sillier these days where NATO and UN have to beg plead and extort to get a handful of European soldiers to come within a few hundred miles of a place where they might possibly get shot at.

      You're contradicting yourself. If the US-American bloodthirst is an overreaction that won't accomplish anything and is entirely unnecessary, then aren't the Europeans doing the right thing in staying out of it?

      Or, alternatively, if the Europeans are all cowards for not fighting valiantly for the good cause like the US-Americans, then weren't the US-American attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq a sensible reaction?

      You can't have it both ways.

    16. Re:Unmanned missions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why exactly should we come and clean up after you start not one, but two illegal and pointless wars?

      You could well argue that Afganistan is a pointless war, but unlike Iraq, there is no serious arguement for it being illegal. The Taleban were in charge, they were hosting the Al-Queda leaders, and those leaders ordered the 9/11 attack. Self-defense gave the US (and arguably the UK and other countires whose citizens died) the right to remove the Taleban. AFAIK the Afgan invasion was also endored fully by the UN.
      The Iraq war on the other hand was based on lies and misrepresentations and arguebly did not have UN endorsement.

    17. Re:Unmanned missions by solios · · Score: 1

      1. Money isn't the problem. Desire is the problem. We use "waaaaaaah, it's TOO EXPENSIVE!!!!" as a crutch but the fact is that if we really, really wanted to go to Mars, we'd up and go. It's no big rush because currently there's no competition in manned space exploration. And there won't be until China puts up its own space station or spaceplane. When they start getting serious about space, and start making serious advances, then you can bet it'll light a torch under our asses in a way that "because it's THERE!" never has. The desire to do a thing because it's there is a small part curiosity and a huge part competition - we want to do the thing first, dammit. And barring any major changes in global politics, we could do Mars in 20 years or 30 and still be there first.

      With that broad of a view, that big of a price tag, and that little competition, it's no wonder everyone whines about the cost.

      2.A. It's not a suicide mission. It's one hell of a technical challenge, in which all of the 'living in space' work done on the ISS and the technical work being done with the unmanned probes will eventually pay off in a big way. We've had a hard time with landing reliably on Mars - that whole "atmosphere" thing really seems to throw the rocket scientists for a loop. Get that licked and you're set.

      2.B. Yes, the "it's okay to suck" subtext of Political Correctness has seeped into the social bloodstream and caused the proles to gibber and quake and piss their pants in terror at the sight of a standard pothole barricade because it MIGHT BE THE IRAQS OR THE TERRISTS. And while our culture revels (revels with great ropey jets of semen) at just how incredibly beautiful and unique our snowflake of inadequacy is, I hope the Chinese pick up on it, kick it into gear, and stick a man on the moon or something. Right now (well, the last ten to fifteen and probably next twenty or thirty years) is a golden window for them to hand us our asses on a silver platter, and f*ck if we don't deserve it.

    18. Re:Unmanned missions by Mattsson · · Score: 1

      I'd say that you get more science per dollar if you send probes.
      There's also the endurance.
      With humans, when the mission plan says "go home", you go home or die.
      With a probe, if you realize that the probe actually can keep going after the mission is over, you can simply prolong the mission, lowering the cost/science every extra mission day you get out of it, since the biggest cost is getting it there.

      On the other hand, a manned mission can bring a few probes and leave them running when they leave...

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    19. Re:Unmanned missions by Soporific · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe he's posting from Mars? ;)

      ~S

    20. Re:Unmanned missions by Magada · · Score: 1

      Who do you think enlisted first in the "new" iraqi army? Yup. You guessed it. The "old" iraqi army pros, those who've been solidering all their lives and couldn't get a decent civil sector job if they tried.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    21. Re:Unmanned missions by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Europeans are even sillier these days where NATO and UN have to beg plead and extort to get a handful of European soldiers to come within a few hundred miles of a place where they might possibly get shot at.

      There are plenty of Europeans on UN peacekeeping operations worldwide. We just don't want anything to do with Iraq, which is America's mess and therefore their job to clean up.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    22. Re:Unmanned missions by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      You realize teleporting objects to the surface of Mars isn't an option right now...right?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    23. Re:Unmanned missions by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Europeans are even sillier these days where NATO and UN have to beg plead and extort to get a handful of European soldiers to come within a few hundred miles of a place where they might possibly get shot at.

      Your post would have been fine without the racist shot against Europeans. There's a difference between nanny-state style risk aversion, and not wanting to invade other countries (which some people happen to think is not always a good thing, whether or not we ourselves might be at risk). Have you ever stood in the firing line of bullets, btw?

    24. Re:Unmanned missions by Kjella · · Score: 1

      1) (...) Sure, we did it with Apollo, but that fell into the "making the world a safer place... by kick the ass of the communist in a metaphorical sense".

      More like the closest thing you get to an ICBM showoff without actually sending the ICBMs, I'd say. It's a very loud and clear message you got precise rocketry. The Russians instead built the Tsar Bomba to say they don't need precision rockets.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    25. Re:Unmanned missions by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      And this is the agency that's going to put a man on Mars? Considering they can't even plan for such obvious contingencies as clumpy soil, wouldn't you just LOVE to be the guy having to rely on them for life-support for 2 years?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    26. Re:Unmanned missions by mblase · · Score: 1

      You pay a fraction of the cost, and you get less than a fraction of the science.

      The Spirit and Endeavor probes respectfully disagree with you. They were still doing useful work, what, over a year after they were landed on the surface of Mars? Try getting that kind of long-term performance out of a starving, gasping astronaut.

    27. Re:Unmanned missions by mblase · · Score: 1

      They lynch presidents that spend a few trillion on science experiments.

      I thought that Kennedy was shot, not lynched.

    28. Re:Unmanned missions by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      No, but there is lots of room between the two extremes.

      "Extremist" works both ways.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    29. Re:Unmanned missions by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I'd say that you get more science per dollar if you send probes.

      You may say that if you desire. But actual experience indicates that the opposite is the case.
       

      With a probe, if you realize that the probe actually can keep going after the mission is over, you can simply prolong the mission, lowering the cost/science every extra mission day you get out of it, since the biggest cost is getting it there.

      Yet, the cost of the science obtained still remains higher than that of a manned mission. Probes aren't cheap and operating them isn't either.

    30. Re:Unmanned missions by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      You pay a fraction of the cost, and you get less than a fraction of the science.

      The Spirit and Endeavor probes respectfully disagree with you. They were still doing useful work, what, over a year after they were landed on the surface of Mars? Try getting that kind of long-term performance out of a starving, gasping astronaut.

      You won't need that kind of long term performance from an astronaut - as the work of eight years (between the two probes) could be done by a single human geologist in less than a month.

    31. Re:Unmanned missions by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      humans are far more adaptable and can modify plans and experiments in a way no robot yet built could. Sometimes, you have to take the risks. If you want to consider costs, then let's say a robust manned mission costs fifty times as much as a robot mission. If you consider the missions that produced uncertain results (Viking landers and early probe photographs), minimal results (Phoenix) or no results at all (everything that has crashed), you are beginning to approach the cost of a manned mission, where a manned mission could have produced ALL of the useful data so far collected AND much of the data that has been lost due to unexpected conditions and unforeseen circumstances.

      There are two main mitigating factors to consider when comparing manned to robotic missions:

      1. Robotic missions can sample more spots of the planet. A manned mission would probably sample two spots at the most. Robots could return samples from several dozens of spots. (Plus, we should send robots to survey the man-planned sites first anyhow.)

      2. A manned mission could not do any thorough analysis of soil and rocks during the stay, only cursory studies. Robotic sample return missions could allow big-ass labs on Earth to ponder samples for years before sending a follow-on sampling mission. Apollo results have demonstrated this: analysis and creating hypotheses to test takes years, not weeks.

      Robotic missions are slow and plodding, but it is the tortus versus the hare (manned). The tortus is the best bet. It just takes patience.
             

    32. Re:Unmanned missions by orlanz · · Score: 1

      ...zzrp*** Tell me of this thing you fleshlings call love.

      Well you,.. oh you already have a vibrator... yes, you start with that and...

    33. Re:Unmanned missions by trytoguess · · Score: 1

      I'd argue the issues of a suicide mission is finding the highly qualified people in question, and making sure that the entire crew (who've nothing to lose whether or not they actually do the mission or blow themselves up seconds after breaking earth orbit) actually stay motivated.

    34. Re:Unmanned missions by Mattsson · · Score: 1

      But actual experience indicates that the opposite is the case.

      Might be so. Haven't looked at actual scientific finding per mission vs cost of mission in a manned vs unmanned context.
      Just threw around my opinion of what "feels" logical to me.

      Comparing, for instance, the amount of science done as a result of men on the moon vs probes on the moon, manned missions probably win due to the soil brought back on the manned missions.
      Comparing science per mission in earth orbit, I'd say probes/satellites win.

      There's also the speed factor.
      With a probe mission, you probably get results faster, counting time from the start of the project until scientific results come out of said project.

      That said, there will most probably be different kinds of results in manned vs probe missions, so they don't replace each other.
      Both are necessary in order to gain a broader knowledge.

      And manned missions is so much sexier. ;-)

      I use the word "probably" and "probable" a lot, since we can't know for sure until there has been manned missions to the places that we so far only has sent probes to investigate.

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    35. Re:Unmanned missions by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I use the word "probably" and "probable" a lot, since we can't know for sure until there has been manned missions to the places that we so far only has sent probes to investigate.

      The lunar surface. The ocean bottom. Two cases and the results are clear - and not even close. We already know for sure, as surely as we know that day follows night.

    36. Re:Unmanned missions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, considering China will soon have a "shit ton of money" to burn and a frothing at the mouth nationalistic population they may be the first to put a human being on Mars in a suicide mission "for the state".

    37. Re:Unmanned missions by Shihar · · Score: 1

      Buddy, Iraq wasn't what I was talking about. Want to let the Americans dive head first into that cluster fuck? That is a rational response. Kosovo though? That went on what, 10 years before the Americans beat NATO over the head and the Americans with a few Brits (with some NATO decals hastily slapped onto their airplanes) cleaned that mess up in about a month. In Lebanon the Italians had the shame the French to send even a token observation (not even "peacekeeping") force.

      Let's not even get started with Afghanistan. Osama has hit three NATO members (Spain, US, Britain) and had serious plots at least in a forth (Germany). Despite this, beside the occasional burst of enthusiasm from the Brits, the US is doing all the fighting while everyone else (who are stationed in the quiet parts) try and sneak out the back door looking guilty. Hell, even Obama called out the Germans to grow a pair, pick up their god damn guns, and give a little love back for all hat Cold War fun the US and Germany had together. When you have a peacenik democrat running on an anti-war campaign calling the Germans a bunch of pansies who need to grow a pair, you know the world has flipped on its head.

    38. Re:Unmanned missions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You may say that if you desire. But actual experience indicates that the opposite is the case."

      Please add a citation for this statement as I have only ever heard the opposite from people in the industry.

    39. Re:Unmanned missions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These two cases are very close to home and do not have the vast cost associated with getting people to and from Mars (alive).

      Not to mention the vast differences in amounts that was spent on Apollo vs lunar probes.

      Also as technology/robotics improves the benefits of having a human there are reduced making it even less cost effective.

    40. Re:Unmanned missions by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Kosovo though? That went on what, 10 years before the Americans beat NATO over the head and the Americans with a few Brits (with some NATO decals hastily slapped onto their airplanes) cleaned that mess up in about a month.

      More like the Brits with a few Americans. At its largest, KFOR numbered some 50,000 troops. 19,000 of these were British, 8,500 German, 7,000 American, 7,000 French. You might be thinking about the earlier war in Bosnia, which was ended when NATO began airstrikes against the Bosnian Serb army; that intervention was strongly US-led.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    41. Re:Unmanned missions by Shihar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, there is a difference. In one instance, European NATO members are free to nanny away their citizenry if that is what they really want. On the other hand, when it comes to invading countries, as a member of NATO, a mutual defense pact that stood down the combined nuclear armed Warsaw Pact, they are required to respond if one member state gets attacked. In this case, it wasn't one member state that got attacked. It was three without foiled plots in the forth.

      Britain, Spain, and of course the US were all attacked by Al-qaeda. Germany foiled a major plot. The guilty party was clear. The Taliban government clearly and openly sheltered the group that launched those attacks. In fact, Al-qaeda was integrated into the government of the Taliban. So here we have three member nations being attacked, and not just attacked, but having their civilians attacked, and what is NATOs response?

      Pussy footing and trying to sneak out the back door.

      Don't want to be apart of a mutual pact with the US? Great. Get out. Otherwise, Europe's NATO members need to grow a pair and do their part to uphold the pact. The US has always met its NATO obligations.

      The US stood by fully and completely willing to engage in nuclear self destruction to keep the Soviets out of west Europe. The US stood down the Soviets when they tried to seal off Berlin, risking all out war to come to an allyâ(TM)s aid. Not once did the US even hint that they would fail to come and defense of a NATO member, irregardless of the near assurance of their own nuclear destruction in the process.

      Now that the big danger is passed and war doesn't mean hundreds of millions of people dead in the aftermath, and the US and fellow NATO allies have been attacked by a government just barely out of the stone age. And what does the US have to do? It has to beg and plead with its European "allies" to send anything more than a token force to guard the most desolate and peaceful regions as they take on all of the serious fighting with vastly more soldiers. I mean, the frigging peace loving Canadians with their tiny population have sent a force bigger proportionally to its population then France, Germany, and England⦠combined.

      Love or hate the US, the US stood by the NATO pact with fanatical and unbending devotion throughout the darkest days in human history. Now we turn the corner and Europe canâ(TM)t spare a few troops to take on Taliban whose collective power is pocket change next to just one the Soviet tank divisions that used to be poised in East Germany. It is sad, it is pathetic, and it speaks volumes about the character of the NATOâ(TM)s European members these days.

    42. Re:Unmanned missions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they did - but the "new" army didn't have the same structure as the old one did so they had to familiarize themselves with a new one and the old working relationships no longer existed.

  24. AFM by Turiacus · · Score: 1

    What I hope now is that after two months on the surface they will finally get around to use the AFM (and not just for a test). WTF is taking so long ?

  25. All that money.. by handmedowns · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And we couldn't implement "ice-cream" scoop technology =P

    --
    The road between democracy and tyranny is paved with secrecy in the name of security.
    1. Re:All that money.. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      And we couldn't implement "ice-cream" scoop technology

      Baskin Robbins didn't bid on the contract for some reason. Perhaps the name "Phoenix" made them fear for their stock, eh?

           

    2. Re:All that money.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASA spent millions of dollars inventing a vibrating robotic platform which can analyze soil samples.

      The Russians used an ice cream scoop.

  26. Re:Vibrator had to be used for longer than designe by j01123 · · Score: 5, Funny

    There's got to be a joke in here somewhere....

    Mars hasn't had contact with any life forms in hundreds of millions of years, at least. Of course it needed an unusually long time with the vibrator.

  27. One sad conclusion by bogaboga · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    ...The wet nature of the soil they are targeting appears to have made it get stuck in the scoop rather than drop into the oven. Past problems with similarly clumpy soil may have damaged the lander because the vibrator had to be used longer than designed, resulting in a short circuit..."

    It appears to me that these NASA folks did not test the lander harder or if they did, the tests they performed were invalid!

    What I mean is - we have tones of wet clumpy soils on planet earth where tests could have been done enabling lander improvements to be made accordingly.

    Sounds to me like another classic example of NASA's incompetence. Sadly things at NASA will get worse before they get better, and not before billions of dollars are "wasted."

    1. Re:One sad conclusion by timmarhy · · Score: 1
      well what are you waiting for, go get a job at NASA and tell them what they should have done and how they can beneift from your genious.

      OR you might just want to think such comments through, like the fact the soil in the backyard is NOTHING like martian dirt.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    2. Re:One sad conclusion by goldsaturn · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, we could have found out exactly what Martian soil is like beforehand. We should just send up a robot to scoop some up and analyze it...oh wait.

    3. Re:One sad conclusion by bogaboga · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Did you even read the post? It mentioned "...wet clumpy soil..." Now, the last time I checked, we in these United States have lots of wet clumpy soil.

    4. Re:One sad conclusion by typo83 · · Score: 5, Informative

      You ever run a front end loader? In January when the temperature is 9 below zero Fahrenheit? You know the 'scoop' on the front of the loader is called a 'bucket'? What happens when the loader operator digs into a pile of steaming coal, or gravel? The material is 'steaming' because it is warmer and wet than ambient air. The bucket is -9 degrees F, and the material freezes in the bucket. What does come out of the bucket goes into a dump truck (in some cases), where it freezes to the inside walls, corners and bottom of the dump body. At the end of the day, the truck driver, and the loader operator have to dig that material out by hand, with a shovel. Been there, done that. Why would it be any different on mars with colder temperatures, and 38% earth normal gravity?

    5. Re:One sad conclusion by Rebelgecko · · Score: 1

      Did you even read the post? It mentioned "...wet clumpy soil..." Now, the last time I checked, we in these United States have lots of wet clumpy soil.

      We in these United States also have lots of gravity (Plus, we are exceptionally good at the "mass" part of making gravity too!), which probably makes it a bit easier to get dirt to fall into an oven.

      --
      CATS/Diebold '08- All your vote are belong to us!
    6. Re:One sad conclusion by KingRobot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Phoenix was built by the UofA... No wet, clumpy soil in AZ.

  28. Re:Vibrator had to be used for longer than designe by KGIII · · Score: 1

    I was thinking of the Two Girls One Cup that it would be a scene from.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  29. Except.... by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He would not have survived the trip or the landing.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Except.... by jd · · Score: 4, Funny

      So send a politician.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:Except.... by Stardo · · Score: 1, Funny

      Do we really want to infect another world with zombies?

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

      But if we're unlucky and (s)he does survive, we'd have to endure six months of evasion and procrastination before getting an answer that noone would trust.

    4. Re:Except.... by orlanz · · Score: 1

      Don't you know, Politicians shrivel up and die when not surrounded by simple minded peasants. Let's start with lawyers! At least they can survive by representing themselves.

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

      So send a politician.

      Actually, please send all of them.

    6. Re:Except.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet all it would take is for a human to crumble the soil in his hand.

      So send a politician.

      He said human.

  30. MOD PARENT INTERESTING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Since I'm a guy and all :)

    1. Re:MOD PARENT INTERESTING by jd · · Score: 4, Funny

      Mod grandparent unique, given it's slashdot and all.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  31. Vibrator? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had a feeling all along that those NASA types were perverts.

  32. Not just the atmosphere by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    There could be other compounds in the ice that is helping it to do these actions. I would think that this is going to be very interesting IFF they can get some in the oven.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  33. Actually, by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    this was tested in all sorts of areas around the earth. To make something like this IS difficult. It is part of the reason why I really want to see us on mars. Once we are there, all the exploration will continue to be by robotics. It is just that ppl on the planet will put these systems together as well as fix them. I suspect that the fun jobs will still be handled by ppl on earth.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Actually, by TheLink · · Score: 1

      " It is part of the reason why I really want to see us on mars"

      I actually would prefer to see some politicians/leaders on mars.

      The rest of us can stay here :).

      --
    2. Re:Actually, by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Send those to Jupiter or Mercury. I want mars for us. In fact, I am trying to get my young children interested in space. While I suspect that we are about to be back at a space race, I would like to think that it is not required to get our society to do the right thing.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:Actually, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fun jobs? What could be more fun the running around on Mars?

  34. One Big Mega-Probe, or Incremental? by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your joke raises an interesting question: is it cheaper to send up a single big swiss-army probe that has everything, or simpler probes that use lessons borrowed from the last probe? Phoenix is relatively cheap, probe-wise, such that its not like we put all our eggs in one basket on this one. A later probe can now be more focused to the task based on known soil characteristics.

    It is hard to calculate a clean answer to such questions without having some experience with different designs. Mars is still a new world. Our experience with biology experiments with Viking suggests that the incremental approach may be better. We've learned how Mars may "trick" such experiments and how sneaky life can be based on Earth samples. We can now design experiments that rule out the traps that Viking discovered. Sure, we'll probably find new traps along the way, but nobody says exploration must be easy.
             

  35. Perhaps, just perhaps.... by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Informative

    They should have had you on the mission? I am sure that you really would have expected the exact kind of conditions that they had. After all, being nearly 2x as far from the sun, in the middle of winter, you might be more worried about hardness of items rather than stickiness, but that is just me. To be honest, I seriously doubt that you or the other ludites could even get a rock off this planet let alone deliver something to another planet.

    BTW, if NASA is SOOO incompetent, why do they have a much better record at delivering vehicles to other planets than ANY other group? Me, I have my issues with them, but I have worked on a small part of MGS and know that there is a lot involved. These folks are doing good work.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  36. Re:Vibrator had to be used for longer than designe by popeye44 · · Score: 1

    It always seemed a bit odd to me we send something a few million? miles to soil itself. I can soil myself and never leave my chair.

    --
    Inane Comments are Generously Disregarded
  37. how about venus? by meeya · · Score: 0, Redundant

    if mars had this much trouble with vibrator, don't send any of them to Venus, there will be an explosion

  38. Re:Vibrator had to be used for longer than designe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well it's a natural result of all that frustration...

  39. Re:Vibrator had to be used for longer than designe by kaufmanmoore · · Score: 1

    The lander has a hard time getting off, it needs more stimulation

  40. Not wet by katakomb · · Score: 5, Informative

    The word "wet" implies the presence of a meaningful amount of liquid water. In this regard, the soil at the site is very unlikely to be wet (and note that the linked articles don't actually say that it is). The temperature and pressure conditions at the site only allow for solid and gas phases for H2O. Solid ice slowly converts to gas through sublimation when the ice is exposed by the scoop. Materials can clump for a variety of reasons. For example, lunar soil can cling to itself and to things like spacesuits even though absolutely no water is present at all. All sorts of factors can influence the cohesion of planetary soils, including the physical shapes of soil grains, the electrostatic properties of the grains, binding by spatter through micrometeorite bombardment (unlikely on Mars due to atmospheric protection) and, in the case of the Mars soils, even small amounts of ice have the potential to bind grains.

    1. Re:Not wet by Bat+Country · · Score: 1

      Actually, the word "wet" implies the presence of a meaningful amount of liquid (or gel) SOMETHING.

      --
      The land shall stone them with the bread of his son.
  41. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Well... Mars does contain a fair amount of gooey caramel, so sticky soil surely shouldn't come as a surprise to NASA.

  42. Yo mama by devotedlhasa · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yo mama ... may have damaged the lander because the vibrator had to be used longer than designed

  43. wait by bigplrbear · · Score: 1

    Isn't Mars a guy? What's he doing with a vibrator? 0_o

    1. Re:wait by NeoTron · · Score: 1

      Chasing after Venus, of course, but she's playing Hard To Get.

  44. Don't worry by krkhan · · Score: 3, Funny

    If Phoenix isn't working, I'm sure Firefox shall fix all that stuff.

  45. So what came out of the manned moon missions? by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    The Russian robomissions brought back samples and photos too. The only real difference is that the human missions also played zero-g golf and some poster boys to divert a nation's attention from Vietnam.

    Robotic missions are getting better as designers are learning from their mistakes.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  46. Woody Allen by certsoft · · Score: 1

    Woody Allen had a problem with a vibrator in "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex* (*But Were Afraid to Ask)", related?

  47. Scraper? by joetheappleguy · · Score: 1

    Dear NASA, build a scraper on the next soil sample scooper.

    Kthxbye.

  48. Better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about they stop fucking trying to find out if there's life on Mars. It's obviously not where the aliens are. Why don't they spend all that money trying to dig up "soil" on actually finding the aliens instead. It's already been established that we can't live there so why bother. It's just like the US, always wanting to fuck with shit that isn't theirs. Maybe they should just claim there's weapons of mass destruction on mars and nuke it too?

  49. Re:Vibrator had to be used for longer than designe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um, one could argue that the prolonged lack of contact should have resulted in an unusually short time with the vibrator... but then, I'm a guy, that's just the way things work for me.

  50. Re:Vibrator had to be used for longer than designe by eyrieowl · · Score: 1

    Fertile soil?

  51. Phoenix Mars Mission Logo by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It looks suspiciously similar to the Firefox logo, I wonder if the artist was the same. At least he got the face pointed in the right direction this time.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  52. I can see the fleet street headlines by EEPROMS · · Score: 4, Funny

    NASA scientists break vibrator

  53. hehehe by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    He said "colon"

  54. obvious Contact joke by alex4point0 · · Score: 0

    " It's so gay. Sapphic. They should have sent a Lesbian ... "

    *bzzzzzz*

    Apologies to the late Sagan

    --
    By the time you finish reading this sentence will end.
  55. Tally of sex lingo on this /. article by LordAlced · · Score: 0

    "pulling-out-doesn't-sound-manly" (+1) "frustrated" (+3) "wet" (+6) "vibrator" (+8) "short circuit" (+3) "longer than designed" (+4) Total: 25

    --
    Error: this custom sig failed to load. Please update your user preferences. If this message still appears, please contac
  56. Silly idea? by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder if it would be that silly to try and turn the scooper upside down and LIGHLTY bang it on the inside of the oven so that gravity can do the rest and let it fall out...although I dont know how sturdy that oven is nor do I know if the robot is able to apply small pressure turns instead of full tilt ones.

  57. Heated scoop? by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Let see, they are searching for the possibility of ICE on a planet where it is WAY BELOW zero. None of these rocket scientist every tried to get more than one scoop of ice cream out of a tub of ice cream with an ice cream scoop? Never heard of a non stick scoop or a heated one?

  58. Texas clay by eagl · · Score: 1

    They should have tried it out on some nice sticky Texas clay. The "dirt" near my house seems to give me the same problems they're seeing.

  59. Say what!? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    I suspect that the fun jobs will still be handled by ppl on earth.

    Did you even read the summary? That robot's having more fun than everyone who worked on it put together!

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  60. Robot wars by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 1

    I guess they hired a team from the "Robot Wars" TV show, they always have a weapon that get stuck...

  61. Worked fine in the lab by grikdog · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sounds like one too many what-ifs got pruned from the decision tree. Nice. Probably saved a couple million bucks on the ground, got the pup out the door, and sent it all the way to Mars before it flushed its entire budget into thin air. Speaking as a taxpayer, at least the show's been entertaining.

    --
    ``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
  62. They're doing it wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....if they're trying to get something cooking in the oven using a vibrator.

  63. How do you know? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    He would not have survived the trip or the landing.

    He would if they designed for it.

    There are plenty of people that would be happy to go and never come back, it's (relatively) easy to make a lander that would exert forces someone could live through. It's taking off and coming back that's the really hard part.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  64. Google Ads by Guppy · · Score: 1

    Ads by Google
    Pics Of Girl Gamers
    These Beautiful Women Love Video Games, Gadgets, And Geeks! FoxyFans.UGO.comSr.

    Just noticed this turned up on the Ads for this page. Think Google might be picking up some keywords?

  65. Re:Vibrator had to be used for longer than designe by lbmouse · · Score: 1

    By using your logic, then why does it only take the typical male Slashdotter, mmmm...about 4.5 seconds?

  66. Short Circuit by slapout · · Score: 1

    "resulting in a short circuit"

    You mean it came alive and started demanding "input"?

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  67. mutually exclusive by Tmack · · Score: 1
    On mars, they kinda are.... its called sublimation. Watching a water based ice cube melt on Mars is like watching dry-ice (frozen CO2) "melt" here on earth. No wetness involved, unless you greatly increase the atmospheric pressure.

    tm

    --
    Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
  68. What I want to know is... by PeelBoy · · Score: 1

    What kind of crappy vibrator technology did they use that was only good for a few days?

    Seriously that technology isn't exactly rocket science and most products these days that use that technology (phones, game controllers, uhm vibrators, etc) last more than just a few hours or days.

    They only designed it to last for a few hours? They designed it to break? I don't get it.

  69. Phoenix a failure by PingXao · · Score: 1

    I support NASA and most of their programs. It was very exciting when Phoenix touched down softly on Mars, the first craft to do so in a long time. This overall mission, however, has been a failure IMO. They will try to put lipstick on this pig until the cows come home, but the failure of the geologists on the program to adequately anticipate the mechanical properties of the soil they would find there looms large.

    Leave it to JPL investigators to forget about MUD. NASA

    Phoenix hasn't been a total failure. There was undoubtedly some good science that came out of the mission. But the centerpiece experiment has not lived up to expectations and whoever is responsible needs to be held accountable. If it was a committee then they are all responsible.

    1. Re:Phoenix a failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will try to put lipstick on this pig until the cows come home

      And that's no cock & bull story! I can't believe what a dog and pony show this whole Phoenix lander has turned into. What a bunch of snakes in the grass!

    2. Re:Phoenix a failure by FlyingBishop · · Score: 1

      They found water. I think no one was really expecting that, and just finding that is big enough to warrant sending another, more thoughtfully designed probe. And I don't think it's reasonable to expect that they could build a robot on their budget, in that small a payload, that could operate both in wet and dry conditions. I'm no (mechanical) engineer, but I'd say that each warrants a different apparatus.

      It's hardly fair to blame them for not anticipating the properties of the soil when the craft was sent there to determine the properties of the soil.

  70. Clarification by Shihar · · Score: 1

    Let me clarify with blunter language. I called Europeans wusses who jump at their own shadow, and Americans schizophrenic nut jobs.

    Europeans are wusses

    don't think this needs much clarification. I can just run down the laundry list of things that Europe has failed to do since the Cold War ended. Top on the list would be their utter failure to intervene in Kosovo until the American strong armed NATO into doing something and the UN meekly stamped on approval AFTER the US and Britain were busy pounding the piss out of the Serbs. The pathetic response from Lebanon's pleading for Europeans to send a few peacekeeper to just watch the border (no one was even asking them to fight) that finally got filled in a half-assed way only after the Italians (of all people) shamed the French into sending more than a couple of squads.

    Finally, you have the sad state of Afghanistan. This is a war that pretty much everyone agrees was an a-okay thing. It was clear, cut, and dry. Osama attacks one NATO member (US), Taliban refuses to hand him over, and latter Osama hits two more NATO members (Spain and Britain) with serious but thwarted plots in at least a fourth (Germany). What does NATO do? While the US is fighting TWO wars at once, European NATO members do everything humanly possible to avoid sending troops. When they do they opt for glorified sheep guarding in the safest possible parts of Afghanistan while Americans and the occasional Brit wad in neck deep in blood while fighting an even bloodier war a couple countries over at the same frigging time.

    Conclusion? Europe's thirst for blood and human sacrifice is meek, even when there is a damn good reason for it. If they can't suffer the thought of a handful of professional warriors fighting and possibly dying, I have a hard time swallowing that they will opt for a few pencil necked scientist (which for the record I proudly am) getting killed for some sweet scientific data.

    Americans are psychotic

    Americans clearly have a taste for blood and human sacrifice. Granted, they really don't even touch the scale that they did in World War II and would have their ass kicked for being total whining pansies by their 1940's era selves, but they sure do look manly next to Europeans at times when it comes to letting blood. The Americans are not above cleaning up Europe's mess (Kosovo) with a sword when the president needs a good distraction from bad personal news (Monica). Ahh, but here comes the rub. If the Americans were just shedding a little blood (including their own) they would be planting the red, white, and blue on all sorts of heavenly objects (cash permitting, but they do have a pretty hefty amount of cash) in the name proving the size of their penis as they did in the Cold War days.

    For better or for worse though, the US has developed a split personality. One one hand you have a raving mad blood thirsty killer itching to chop someone in two for looking at them funny, and on the other hand they have developed the personality of a hypochondriac Jewish mother. These two identities live totally separate lives but exist in the same person.

    The psychotic killer
    The blood thirsty killer came flying out in a murderous rage after 9/11 looking to basically kick the shit out of anyone who might of been responsible for a mild pin prick to the hand. This killers first response was to chop his own hand off in rage at the attack (Homeland security bans clothing on all airplanes, institutes mandatory anal cavity searches for 90 year old grandmothers, and sneaks into your sons room at night to read his diary while watching your daughter undress). After realizing that it had chopped its own hand off, the US really flew off the handled promptly went into a frenzy against the guilt party (Afghanistan). Still kind of pissed, the US continued to slice off bits of its own arm (which only served the piss the US off even more) and then whacked someone that looked kind of like that Afganistan dude if you squinted

  71. Re:Vibrator had to be used for longer than designe by Mishotaki · · Score: 1

    Does that mean that we now know that females will need longer-lasting batteries for their vibrators when they will colonise Mars?

  72. Re:Vibrator had to be used for longer than designe by rts008 · · Score: 1

    Uhmmm...more practice?

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti