Slashdot Mirror


NASA Satellite Looks For Response From Dead Mars Craft

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."

26 of 152 comments (clear)

  1. Love the space program by jhoegl · · 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 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or there would be 50% more dead space junk on jupiter now

    2. Re:Love the space program by Anonymous Coward · · 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 · · 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 Monkeedude1212 · · 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.

    5. Re:Love the space program by lopgok · · 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.

    6. Re:Love the space program by lopgok · · 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

    7. Re:Love the space program by Afforess · · 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      If our elected representatives no longer represent us, do we still live in a Democracy?
    8. Re:Love the space program by Kintanon · · 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
    9. Re:Love the space program by jpmorgan · · 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.

    10. Re:Love the space program by Speare · · 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 ]
    11. Re:Love the space program by MozeeToby · · 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.

    12. Re:Love the space program by 172pilot · · 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
    13. Re:Love the space program by tokul · · 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.

    14. Re:Love the space program by wcrowe · · 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
    15. Re:Love the space program by Chris+Burke · · 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
    16. Re:Love the space program by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Informative

      Vietnam you mean, no C-130s were built during Korea.

  2. Once they discover the spice worms by MRe_nl · · 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"
  3. but we wouldn't by Shivetya · · 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.
  4. Marvin the Martian by rehtonAesoohC · · 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!

  5. That headline... by clone53421 · · 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.
  6. Re:What is the point in studying Mars? by clone53421 · · 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.
  7. Re:And so it goes by sznupi · · 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
  8. Re:What is the point in studying Mars? by sznupi · · 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
  9. Re:What is the point in studying Mars? by Hatta · · 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!
  10. Re:What is the point in studying Mars? by haydensdaddy · · 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.