NASA Satellite Looks For Response From Dead Mars Craft

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Satellite Looks For Response From Dead Mars Craft

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @04:42AM from the it's-dead-jim dept.

coondoggie writes "NASA's Mars Odyssey orbiter will next week make a number of passes over the presumed dead Phoenix Mars Lander on the surface of the planet and listen for what the space agency called possible, though improbable, radio transmissions. Odyssey will pass over the Phoenix landing site about 10 times this month and two longer listening tries in February and March trying to determine if the craft survived Martian winter and try to lock onto a signal and gain information about the lander’s status."

152 comments

Love the space program by jhoegl · 2010-01-12 04:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

I wish we took 50% of the money given to the military and put it into space. We would be at Jupiter right now.
1. Re:Love the space program by snmpkid · 2010-01-12 04:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Or there would be 50% more dead space junk on jupiter now
2. Re:Love the space program by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 04:56 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I wish we took 50% of the money given to the military and put it into space. We would be at Jupiter right now.
  TERRORIST!
3. Re:Love the space program by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 05:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Or both. No success without failures. Or are Spirit and Opportunity not worth the landers that disappeared?
4. Re:Love the space program by codewarren · 2010-01-12 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  Yikes, money in space is dangerous... especially coins.
5. Re:Love the space program by Monkeedude1212 · 2010-01-12 05:10 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I don't see how a rocket with a payload of nothing but dollar bills is going to get us any closer to Jupiter.
6. Re:Love the space program by lopgok · 2010-01-12 05:14 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Actually, if we would have funded Project Orion, we would have gone to Saturn in the early 1960's. See http://www.ted.com/talks/george_dyson_on_project_orion.html among other references.
7. Re:Love the space program by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 05:15 · Score: 0
  
  ...and speaking German, Japanese, Chinese or otherwise hailing our new foreign overlords.
8. Re:Love the space program by Wyatt+Earp · 2010-01-12 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  No, in the US at least, Congress would have taken the majority of the money and thrown it towards welfare programs. Which is what they did that cut Apollo and limited the Manned Orbital Laboratory and limited the Shuttle, and cut all sorts of other NASA plans.
9. Re:Love the space program by whrde · 2010-01-12 05:25 · Score: 0
  
  I wish we took 50% of that money and used it to feed the other half of the world which is providing us with our wealth.
10. Re:Love the space program by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 05:27 · Score: 0
  
  no, we'd be in China
11. Re:Love the space program by Drethon · 2010-01-12 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  A heck of a lot more dead junk than that. The military budget is about 40x the budget of NASA accordign to one site. So there would be 2000% more dead junk, hopefully 2000% more live junk too :)
12. Re:Love the space program by Kamokazi · 2010-01-12 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  I wish everyone would get along in the world so we didn't have to put any money into the military.
  Reality sucks.
  
  --
  As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
13. Re:Love the space program by lopgok · 2010-01-12 05:31 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I am a tiny bit off on the timeline. The motto was 'Mars by 1965, Saturn by 1970'. See http://www.islandone.org/Propulsion/ProjectOrion.html
14. Re:Love the space program by Afforess · 2010-01-12 05:33 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The Rover's were originally 90 day missions back in 2002. That's all they were designed for. This is the 7th year of operation. Frankly, I'm impressed. If the military was as efficient as our space program, tanks from WWII would still be in service.
  
  --
  If our elected representatives no longer represent us, do we still live in a Democracy?
15. Re:Love the space program by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 05:36 · Score: 0
  
  Because the Constitution Of The United States tells them to spend on a space program right...???
  Learn your history and laws or we will be a nation of Men and not Laws....
16. Re:Love the space program by sznupi · 2010-01-12 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  How does that lead to the US waste on military being not far from half of planetary military budget?
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
17. Re:Love the space program by Kintanon · 2010-01-12 05:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Are you serious? This is what you're bringing to the table? We already disrupt local economies and destroy the livelihoods of local farmers with the amount of food relief we drop into areas. The US spends more money on foreign aid than any other developed nation. We POUR food into the third world and their fucked up governments let the civilians starve while they feed their military and trade the food to other warlords for guns.
  So take that bullshit and try to sell it elsewhere jackass.
  
  --
  Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
18. Re:Love the space program by flablader · 2010-01-12 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  We're already on our way (or will be in 2011, I hope). See http://juno.wisc.edu/
19. Re:Love the space program by clone53421 · 2010-01-12 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  Jupiter isn’t solid, and wouldn’t be very hospitable to anything we sent into it.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
20. Re:Love the space program by Profane+MuthaFucka · 2010-01-12 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Another way to put it, since half the spacecraft disappeared, is to ask if the missions would be worth twice as much money.
  I'd say yes.
  
  --
  Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
21. Re:Love the space program by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 05:47 · Score: 0
  
  Are you serious? This is what you're bringing to the table? We already disrupt local economies and destroy the livelihoods of local farmers with the amount of food relief we drop into areas. The US spends more money on foreign aid than any other developed nation. We POUR food into the third world and their fucked up governments let the civilians starve while they feed their military and trade the food to other warlords for guns.
  So take that bullshit and try to sell it elsewhere jackass.
  I applaud you sir.
22. Re:Love the space program by jpmorgan · 2010-01-12 05:49 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  While I agree with your sentiment about the longevity of the rovers, I'm a little confused about your tank comment. The military has no problem using and maintaining old equipment when it's good for the job... the famous example of the B-52 comes to mind. Military equipment tends to go obsolete faster than robot probes, because it doesn't take years (sometimes decades) to deploy a new model.
23. Re:Love the space program by Nathrael · 2010-01-12 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  War is an exchange of blood and money. You can substitute one for the other. Which would you prefer to lose?
  
  --
  A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
24. Re:Love the space program by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 05:52 · Score: 0
  
  The Rover's were originally 90 day missions back in 2002. That's all they were designed for. This is the 7th year of operation. Frankly, I'm impressed. If the military was as efficient as our space program, tanks from WWII would still be in service.
  *sigh* They could easily still be. Look at the B-52 bombers and you'll see a military craft that has last a long time. The tanks weren't put out of service because they wouldn't last, they were put out of service because they were obsolete. I guess you'd expect people to use a PC from 20 years ago for modern times too.
25. Re:Love the space program by Airborne-ng · 2010-01-12 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  As a side note, the HMMWV's we used in Iraq were refurbs from '85. But agreed, I wish the military had half the efficiency of NASA and received half the budget.
26. Re:Love the space program by Speare · 2010-01-12 05:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I don't see how a rocket with a payload of nothing but dollar bills is going to get us any closer to Jupiter.
  To be fair, sending C-130s with payloads of nothing but dollar bills didn't do more for success in Iraq, either.
  
  --
  [ .sig file not found ]
27. Re:Love the space program by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 05:56 · Score: 0
  
  You have to feed their armies, who else would then buy your guns ?
28. Re:Love the space program by whrde · 2010-01-12 06:02 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  one hand "pours" food into the "third world", whilst the other destroys it through war, mining, slave labour, environmental destruction, debt and unfair trade.
  you might want to be a little less ignorant and stop asking for gratitude.
  It's not a problem you can just throw money at, it's a social problem.
29. Re:Love the space program by Eponymous+Bastard · 2010-01-12 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Have you seen how much aliens are charging for a ride nowadays???
30. Re:Love the space program by MozeeToby · 2010-01-12 06:11 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  No, the mission was designed to last 90 days (and probably more for budgetary reasons than anything else). The rovers were designed to last as long as possible while still fulfilling the mission goals and staying below the weight and size limits. If you need a high cost, high risk, extreme environment piece of equipment to last 90 days, you design it to last for decades. I'm not saying 7 years on Mars isn't impressive, but the idea that engineers expected the rovers to drop dead after 90 days is inaccurate.
  As for the military not being as efficient, the space program uses one off engineering projects to solve unique challenges. Each rover and lander is designed specifically for the exact environment they will be placed in and is engineered nearly from the ground up. It produces amazing results but it is not economically efficient. The difference is, compared to the cost of getting a rover to mars, the cost of the rover itself is almost negligible so you may as well over engineer it and make sure the money you paid for the flight out there was worth it.
  I'd love to see what the space program would do with twice or three times its current budget, it's a crying shame the way it's pushed to the back burner the way it is now. When was the last time a genuinely revolutionary space concept was flown by NASA? The first shuttle launch? Lots of people have ideas that can be made to work, ideas that could make space travel as cheap and common as Arthur C Clark ever envisioned it, we just haven't put the R&D into turning ideas into technology.
31. Re:Love the space program by Hatta · 2010-01-12 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  Easy. Declare finders keepers. First person to retrieve the half trillion from Jupiter gets to keep it.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
32. Re:Love the space program by sexconker · 2010-01-12 06:14 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  Yikes, money in space is dangerous... especially coins.
  http://mythbustersresults.com/episode4
  Come on guys. Episode FOUR.
  BEFORE:
  The shitty, forced "acting"
  The annoying junior crew took up 60% of the show
  The "hurr, durr, hurr durr, derp derp derp let's blow something up" mentality
  Adam's non-stop "look at me, I'm gaaaaaaay with this walrus!" antics
  The "we saw this on youtube so we're gonna do it too" "myths"
  The "Hey, if you like our show and want more, go watch this 20 second clip on the site! Yes, this little segment telling you to go to the site is in fact 30 seconds long!" shit
  We don't even need to get into the whole "wouldn't fall to the Earth anyway, would burn in atmosphere if it did, would likely hit water, etc." stuff.
33. Re:Love the space program by maxume · 2010-01-12 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  They were designed to almost certainly last 90 days, not to just last 90 days. I'm pretty sure that come day 91, they already had the budget/authorization to continue to operate the ground side, it was not a surprise that they were still going.
  
  --
  Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
34. Re:Love the space program by pckl300 · 2010-01-12 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see how a rocket with a payload of nothing but dollar bills is going to get us any closer to Jupiter.
  It wont. The Great Noodly Appendage will be displeased with our offerings of wealth and will send our ships to their Jovian demise.
  
  --
  In the beginning, there was null.
35. Re:Love the space program by Chris+Mattern · 2010-01-12 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  If the military was as efficient as our space program, tanks from WWII would still be in service.
  We're still using a bomber from 1955, and we're planning to keep using it until 2040. Is that good?
36. Re:Love the space program by Bwian_of_Nazareth · 2010-01-12 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  The Rover's were not designed for only 90 day missions... they were designed to guarantee 90 days. That's a different story. (I am not saying that what they have achieved is not a huge thing... it is. But it is incorrect to say that they have been designed to last 90 days.)
37. Re:Love the space program by scorp1us · 2010-01-12 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  How can junk ever be "on" a gas giant? Isn't "in" the right preposition?
  
  --
  Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
38. Re:Love the space program by cynvision · 2010-01-12 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  What strikes me is maybe how many more sick and injured (or dead) astronauts we'd have had. Science learned a lot about the effects of microgravity and radiation on human health puttering in orbit here.
  
  --
  "I got it all together but I forgot where I put it."
39. Re:Love the space program by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 06:40 · Score: 0
  
  War is an exchange of blood and money. You can substitute one for the other. Which would you prefer to lose?
  That may be entirely true, but the more important decision is: How much war do you have to buy?
  Unlike pizza, it's the sort of thing you really don't want to buy in the first place, so you're better off paying as little as possible for it.
40. Re:Love the space program by llamadillo · 2010-01-12 06:42 · Score: 0
  
  From what I can tell, NASA & the military seem to be running neck-and-neck in terms of their ability to predict the duration of engagements.
41. Re:Love the space program by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 06:44 · Score: 0
  
  The gas giants are theorized to have a solid core.
  captcha: phoenix
42. Re:Love the space program by codewarren · 2010-01-12 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't say "dangerous to Earth". Astronauts in the shuttle and the ISS don't have an atmosphere to protect them from a few grams stamped with "In God We Trust" screaming at them at 15,000 miles per hour.
43. Re:Love the space program by dgatwood · 2010-01-12 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see how a rocket with a payload of nothing but dollar bills is going to get us any closer to Jupiter.
  It will still be more effective than spending it on millimeter wave scanners, banks, and U.S. car companies.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
44. Re:Love the space program by icebrain · 2010-01-12 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  Reading comprehension FAIL.
  It's pretty obvious from the GP's post that he is referring to the concept of, for lack of a better term, "space junk". Or in this particular example, coins whizzing about in low orbit at a liesurely 17,000 mph. Even small things like marble-sized debris can put a world of hurt on any contemporary spacecraft; stuff the size of a grain of sand could kill somebody in a spacesuit. Look up how many times NASA has had to move the shuttle due to the threat of space debris. Tracking all these little bits is a full-time job for a bunch of people.
  None of this has anything to do with coins falling off a skyscraper. And I can't believe I just fed the troll.
  
  --
  The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
45. Re:Love the space program by doconnor · 2010-01-12 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  The US spends more money on foreign aid than any other developed nation.
  The total may be more, but as a percentage of GDP, it's at the low end of the scale.
46. Re:Love the space program by 172pilot · 2010-01-12 07:19 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I love the space program too, but if we did that, we'd be a territory of China right now, and all living a communist life with no space program..
  
  --
  -Steve Tired of voting for the "lesser of two evils?" Come talk about it on www.bothsidesarewrong.com
47. Re:Love the space program by jmorris42 · 2010-01-12 07:21 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  > I wish we took 50% of the money given to the military and put it into space.
  You are making a very silly assumption. You assume the military budget just goes down a black hole. It doesn't. We get two benefits from that money. First is tech, probably more tech than NASA has delivered and NASA has done some good stuff. But look how much tech came out of two World Wars and the Cold War (WWIII in everything but body count) and compare it to NASA. But by far the bigger benefit is that Western Civilization didn't fall to the barbarian hordes. Hint: Barbarians don't send out space probes in a peaceful quest for pure knowledge. Can you see the Thousand Year Reich sending unmanned probes to the outer solar system? How about the Soviet Union in a world where they defeated the West and didn't need to 'waste' resources in a PR war? Remember, with some of the more productive farmland in the world their system couldn't feed their population, if the whole world fell to their level of productivity there wouldn't be much surplus wealth to blow on exploration. How 'bout the sixth century rejects wanting to re-establish the Caliphate? Think they would be interested in the Final Frontier? We are free to argue about these things and do basic science, safe under the protection of hard men walking the wall and beating back the unreasoning barbarian hordes who are always out there waiting for weakness.
  
  --
  Democrat delenda est
48. Re:Love the space program by badboy_tw2002 · 2010-01-12 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  What are you talking about? The IraqWarII was only supposed to last 6 months and its going into year 7 too. Not to mention its sister war, AfghanistanWarI is on year 9 after being almost completely ignored. Talk about efficiency! So there!
49. Re:Love the space program by tokul · 2010-01-12 07:25 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  tanks from WWII would still be in service.
  
  War was not won by producing state of art equipment. It was won by producing lost of it in fast and cheap way. T34 and Shermans were not the best tanks in WWII. State of art was Tiger 2 and Germans lost.
50. Re:Love the space program by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 07:27 · Score: 0
  
  No. It's entirely correct to say they were designed to last 90 days. It's incorrect, however, to make the assumption that, because it was designed to last 90 days, it was designed to fall apart on day 91. You want to throw something at another planet *and* be confident that it'll still work for 90 days after bouncing it across the surface in order to land it? You over engineer the tar out of it.
51. Re:Love the space program by sexconker · 2010-01-12 07:27 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH
52. Re:Love the space program by wcrowe · 2010-01-12 07:34 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Good point. Another example: the military still uses the Browning .50 caliber machine gun, which has changed little since it first went into service in the 1920's.
  
  --
  Proverbs 21:19
53. Re:Love the space program by emilper · 2010-01-12 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  You already got to Jupiter 30 years ago ... the point is to get there and have something to do besides gawking at the beautiful colors.
  AFAIK, all the interesting (like those that produces more than pretty pictures in fake colors of distant gas bags) US space projects were done, or funded, by the US military; looking at what kind of projects they finance, my bet is the next big vehicle will come either from private companies, or from the US Air Force or Navy.
54. Re:Love the space program by Chris+Burke · 2010-01-12 07:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  No, the mission was designed to last 90 days (and probably more for budgetary reasons than anything else)... I'm not saying 7 years on Mars isn't impressive, but the idea that engineers expected the rovers to drop dead after 90 days is inaccurate.
  Actually it kinda is, not because they engineered the rover to only last that long (obviously you're right and they engineered it to be as robust as possible to survive on Mars), but because they thought the rover's solar panels would be too covered in dust to operate after that.
  I still remember NASA putting out releasing saying how pleasantly surprised they were that the Martian wind turned out to be substantial enough to blow dust off the panels, and so the mission could extend past its original 90 day scope.
  The fact that they continued the mission shows it wasn't budget constraints that limited it to 90 days... at least not the operations budget. I guess it was related to budget in the sense that this constrained them to only using solar power, and 90 days was just how long they thought a solar-powered rover could run.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
55. Re:Love the space program by emilper · 2010-01-12 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  WWII tanks could be in service, except they would be useless now. It's not about robustness, but about usability :P
56. Re:Love the space program by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 07:46 · Score: 0
  
  Sounds like you have a severe case of Enlightenment. The only thing for that is to slap you until your ears ring.
57. Re:Love the space program by uncqual · 2010-01-12 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Although I support the space program in general, comparing NASA and the military is like comparing Red Delicious Apples and Road Apples. Both are actually impressive organizations (and, also, in some ways unimpressive) - but that's about where the similarity ends.
  
  When discussing the "efficiency" of NASA, consider the claimed benefits and costs of the shuttle when serious development funding began vs. what it, now in its dying days, actually delivered. As I can quickly recall, the greatest legacy of the shuttles was putting Hubble up and then fixing it (the need for fixing of course, comes back to NASA efficiency) and then upgrading it/repairing it. Perhaps worth it, but then one needs to allocate much of the shuttle budget to the Hubble and then ask "was the Hubble worth that much?". I think it's unlikely that the Hubble will/has provide/ed us with information that is going to make human's lives substantially more tolerable in the next 100 years and, quite likely, never (since humans will become extinct at some point) - so, it's interesting and perhaps enlightening much as opera (the performing art, not the browser) may be to some people, but it hasn't cure diseases, prevented birth defects, or gotten people to stop killing people for religious reasons etc...
  
  The military has the option of throwing money at a problem when they are at war in order to save lives TODAY -- so they do it and, sometimes that's isn't very efficient. Also, the military has the difficulty of their timetable being set by other parties (ranging from a twitchy fingered POTUS, through a foe building a nuke, to a foe developing and using an asymmetric weapon technique such as IEDs). Once they are at war or in a battle, they can't just regularly say "The weather is a bit cloudy, let's cancel the mission to extract our guys who are under fire - hopefully it will clear up in the next couple days" or "We just discovered that this O ring fails sometimes and results in an entire tank blowing up -- let's shutdown our entire ground based attack mechanisms for a couple years and get a commission together to study why this happened". Nope - they have to take more risks and, often, throw money at expensive duct tape to achieve their goal. (Much of the "unnecessary" inefficiency of the military originates in Washington D.C. in the halls of Congress and the WH of course).
  
  --
  Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
58. Re:Love the space program by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 07:55 · Score: 0
  
  I wish we took 50% of the money given to the military and put it into space. We would be at Jupiter right now.
  Or there would be 50% more dead space junk on jupiter now
  
  Well that is still a whole hell of a lot more scientific data than one gets from a war.
  While you might enjoy that money going to killing, some of us still do prefer money going to bettering ourselves as a race.
  Though with the goal of death, I can see why you wouldn't like that happening either.
59. Re:Love the space program by TheCrip · 2010-01-12 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  The US spends more money on foreign aid than any other developed nation.
  The total may be more, but as a percentage of GDP, it's at the low end of the scale.
  We need credible sources of information for either argument. Anyone here have real numbers to site?
60. Re:Love the space program by DerekLyons · 2010-01-12 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that they continued the mission shows it wasn't budget constraints that limited it to 90 days... at least not the operations budget.
  While budget constraints didn't limit it to 90 days, ongoing operations do impact the budget. The operators don't work for free, and neither do the guys supporting the specialized hardware the operators are using. The rooms the operators are in don't come free either.
  
  All those man-hours have to be paid from somewhere, and that somewhere is the budgets of other projects.
61. Re:Love the space program by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 08:34 · Score: 0
  
  So fuck it. Let the rest do it. you quite obviously think everyone else does such a better job.
  let them.
  Then they can clean up the fucking messes also afterwardss.
  Seriously. Fuck you. You think you can do a better job, then do it. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.
62. Re:Love the space program by ChipMonk · 2010-01-12 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  Having our Constitutional Republic is precisely what frees us to make more. Contrast NASA's effects on everyday life, and the Soviet space program, which was in essence enslavement of the USSR's cosmonauts and top physicists. The people of the USSR weren't allowed to enjoy substantial benefits of their space program, because that would put at risk the forced equal misery of communism.
  
  But we could be producing and giving away 100x as much as the second most productive nation in the world, and it still wouldn't be enough for you. No, it isn't enough for you until we have nothing left but caves to live in, because we gave it all to those who just want to piss it away.
  
  You have nothing substantial to bring to the discussion. You just want to complain.
63. Re:Love the space program by DerekLyons · 2010-01-12 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  You are making a very silly assumption. You assume the military budget just goes down a black hole. It doesn't. We get two benefits from that money. First is tech, probably more tech than NASA has delivered and NASA has done some good stuff. But look how much tech came out of two World Wars and the Cold War (WWIII in everything but body count) and compare it to NASA.
  Not to mention that a great of tech that NASA uses has its origins in military budgets. Pressure suits? Owe a great deal to research into suits for high altitude warplanes. Rocket engines? A great deal of the field is based on basic and applies research for ICBM's and rocket powered aircraft. Inertial guidance? The military wanted it for airplanes, rockets and missiles, and submarines - and NASA tagged along. (And in the guidance systems for rockets and missiles the electronics industry learned the techniques of building rugged lightweight computing systems - of exactly the same kind that NASA would later use.)
  
  For that matter the computers onboard the Apollo CM and LM were based on the guidance computers for the Polaris A-1.
  
  For that matter, the Apollo spacecraft wouldn't have had the Saturn V to boost it - had the USAF not started developing a million pound thrust engine 'on spec' in 1956.
  
  We went to the moon 'in a decade' because in the previous decade the DoD spent a lot of money on basic technology that NASA later adopted.
64. Re:Love the space program by Chris+Burke · 2010-01-12 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  While budget constraints didn't limit it to 90 days, ongoing operations do impact the budget.
  Yeah "operations budget" kinda implies that operations are not free.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
65. Re:Love the space program by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2010-01-12 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  > Or there would be 50% more dead space junk on jupiter now
  On? On Jupiter?
  Turn in your nerd card immediately!
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
66. Re:Love the space program by Urza9814 · 2010-01-12 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  Would you _want_ tanks from WWII to still be in service? They'd be dropping like flies if they ever got put into a real battle.
67. Re:Love the space program by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 09:32 · Score: 0
  
  The total may be more, but as a percentage of GDP, it's at the low end of the scale.
  So? If we're giving more than there is demand to absorb, then it doesn't matter that it's a smaller faction of our GDP. What matters is whether the need is being met. Keep in mind that our GDP is about 3x the next closest competitor (not counting the EU since it's a multinational entity). I'm going to exaggerate the scale here to make the point: If I'm a billionaire and you're destitute, then it would take only the tiniest fraction of my net worth to keep you fed for the rest of your life (assuming there was some way to ensure that the money was well spent). So what's going to matter more to you, some middle class folks giving till it hurts to meet your need for a few years, or a billionaire keeping you fed for the rest of your life at no great expense to himself?
  And before anyone starts quoting Luke 21:1-4 (not that I expect this on /., but who knows), keep in mind here that I'm talking about how much material good is done to the recipient of the charity, not how much spiritual good is done to the giver.
68. Re:Love the space program by colourmyeyes · 2010-01-12 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  Listing more examples may be redundant, but it's worth mentioning that the U-2 spyplane has been in service for over 50 years because it's still the right tool for the job. If it ain't broke...
  
  --
  My grandmother used anecdotal evidence all the time, and she lived to be 120 years old.
69. Re:Love the space program by ixidor · 2010-01-12 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  i had a friend who worked airframes for c-130s, one day he told me found bullets/bullet/holes from the korean war during maintenance.
70. Re:Love the space program by SumterLiving · 2010-01-12 09:55 · Score: 0
  
  Tell ya what, you give me $1 Million USD and I'll give you 20% of my GDP. Betcha I eat better than you.
71. Re:Love the space program by Concerned+Onlooker · 2010-01-12 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  Really now, this is fairly common knowledge.
  http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/35 (scroll down to "Quality-adjusted aid and charitable giving/GDP (%)")
  While we give a lot in absolute terms it's a pittance compared to other countries in relative terms.
  
  --
  http://www.rootstrikers.org/
72. Re:Love the space program by Wyatt+Earp · 2010-01-12 11:02 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Vietnam you mean, no C-130s were built during Korea.
73. Re:Love the space program by Wyatt+Earp · 2010-01-12 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  No, we are using a bomber from 1961-62, from the article you linked to.
  The B-52H is the variant the USAF uses right now.
74. Re:Love the space program by Wyatt+Earp · 2010-01-12 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on the theatre and the role.
  Yes the American and Soviet tanks were not state-of-the-art but were able to beat the state-of-the-art through tactics and numbers.
  The Allies had the best bombers, medium, heavy and super-heavy of the conflict (B-25, B-26, B-17, Lancaster, B-29). The Allies had the best amphibious warfare equipment, best long range fighters, best carrier based fighters, best carriers and I'll take a New Jersey class battleship against the Yamato class.
  The Pacific War was won with state-of-the-art equipment, nothing the Empire of Japan had on land could match the US, at sea the only thing they had that was better were mini-subs and torpedos.
  The Allies did win with super-weapons, however they aren't the sexy and cool super-weapons that make for good TV shows or movies. The Amtrack, WINDOW, RADAR (centimeter wave), DUKW, LST, Hellcat, Mustang, B-29*, Essex-class carrier were state-of-the-art systems that won the war.
  * - Watch a program or look at books about WW II heavy bombers, the Lancasters get time because of the night raids and dam busting, the B-17s because of the terrible loses they had over Germany, the B-24s because of Germany and oil field raids, but what do the super-weapon B-29s get noted for? Just the A-bomb and sometimes the fire bombing of Japanese cities.
75. Re:Love the space program by Chris+Burke · 2010-01-12 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  You are making a very silly assumption. You assume the military budget just goes down a black hole.
  And you seem to be assuming that "reduce military spending by 50%" is the same as "disband the military and leave the nation unguarded".
  Can you see the Thousand Year Reich sending unmanned probes to the outer solar system?
  Yes, I can definitely see that. I can see them aggressively pursuing manned missions as well. Probably with the benefit of lots of knowledge of things like the effects of radiation exposure or vacuum on human bodies, discovered via experiments on unwilling subjects.
  The Nazis sucked, but they weren't "barbarians". Germans had a thirst for knowledge; part of why it was such a treasure trove of scientists for the U.S. after the war. Just while under Nazi rule, they were rather inhumane in their methods of acquiring knowledge. Oh and they didn't care how smart you were if you were a Jew or homosexual or other undesirable.
  We are free to argue about these things and do basic science, safe under the protection of hard men walking the wall and beating back the unreasoning barbarian hordes who are always out there waiting for weakness.
  I get your general point that military is necessary for the security of a democratic nation where science is valued... But seriously, what hordes? Al Qaeda's attack was nasty and worthy of retribution, but it didn't threaten the existence of our nation at all. Iraq wasn't a threat to us at all. So what exactly are we being protected from? Mexico? There's basically nobody even "walking the wall" there, and all that's happened as a result is a lot of people have come here to work shitty jobs for shitty pay. It's a problem, but its hardly a case of "barbarian hordes" threatening our existence.
  The GP suggested taking 50% of the military's funding and doing something else with it. I would suggest that our military could easily do the job of keeping our country safe with that budget. We didn't even have a large standing army before WWII, and Eisenhower warned against keeping it. Military budgets continued to expand during the Cold War in the biggest military bluff operation ever... But now that is over. So why do we need such a huge budget anymore? Where are these hordes that require this amount of spending?
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
76. Re:Love the space program by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 11:21 · Score: 0
  
  Not exactly a tank, but consider the B-52.
  Also the F-16 has stuck around for quite some time.
  Also no-one was shooting at the rovers, AFAIK
77. Re:Love the space program by AmberBlackCat · 2010-01-12 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe the plan to make NASA part of the military will make that happen.
78. Re:Love the space program by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 12:06 · Score: 0
  
  I wish we took 50% of the money given to the military and put it into space. We would be at Jupiter right now.
  Taking money from our admittedly bloated defense budget would get us to Jupiter faster, although America's official language might be Chinese by then if we let our defensive superiority slip.
79. Re:Love the space program by jmorris42 · 2010-01-12 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  > The Nazis sucked, but they weren't "barbarians". Germans had a thirst for knowledge;
  If it had military value. And had they won we would have quickly fallen into a Hell on Earth scenario where there wouldn't have been much pure science going on.
  > Al Qaeda's attack was nasty and worthy of retribution, but it didn't threaten the existence of our nation at all.
  Fraid it does. They are still learning and adapting as we mostly remain on defense. Eventually they are going to learn how to really hurt us. Give me 100 Jihidis and I could bring the US to a virtual standstill. Bet with some thought about the unthinkable you too could do it. Thankfully they don't understand us quite well enough yet. Don't count on that lasting forever. And then there is the problem of them getting their hands on a WMD. They only have to succeed once, we have to defend successfully every time, eventually those odds are in their favor. And there is an effectively limitless pool of new recruits for them to draw from. Do the math, there are a billion muslims so if only .1% are in the "Death to America!" camp that gives em a million potential recruits. That .1% estimate is almost certainly low. We need to change the game to one we can win. But we are currently unable to even discuss most of the ideas that might work.
  > So what exactly are we being protected from? Mexico?
  Yes. Some of civilization's defenders don't wear cammo, they are part of the thin blue line defending against threats inside the perimeter. Look how many people are getting gunned down daily across the border in the drug wars. The point being civilization isn't something that can be taken as a given, it requires constant vigilance and resources.
  > So why do we need such a huge budget anymore?
  Because we already took a 'peace dividend' at the end of the Cold War. Take a look at the current difficulties we are having keeping fairly small forces in Iraq and Afganistan. We are supposed to be the big dog in things military, we are supposed to be at war, yet we are having great difficulty keeping a couple hundred thousand troops in the field with proper supply lines. Could we open a third front if we really HAD to? I really doubt it. I'd bet good money the Mad Mullas in Iran doubt it too, which is why we should be upping the capabilities of the military instead of talking about redirecting resources away from defense.
  
  --
  Democrat delenda est
80. Re:Love the space program by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 14:25 · Score: 0
  
  Except that the rovers have had NO maintenance, and were in an extremely hostile environment. Innovation at it's finest.
81. Re:Love the space program by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 16:57 · Score: 0
  
  War is an exchange of blood and money. You can substitute one for the other. Which would you prefer to lose?
  That may be entirely true, but the more important decision is: How much war do you have to buy?
82. Re:Love the space program by evilviper · 2010-01-12 18:47 · Score: 1
  
  The US spends more money on foreign aid than any other developed nation.
  As a percentage of GDP, the US spends LESS money on foreign aid than most other developed nations.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
83. Re:Love the space program by drkim · 2010-01-12 20:39 · Score: 1
  
  Military (DOD) spending also brought us things like the internet and integrated circuits; so it's still pretty useful.
84. Re:Love the space program by FTWinston · 2010-01-12 21:23 · Score: 1
  
  Not to mention dead people unrelated to the project, killed by the radiation from the launches.
85. Re:Love the space program by FTWinston · 2010-01-12 21:27 · Score: 1
  
  You're serious? Oh dear.
  If your world view consists of a triumphant and mighty USA, and the rest of the world largely consisting of a bunch of slackers who "just want to piss it away," then your world view is messed up and rather inaccurate. Good day to you.
86. Re:Love the space program by FTWinston · 2010-01-12 21:32 · Score: 1
  
  The only problem with this argument is that the USA (and the rest of the world, mind) is quite obviously not alleviating all povery, or even most extreme poverty, curing AIDs, throwing out the corrupt dictators, etc.
  
  Contrary to what you seem to think, a desire for justice for the poor is not formed largely from a dislike of America, or a desire to hurt Americans. Its actually mainly focused on the people in need.
87. Re:Love the space program by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 21:48 · Score: 0
  
  But more on their military, so that totally makes them ok.
88. Re:Love the space program by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 23:36 · Score: 0
  
  Hint from the rest of the world: do that, and avoid being defeated by just getting into fewer fights. Seriously.
89. Re:Love the space program by Nathrael · 2010-01-14 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  Unlike pizza, it's the sort of thing you really don't want to buy in the first place, so you're better off paying as little as possible for it.
  That's quite true as well - but when you are in charge of a country hugely responsible for maintaining international stability, abstaining from warfare is a luxury you do not have.
  
  --
  A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
90. Re:Love the space program by ChipMonk · 2010-01-14 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  Nice try at distraction and putting words in my mouth. But since your reading skills seem to be a bit lacking, I'll lend a hand: My thesis statement is the first sentence of the second paragraph. Make sure to read it carefully, especially the last two words. Bear in mind who is the author of its parent comment.
  
  You're welcome.
91. Re:Love the space program by AC0101 · 2010-01-14 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  The civilian space program would benefit from more money. But the military industrial complex has a secret space program. There are many former and official insiders who testify to advanced research projects involving incredible space flight capabilities. You may start at with a hacker known as Gary McKinnon who faces extradition. Than to the Disclosure Project and finally Project Camelot. As for advanced research projects, I'm referring to a division in Lockheed Martin.
92. Re:Love the space program by FTWinston · 2010-01-14 21:59 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not familiar with the author of the parent comment, but interpreted the "you" in your comment as collectively representing all those who would suggest that the USA spent more on foreign aid - if this was not the case, and it was actually targetted solely at doconner, then fair enough, though I'll continue to assume that the motivations behind the parent post are as simple and fundamentally decent as they sound, unless convinced otherwise.
  
  I didn't put any words in your mouth, though, you'll notice the "if" qualifier at the start of my comment. As for the words I quoted, they did indeed come from your mouth. But perhaps "your reading skills seem to be a bit lacking" - oh sorry, is that rather condescending and insulting? :)
93. Re:Love the space program by xanadu-xtroot.com · 2010-01-20 14:24 · Score: 1
  
  I guess you'd expect people to use a PC from 20 years ago for modern times too.
  Yea, that'd be crazy. That would never happen.
  
  --
  I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
  I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
94. Re:Love the space program by Mr2cents · 2010-01-20 22:37 · Score: 1
  
  And don't forget: a massive amount of bombs and countless ways to reduce people to a bloody pile of organs! The usefulness is killing me!
  
  --
  "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
And speaking German, Russian, or Chinese... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 04:54 · Score: 0

And speaking German, Russian, or Chinese...perhaps a better source of money for it would be the nanny state.
And so it goes by jimbobborg · 2010-01-12 04:56 · Score: 1

Aside from the craft that was splattered across the Martian Landscape, is this the shortest lived mission to Mars so far?
1. Re:And so it goes by Sockatume · 2010-01-12 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  You're forgetting the huge number that just plain didn't reach Mars.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
2. Re:And so it goes by MBGMorden · 2010-01-12 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  The mission wasn't THAT short lived. The lander transmitted for 125 days before it died. Compared to Spirit and Opportunity yeah, that's a brief little period, but the mission wasn't a total failure.
  The first lander that the Russians sent died within 1 minute.
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
3. Re:And so it goes by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 05:22 · Score: 0
  
  Slated for 3 months, lasted for 5, so it was substantially longer than intended. Either way, when the sun sets on a solar powered craft, the mission is over - regardless of how good the hardware is.
4. Re:And so it goes by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 05:41 · Score: 0
  
  It wasn't a failure at all, it wasn't designed to withstand the martian polar winter.
5. Re:And so it goes by sznupi · 2010-01-12 05:45 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Catastrophic failures during descent didn't really reach Mars...
  The shortest lived mission that touched down was the very first lander - Soviet Mars 3 probe. Stopped transmitting after around 20 seconds (but the data that were sent and external observation suggest it had the misfortune of landing in extreme dust storm)
  Phoenix Mars Lander is no failure. It was known it will cease operations quickly (might even have been under CO2 icecap during winter)
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
6. Re:And so it goes by jimbobborg · 2010-01-12 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  Geez, I didn't say it was a failure, I just asked if it was the shortest mission.
7. Re:And so it goes by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 07:58 · Score: 0
  
  The mission wasn't a failure at all. It didn't "die" from hardware failure: it shut down because it couldn't survive the high-latitude Martian winter, which is what was expected. That's why it only had a mission life of three months. It landed in May and completed all mission objectives at the end of August. We lost contact with it in early November, when its batteries froze. That was the intended outcome all along.
should have send Balto! by Thud457 · 2010-01-12 04:59 · Score: 1

godspeed, brave little robot!

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
1. Re:should have send Balto! by navygeek · 2010-01-12 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  Waaall-E
2. Re:should have send Balto! by Proteus+Child · 2010-01-12 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  Moon Hamster approves of this message.
  
  --
  Proteus' Child
  Doko ni datte; hito wa, tsunagette iru.
Have they tried... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 05:06 · Score: 0

...poking it with a really long stick?
Once they discover the spice worms by MRe_nl · 2010-01-12 05:12 · Score: 3, Funny

Frank Herbert's prophecies will be seen for what they truly are, and L. Ron shall be proven false, and the Fremen formerly known as Al Qaida will start broadcasting improbable messages from Mars.

--
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
1. Re:Once they discover the spice worms by Whalou · 2010-01-12 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't that the plot of Michael Bay's next movie?
  
  --
  English is not this .sig mother tongue...
Pun! by Monkeedude1212 · 2010-01-12 05:13 · Score: 1

over the presumed dead Phoenix Mars Lander on the surface of the planet and listen for what the space agency called possible, though improbable, radio transmissions.

In other words, since its presumed dead, they're listening for the PULSE Beacon!
Haha, Aren't I clever?
1. Re:Pun! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 05:27 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  No.
It has come to this. by HTH+NE1 · 2010-01-12 05:23 · Score: 1

Great. Now we're flying over alien planets looking for signs of artificial terrestrial life.

--
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Only one thing left to do... by 192939495969798999 · 2010-01-12 05:25 · Score: 1

Go get it.

--
stuff |
but we wouldn't by Shivetya · 2010-01-12 05:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

and that is the problem. I always cringe when I see people toss out IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ as if that explains the current state of NASA's budget.
Face it, NASA does not generate votes. The only science that generates votes is that which well funded special interest groups support. The US could spend ZERO on its military and the space budget would be still be shit.
If anything the real science people want is how to get something for nothing, if not that how to get more from someone else

--
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Marvin the Martian by rehtonAesoohC · 2010-01-12 05:32 · Score: 2, Funny

The message NASA will receive probably won't be sent from the dead Mars lander... most likely it will be something like:

...going to blow up Earth. It obstructs my view of Venus!
That headline... by clone53421 · 2010-01-12 05:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

NASA Satellite Looks For Response From Dead Mars Craft
If they knew it was dead, they wouldn’t be looking for a response from it.

--
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
1. Re:That headline... by funwithBSD · 2010-01-12 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not dead yet....
  I think I'll go for a walk!
  
  --
  Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
2. Re:That headline... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 07:40 · Score: 0
  
  She's Dead Jim!
3. Re:That headline... by evilviper · 2010-01-12 18:26 · Score: 1
  
  Every word in every sentence doesn't have to be 100% grammatically correct you joyless waste of empty space... Everyone, everywhere, perfectly understood what the headline meant (if they know ANY background about the situation at all, that is).
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
4. Re:That headline... by clone53421 · 2010-01-13 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  Every word in every sentence doesn't have to be 100% grammatically correct
  It wasn’t a grammatical mistake.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Re:What is the point in studying Mars? by clone53421 · 2010-01-12 05:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Is a gigantic "desert" seriously that interesting?
What’s so interesting about the top of Mt. Everest, that a couple hundred people have died trying to reach it?

--
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Re:What is the point in studying Mars? by sznupi · 2010-01-12 05:49 · Score: 1

Or what is useful about a newborn child? It can't survive without special care even for a few days.

--
One that hath name thou can not otter
Re:What is the point in studying Mars? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 05:55 · Score: 0

What's useful about a newborn child is the fact that life will continue to go on. Without children, life dies out. That was a ridiculous argument.
Re:What is the point in studying Mars? by sznupi · 2010-01-12 06:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

Precisely one of the points about Mars and other places outside of Earth. Without reaching to them, life will die out. We're in the phase of first small steps in ensuring it won't.

--
One that hath name thou can not otter
Re:What is the point in studying Mars? by Thud457 · 2010-01-12 06:12 · Score: 1

Precisely one of the points about Mars and other places outside of Earth. Without reaching to them, life will die out. We're in the phase of first small steps in ensuring it won't.

Arrogant Earthist!

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Re:What is the point in studying Mars? by Hatta · 2010-01-12 06:14 · Score: 1

What's useful about a newborn child is the fact that life will continue to go on.
So what? What use is it to me that life continues when I'm gone?

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:What is the point in studying Mars? by sexconker · 2010-01-12 06:17 · Score: 0, Flamebait

What’s so interesting about the top of Mt. Everest, that a couple hundred people have died trying to reach it?
I didn't pay taxes for dipshits to go off and die on a mountain.
Your argument fails.
We don't explore space for the thrill of it.
We explore space to get off this shitty rock.
Mars may not be hospitable to us, but we sure as fuck could still establish a colony there for all kinds of scientific research geared toward getting us to a new hospitable planet.
Or maybe Mars has oil.
Re:What is the point in studying Mars? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 06:22 · Score: 0

Who's gonna walk on my lawn if life stops ?
Re:What is the point in studying Mars? by sznupi · 2010-01-12 06:23 · Score: 1

I would say that's a natural property of the life that survives ;p

--
One that hath name thou can not otter
Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 06:36 · Score: 0

It's dead Jim!
travelling by skeffstone · 2010-01-12 06:46 · Score: 1

I bet it initially smashed through a porous structure and entered an underground river which spans a martian continent. Now it's popping up closer to the surface and can penetrate the thin ice it is trapped under! I could also suggest it is being carried by aliens, but that's boring if you're a scientist. Wait.. I'm not a scientist. But I'd like to be one, so there.
Re:What is the point in studying Mars? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 06:54 · Score: 0

Arrogant Spacer!
Send a rover to chop it's head off. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-12 07:11 · Score: 0

It's the only way to be sure.
Re:What is the point in studying Mars? by Fallen+Seraph · 2010-01-12 07:37 · Score: 1

Las Vegas was in an arid desert too, what's your point?

Mars is so interesting because of all the rocks out there, Mars would be shit-easy to terraform in comparison. Basically we'd pump out a whole bunch of CO2 (something we're already doing on earth, albeit as a byproduct) until the atmosphere gets a bit thicker. A thicker atmosphere traps heat better. Then we introduce vegetation to convert said CO2 into Oxygen (lots and lots and lots of algae really, that way when they die and decompose, it can be used as soil). Boom, habitable. It will take a while, but the sooner we start the sooner it'll be ready for long term colonization and exploration.

Yeah, may sound a little dumb now, but realize that the Earth's current population is estimated at around 6.8 BILLION people. Currently, many areas are already suffering from over population, in the conservative projection is that we'll reach 9 Billion people around 2040 (though this assumes no major shift in the trend for deaths, such as world changing medical breakthroughs, etc).

So one way or another, if we hope to continue to survive, we're not left much choice other than to expand to other planets/moons. And since Mars is relatively close, has similar gravity, and environmentally isn't much different from Earth (on the grand scale of things in the universe), terraforming it is a very real possibility.
Most likely Message by arthurpaliden · 2010-01-12 07:38 · Score: 1

Batteries cold, can't start, has anybody out there got cables, I need a boost.

--
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Re:What is the point in studying Mars? by clone53421 · 2010-01-12 07:58 · Score: 1

They’re not just going off and dying on a mountain. They’re testing the limits of human endurance in high-altitude, low-pressure, arctic, and generally inhospitable conditions. They’re developing better, stronger, and safer gear and equipment. If it wasn’t for human ambition, and most of all, our curiosity and desire to learn and to build bigger and better things, our species wouldn’t accomplish much.
We do explore space in part for the thrill of it, and also to test our limits and to learn how to build better lives on Earth.
http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/what_does_nasa_do.html:

NASA's mission is to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.
To do that, thousands of people have been working around the world -- and off of it -- for 50 years, trying to answer some basic questions. What's out there in space? How do we get there? What will we find? What can we learn there, or learn just by trying to get there, that will make life better here on Earth?
Furthermore, you’re incorrect in your claim that taxes didn’t help climb Everest. Many of the climbs were at least partially funded or sponsored by various governments.

--
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Re:What is the point in studying Mars? by Krishnoid · 2010-01-12 08:06 · Score: 1

Mars would be shit-easy to terraform in comparison.
It even comes with a handy step-by-step manual. It's even got a little more of a human element than most technical documentation.
Re:What is the point in studying Mars? by Kjella · 2010-01-12 08:25 · Score: 1

Precisely one of the points about Mars and other places outside of Earth. Without reaching to them, life will die out. We're in the phase of first small steps in ensuring it won't.
That's one side, the other is that this is a bit like putting a newborn on a treadmill to teach it to run as fast as possible. Near as we can tell Earth has been quite hospitable for the last 65 million years or so, it'll quite probably last another million. Can you imagine year 1002010 AD? The whole of human history is only 100,000 years old, the earliest writings are 6000 years old and we've only been doing proper science since the Scientific Revolution some 500 years ago. If we can figure out how to not kill each other and not kill the planet, there's plenty of time.
A lot of things are possible if you essentially use brute force, with a big enough chemical rocket we can probably reach Mars but it won't get us to a different solar system. For that we need scientific breakthroughs that you won't get from building a conventional rocket, no matter how great a wonder of engineering it is. Right now, what excites me the most are telescopes and finding exoplanets. We may be far away from the Star Trek warp drive to go there, but seeing them now seems within reach. Not to mention it'd give a clear goal of where we'd like to go...

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:What is the point in studying Mars? by haydensdaddy · 2010-01-12 08:29 · Score: 1

So what? What use is it to me that life continues when I'm gone?
You've obviously never been a parent.
Re:What is the point in studying Mars? by sznupi · 2010-01-12 09:10 · Score: 1

Of course there's plenty of time. But that's OK, after all the funds going towards space exploration are almost negligible on the scale of the world economy. But doing this little things, practicing, gaining knowledge will prove fruitful.
So no, this isn't like putting a newborn on a treadmill. It's like wiping his ass from time to time.

--
One that hath name thou can not otter
Re:What is the point in studying Mars? by Hatta · 2010-01-12 09:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

Nor would I want to be. Kids are a huge drain on your financial, emotional, and temporal resources. I like having time to do adult things, pursue the things that interest me, instead of changing diapers, ferrying them to soccer practise, etc. Studies show that non-parents are measurably happier than parents, no matter what the evolutionary advantageous hormone driven delusion tells them. And it makes sense, raising kids is obviously very stressful. No thanks.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:What is the point in studying Mars? by MichaelSmith · 2010-01-12 09:44 · Score: 1

What's useful about a newborn child is the fact that life will continue to go on.
So what? What use is it to me that life continues when I'm gone?
Its not about you.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Weight of ice breaks solar panels by hh4m · 2010-01-12 09:46 · Score: 1

I read somewhere that the solar panels wont be able to handle the mass of the ice that forms on them over winter.
1. Re:Weight of ice breaks solar panels by hh4m · 2010-01-12 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  Scientists will attempt to make contact with Phoenix for three months starting in January 18, 2010;[62] however, its landing location is in an area that is usually part of the north polar ice cap during the Martian winter, and the lander was last seen from orbit encased in dry ice.[4] It is estimated that, at its peak, the layer of CO2 ice in the lander's vicinity would total about 30 grams/cm2. That's enough to make a dense slab of dry ice at least 7½ inches (19 cm) thick.[63] It is considered unlikely that the spacecraft will endure this condition, as the craft's fragile solar-cell arrays, not designed to support much weight, have likely cracked and fallen off.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Mars_Lander#End_of_the_mission
Re:What is the point in studying Mars? by Phoenixlol · 2010-01-12 10:21 · Score: 1

Looks like someone's having their existential period
We'd be too busy by amightywind · 2010-01-12 11:15 · Score: 1

No, we'd be too busy going to the mosque 5x a day. Islamists hate the space program.

--
an ill wind that blows no good
Re:What is the point in studying Mars? by haydensdaddy · 2010-01-12 14:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

Not to debate your desire to remain without kids, nor the instantaneous to short-term inconveniences of child rearing, but I doubt those studies can gauge the long-term satisfaction of watching your child evolve into a fully-functioning human. Many business owners don't make significantly more money or have more time than they would if they were doling out 40 hours per week for someone else. But the satisfaction of what they've accomplished makes the extra blood, sweat, and tears worth it.