NASA Shares Curiosity's New Mars Photos (nasa.gov)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Shares Curiosity's New Mars Photos (nasa.gov)

Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday September 11, 2016 @11:34PM from the mountains-of-Mars dept.

An anonymous Slashdot reader writes: "Curiosity is making us giddy by showing us some of the most amazing vistas we have ever seen on Mars," reports NASA. On the web site for their Mars Science Lab, they're sharing mission updates, but also all the raw photos as they're transmitted back by their Curiosity rover, which is travelling up a Martian mountain. "The plan so far has been to drive about 1/3 mile, stop to drill and drive again sampling the layers of the mountain as Curiosity makes her way up."
Curiosity is trying to determine whether Mars ever had environments capable of supporting simple life forms. NASA points out that it took Curiosity four years to reach its current location, joking about one wall of layered sandstone, "Wait, is this the Utah or Mars?"

88 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

The Utah? by dtmos · 2016-09-11 23:41 · Score: 2

Wait, is this the Utah or Mars?
It could be the Mars, I suppose. . . .
1. Re:The Utah? by Rei · 2016-09-12 00:02 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Sort of like how people say "The Ukraine" ;)
  I love how thin and fragile looking those layers are, you rarely see such delicate shapes on Earth. Mars has the advantages of low gravity and winds that exert only tiny forces. No rain, snow or floods either. There's stronger thermal cycling, but that's apparently not a problem for them.
  I also love the white hydrothermal deposits that fill in the cracks; it reminds me of my land here (Iceland) - though my land is basaltic, not sedimentary. Too bad it all looks so amorphous and bland; would be neat to find deposits of large single-crystal calcite, pretty chalcedony (maybe with botryoidal surface patterns), opal, zeolites, etc. Hydrothermal systems can make neat minerals, but I see no evidence unfortunately that it's done so there.
  
  --
  "I need swat, tactical, the guys with the flashlights on their guns, those guys with the big shield thingies"
2. Re:The Utah? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 01:02 · Score: 0
  
  Or the nerd making a bad the joke.
3. Re:The Utah? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2016-09-12 01:08 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  The question is, does it look like it can be made liveable? If yes, then it's Mars.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
4. Re:The Utah? by Applehu+Akbar · 2016-09-12 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  This totally looks like home, except for the lack of clueless tourists calling in when they run out of water.
5. Re:The Utah? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 01:15 · Score: 0
  
  Who cares?
  I can't tell the difference between Mormons and Martians.
6. Re:The Utah? by EvilSS · 2016-09-12 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  Guess you haven't seen the Martian then :P
  
  --
  I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
7. Re:The Utah? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 01:35 · Score: 0
  
  Wait, is that [insert well-known Utah monument, does that exist ?] sticking out of the sand ???
  NOOOOO, they did it, these bastards finally did it !!!!!!
8. Re:The Utah? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 01:40 · Score: -1
  
  These pictures do nothing but serve to remind me how much of my taxpayer dollars were wasted on this boondoggle. These might be the most expensive pictures ever taken. You can keep trying to attach pretty words to them so that they seem worthwhile, but the sad fact is, they're not. What a fucking tragedy.
9. Re:The Utah? by Rei · 2016-09-12 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  No, that would be "pictures abort ISS", a structure which cost sixty times as much as MSL/Curiosity.
  
  --
  "I need swat, tactical, the guys with the flashlights on their guns, those guys with the big shield thingies"
10. Re:The Utah? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  Was there any sign of intelligent life? Yes? Then it probably wasn't Utah ;)
11. Re:The Utah? by BigT · 2016-09-12 02:09 · Score: 2
  
  Martians don't ring your doorbell at dinner time.
  
  --
  Is it weird in here, or is it just me?
12. Re:The Utah? by hey! · 2016-09-12 02:20 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I *is* an alien landscape, after all.
  These images remind me quite a bit of the Atacama Desert, large parts of which receive almost no rain. The resemblance is almost uncanny, right down to the color. There are two very subtle differences though. Some of the sand slopes on Mars are unusually steep, they almost climb up the rock faces; that suggests there's a steep static critical angle of repose, but of course that depends on the material. I think if you are a sci-fi writer you might be tempted to make detritus slopes on a low-gravity world all steep; that would't be the case because avalanches tend to go on longer so the median slope wouldn't be that different. But some slopes could get very steep.
  The second and more obvious difference is how on Mars erosion scars are all horizontal, wind-cut features; the Atacama gets very little rain, but the movement of water down slopes leaves very obvious traces behind in the loose material.
  The utter lack of vegetation on Mars is also striking, although I've been in parts of the Atacama where it hadn't rained in five years (which is not unusual). That landscape appeared to be just as lifeless as one sees in the Mars photos, except for a narrow strip of a few hundred yards near the ocean where a few cacti survived off morning sea mists. The Atacama got rain a months after I was there, and a friend sent me a picture of the "moonscape" afterward: literally every inch of it was covered in wildflowers as far as the eye could see. She reported that the fragrance was so overwhelming it'd make you retch. A vast cloud of tiny pollinating insects hovered over the carpet of flowers.
  The thing is, when I was there you could take a handful of that sand and without a very close grain-by-grain examination under a magnifying glass you'd swear it was completely sterile. In fact it would be chock full of extremophile life, adapted to a life cycle of a week or two of furious growth and reproduction followed by years of dormancy.
  By the way Mars has been very visible in the evening sky for the past few months. If you have clear evening you should go out and look for it in the twilight, before the stars come out. It's easy to identify by its striking red color.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
13. Re:The Utah? by cyn1c77 · 2016-09-12 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  Sort of like how people say "The Ukraine" ;)
  I love how thin and fragile looking those layers are, you rarely see such delicate shapes on Earth. Mars has the advantages of low gravity and winds that exert only tiny forces. No rain, snow or floods either. There's stronger thermal cycling, but that's apparently not a problem for them.
  Thermal cycling isn't a problem without the frost associated with the presence of migrating water:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  Also, CO2 cannot be present in a liquid state on Mars due to the low atmospheric pressure, so there can be no frost weathering associated with that material either.
14. Re:The Utah? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 02:42 · Score: 0
  
  ** Aboard. Can't spell toady...
15. Re:The Utah? by CustomSolvers2 · 2016-09-12 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  Spot on. I visited the Atacama desert quite a few years ago and these pictures are very similar to what I saw there.
  
  In fact, I recall one day when I walked away from the asphalted road various kilometres into the desert; it was a quite isolated area (around 30 km to the nearest village). The first picture starting from the top shows a landscape which is surprisingly similar to the one I remember there.
  
  --
  Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
16. Re:The Utah? by Rei · 2016-09-12 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  Frost weathering != thermal cycling. Different materials have different coefficients of expansion, not just "water" and "everything else". Try epoxying a piece of glass to a piece of steel and watch what happens when you set it outside in a place where the temperature varies, even if the temperature never drops below freezing
  Clearly however it's not at a problematic level in this case :)
  Also I'm not sure why you're of the view that only liquids can enter rocks and freeze...
  
  --
  "I need swat, tactical, the guys with the flashlights on their guns, those guys with the big shield thingies"
17. Re:The Utah? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  It must be "pictures taken in the Iraq war" which cost a thousand times as much as MSL/Curiosity.
18. Re:The Utah? by PPH · 2016-09-12 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  By the way Mars has been very visible in the evening sky for the past few months.
  Yes. It's just to the East of the sodium vapor streetlight.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
19. Re:The Utah? by Jason+Levine · 2016-09-12 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  No, they just use their Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulators to obliterate your doorbell, door, and entire planet because it blocks their view of Venus. Or they would if a certain rabbit wouldn't keep making off with their Illudium PU-36.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
20. Re:The Utah? by Gavagai80 · 2016-09-12 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  There is frost on Mars though, Viking photographed it.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
21. Re:The Utah? by Oswald+McWeany · 2016-09-12 06:33 · Score: 2
  
  Sort of like how people say "The Ukraine" ;)
  There is actually a reason why Ukraine is called "The Ukraine" by some. In Russian "Ukraine" means borderland. Russians referred to the territory as "The Borderland".
  It's actually incorrect (and culturally insensitive) to refer to Ukraine as "The Ukraine" now- doing so implies that Ukraine is not a proper country but a region belonging to Russia. Once Ukraine gained its independence then the word "the" was dropped.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
22. Re:The Utah? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 07:52 · Score: 0
  
  Hey, I was in the Atacama desert a few weeks ago, when suddenly around a corner of weathered rock came a strange vehicle... It had 6 wheels on insect-like legs, a trunk a bit like an elephant and a buildup like a speed camera on top of it.
  It seemed to want to take a photo of me. But then turned around and occupied itself with boring rocks instead.
  I'm still curious what it was??!
23. Re:The Utah? by CustomSolvers2 · 2016-09-12 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry for sounding a bit too hard, but it appears that you have never been in Atacama. Otherwise, you would have included the secret key; both my comment and hey!'s one include it, yours doesn't. Although kids usually don't lie (what are you? 8, 9 years old?), I am afraid that you aren't being honest.
  
  --
  Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
24. Re:The Utah? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 09:19 · Score: 0
  
  Immediately made me think of "the Ohio". I've never lived out that away, but "the Ohio" sounds as weird to me as "the Utah".
25. Re:The Utah? by Maritz · 2016-09-13 23:02 · Score: 1
  
  These pictures do nothing but serve to remind me how much of my taxpayer dollars were wasted on this boondoggle.
  Don't worry bud, as long as it upset you, it's not a total waste.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
26. Re:The Utah? by CustomSolvers2 · 2016-09-20 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  (Lots-of-stupids-in-internet-better-avoiding-not-too-simple-anything fix)
  
  I was sarcastically highlighting how childish (on the sense of stupidly predictable) was the behaviour of this AC by trying to attract the interest of some conspiracy-theorists how a 9 yo would have done, despite probably being much older than this (if this is truly a 8-9 yo, I do apologise for having made fun of him, but what is making a 8-9 yo here writing a so sadly pointless post?!). In fact, my post included a sample much more likely to deliver a positive result on such a pathetic expectation (teaching via examples) :)
  
  Please, if you (random anyone with quite poor understanding capabilities) find problems to understand any of my posts here or anywhere else, feel completely free to ask me for clarifications. See, it is better to be proven stupid right away than thinking otherwise, making really stupid decisions and being proven stupid afterwards (+ all the associated responsibility; because I am afraid that stupidity isn't an exculpatory circumstance. On the other hand, stupids are rarely aware about the fact that there is responsibility associated with each single action they perform), don't you think?
  
  Anyway, I am making serious efforts to minimise my sarcastic or not-too-clear-to-anyone remarks (+ deleted quite a few old ones) and you will not see many of these in the future.
  
  --
  Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
Still rolling by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-11 23:55 · Score: 1

Now, that thing is built really old school, ain't it? I wish consumer electronics nowadays were at least a little bit like it.
1. Re:Still rolling by Rei · 2016-09-12 00:04 · Score: 2
  
  You want your next iPod to cost $2,47 billion dollars and powered by plutonium?
  
  --
  "I need swat, tactical, the guys with the flashlights on their guns, those guys with the big shield thingies"
2. Re:Still rolling by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 00:15 · Score: 0
  
  I said a *little*, but If it supports interstellar travel, hell yeah!
3. Re:Still rolling by Rei · 2016-09-12 00:16 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  BTW, Curiosity has only been out there for four years. I think you're confusing it with Opportunity (which yes, indeed, is still actively roving Mars, 12 years going!). Spirit and Opportunity combined cost $820M (although the program has gone so long that their science extension costs have been adding up, another ~$120M or so).
  The cost difference between the MER and MSL projects is one reason why I have trouble getting fully onboard with MSL, and why I'm rather disappointed that Mars 2020 got chosen (there goes another $2,1B - tack on another half billion after the inevitable price hikes). We could have sent a sub to Titan and/or a sample return mission to Enceladus for that price. We could have sent a blimp to spend months in the skies of Venus with a multiuse phase-change/bellow balloon lander to sample all across the surface for that price. We could have sent a mission to the core of a protoplanet (16 Psyche) *and* to a Jupiter trojan *and* to another large KBO (say, Eris) for that kind of money. We could have done a mini-Cassini for Uranus or Neptune for that kind of money. I just cannot get myself to believe that the science return on Mars 2020 is going to approach any of those things. Some of the "instruments", like MHS, sound more like NASA they put a "Request For Lame Excuses To Have Such A Large Payload Capacity" rather than a RFP. :P I just don't get this Mars obsession.
  
  --
  "I need swat, tactical, the guys with the flashlights on their guns, those guys with the big shield thingies"
4. Re:Still rolling by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  You want your next iPod to cost $2,47 billion dollars and powered by plutonium?
  A price cut from Apple would be welcome...
5. Re:Still rolling by William+Robinson · 2016-09-12 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  Did you hear about Pale Blue Dot? The onboard vidicon cameras, designed in 1970's for Voyager 1, are still working and taking that picture.
  
  --
  hilarious
6. Re:Still rolling by Applehu+Akbar · 2016-09-12 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  You want your next iPod to cost $2,47 billion dollars and powered by plutonium?
  That would be the iPod we would have if electronics were regulated in the same way as medical devices.
7. Re:Still rolling by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2016-09-12 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  Had they waited for the Red Dragon, lots of things would have gotten simpler, too. Now on one hand, you can't always wait for something better, since you'd never accomplish anything this way. But given the almost identical mission for the 2020 rover and the strange downgrades of the sample cache idea (we'll need yet another rover to finally collect them?!), I can't but feel a little bit underwhelmed.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
8. Re:Still rolling by caseih · 2016-09-12 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  Well at least they were working in 1990 when the picture was taken. That's about 13 years after Voyager I was launched. Shortly after the picture was taken the cameras were shut down. I understand we still get a faint signal fro Voyager I, from which we can learn about the heliopause and other things, but there's no data being transmitted from the spacecraft any longer.
West Texas by Danathar · 2016-09-12 00:17 · Score: 1

Some of those shots look surprisingly like parts of West Texas with a color filter over the lens.
1. Re: West Texas by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 01:40 · Score: 0
  
  Shush, you gonna wake up the conspirancy crackpots.
2. Re:West Texas by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2016-09-12 02:37 · Score: 2
  
  You may be even more surprised once you realize that parts of West Texas look like Mars with a color filter over the lens.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
3. Re:West Texas by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 05:50 · Score: 0
  
  "Some of those shots look surprisingly like parts of West Texas with a color filter over the lens."
  The difference between Texas and Mars is that scientists haven't ruled out intelligent life on Mars.
Underwhelmed :( by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 00:54 · Score: -1

Government funded space exploration should be stopped.
I fail to see how this is making the taxpayers lives better, or even can/will lead to improvement in the lives of the tax payers.

If Mars exploration has lead to any "real life" improvements, I can't find them. I would have thought NASA would have been the first to plaster their "real world applications of technology" on every Wikipedia page they can find.

Space exploration should be crowd funded, this should lead to there being a "real world" purpose to the missions.
1. Re:Underwhelmed :( by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 01:20 · Score: 0
  
  "I fail to see how this is making the taxpayers lives better, "
  Oh shit, be prepared to get a long list of things apparently invented only because of NASA. Things like computers, Teflon and Tang.
2. Re:Underwhelmed :( by Rei · 2016-09-12 01:42 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  And nobody less prestigious than Lord Kelvin insisted that heavier than air flying machines are impossible and anyone society who wasted their time funding research into them, he would never be part of. Also said that radio had no practical use. And that X-rays were a hoax. And that all useful discoveries had been made in physics.
  And he's hardly the only "respectable" person to go off proclaiming things like that.
  Look, I'm not onboard with NASA's obsession with Mars in particular. But I do believe that all open fields of investigation that can teach us new, unexpected things and help answer the big questions questions like "How does the universe work?" and "How did we get here?" and "What is our fate?" are worthy of investigation - even if the payoff may not be for generations. I don't believe that the purpose of society is to stagnate into "Are we maximizing our subsidize to the poor?" or "Are we minimizing our taxes on the rich?" and insisting that all funding for basic scientific inquiry get put off until such never-achievable goals are met.
  
  --
  "I need swat, tactical, the guys with the flashlights on their guns, those guys with the big shield thingies"
3. Re:Underwhelmed :( by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 01:48 · Score: 0
  
  ** Subsidies
4. Re:Underwhelmed :( by Rei · 2016-09-12 02:46 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Perhaps more appropriate:
  
  I fail to see how this is making the taxpayers lives better
  "What is the use of a new-born infant?" - - Benjamin Franklin, responding to the question what the use of a balloon was.
  
  --
  "I need swat, tactical, the guys with the flashlights on their guns, those guys with the big shield thingies"
5. Re:Underwhelmed :( by squash_me_quickly · 2016-09-12 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  Polytetrafluoroethylene (trademarked as Teflon)... discovered in 1938. NASA created on July 29, 1958... nope
  
  NASA may have invested millions of dollars in developing computers... but they did NOT invent them. So again... nope
  You may have meant the NSA, which was created on November 4, 1952. It's an easy mistake to make... NASA/NSA, just one letter difference :)
  
  Tang was created by "General Foods Corporation food scientist William A. Mitchell in 1957"(according to Wikipedia)... NASA made it popular by using it on some missions. That's about the best marketing that a company could get. So again... nope
  
  Any other myths you'd like to quote?
6. Re:Underwhelmed :( by squash_me_quickly · 2016-09-12 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  Invention is driven by people who think "We can", "We'll figure it out", etc. The fact that Benjamin Franklin couldn't see perspective in flight... makes him... "human". In the same way that some-one(supposedly) said "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers".
  
  Fortunately there are people in the world with "vision", it's these people drive development
  
  NASA has been around for a fairly long time, and I doubt it has been good investment as a "development platform".
  
  Universities and are great at inventing stuff to solve problems. If USA had invested "NASA's" billions of dollars in universities, then more people could get a better education... which would be also be a better driving-force for the economy.
  
  If NASA(USA's taxpayers) hadn't paid excessively for these "developments", then the "private sector" and universities would have done the same, and spent a lot less to do it.
7. Re:Underwhelmed :( by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  look, if you people don't want science then stop using computers, taking any medicines, give back your immunizations, your cell phones, etc, etc, etc.... otherwise, let the scientific people do the science and just benefit from it, ok?
  NASA has brought about tons of knowledge and easier ways to do things that every human being benefits from.
8. Re:Underwhelmed :( by Rei · 2016-09-12 06:50 · Score: 0
  
  I think you totally misunderstood Franklin's response. He was talking with people who didn't see a use in flight. He responded by asking what's the use of a newborn. A newborn is pretty "useless" as well. But with time, they grow into an adult.
  
  --
  "I need swat, tactical, the guys with the flashlights on their guns, those guys with the big shield thingies"
9. Re:Underwhelmed :( by ChrisMaple · 2016-09-12 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  You completely miss the point of the (apocryphal) quote of Franklin, who was greatly interested in all scientific endeavors.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
10. Re:Underwhelmed :( by Rei · 2016-09-12 13:36 · Score: 1
  
  If it's apocryphal, it's at least old. Here's a report mentioning him saying it from 1823.
  That of course doesn't mean it's legit :)
  
  --
  "I need swat, tactical, the guys with the flashlights on their guns, those guys with the big shield thingies"
11. Re:Underwhelmed :( by Maritz · 2016-09-13 23:07 · Score: 1
  
  Government funded space exploration should be stopped. I fail to see how this is making the taxpayers lives better, or even can/will lead to improvement in the lives of the tax payers.
  So you fail to see the benefit, and you think anyone is interested in that? I don't care if you see the benefit. Tough shit.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
12. Re:Underwhelmed :( by Maritz · 2016-09-13 23:08 · Score: 1
  
  OP is a troll.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Pretty pictures but... by 110010001000 · 2016-09-12 01:03 · Score: 1

...ultimately useless. What we all want to know if did Mars support life? All the missions to Mars were not equipped to answer that fundamental question. NASA needs to finally design fund a mission to answer that question. Otherwise it is just pretty pictures and things to make planetary geologists happy, and they are going to lose funding and interest very quickly.
1. Re:Pretty pictures but... by hcs_$reboot · 2016-09-12 01:11 · Score: 1
  
  ...ultimately useless.
  
  Not totally useless. It helps to forget about the pictures from Jupiter's Juno.
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
2. Re:Pretty pictures but... by Rei · 2016-09-12 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  What we all want to know if did Mars support life? All the missions to Mars were not equipped to answer that fundamental question. NASA needs to finally design fund a mission to answer that question.
  And how exactly do you propose to answer that in a single mission? Do you plan to sample the entire planet at all depths and return that all back to Earth so every test possible can be done?
  (The answer to your initial question is "No", but I know hope springs eternal to a lot of people... ;) )
  
  --
  "I need swat, tactical, the guys with the flashlights on their guns, those guys with the big shield thingies"
3. Re:Pretty pictures but... by PmanAce · 2016-09-12 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  The Vikings missions where a bit controversial in their findings.
  
  --
  Tired of my customary (Score:1)
4. Re:Pretty pictures but... by 110010001000 · 2016-09-12 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  I don't propose anything. I don't know how to do it. That is NASAs job to figure it out. Apparently they don't know how to do it either. They are still trying to answer the question "Did Mars have the capability to support life?" which is a good goal too, but after the nth mission people are going to get tired of that, especially since they haven't answered that question yet. My guess is that Mars never supported life either, but based on what we know so far you can't tell.
5. Re:Pretty pictures but... by swb · 2016-09-12 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  Suppose you answer that question, what does it matter in terms of moving forward on Mars exploration?
  It doesn't really change the equation in terms of human exploration or establishing any kind of base there. I'm not even sure it informs the rover exploration missions other than influencing the science they do, although even then I doubt you'd get away with an exclusionary rover that was solely designed for "did Mars support life?" or could even design one if that was possible.
  The planet is too big and the exploration to really answer the question is so extensive it doesn't seem like it's a very easy question to answer definitively, and even if you did you're back to square 1 -- what does it mean, outside of the mostly philosophical question of extraterrestrial life.
6. Re:Pretty pictures but... by Rei · 2016-09-12 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  So let me get this straight. Your argument thusfar has been:
  1) Stupid NASA has been doing it all wrong.
  2) I don't know how they should be doing it instead.
  3) They're supposed to be figuring out a better way than either they or I have figured out
  Am I understanding you right here?
  
  --
  "I need swat, tactical, the guys with the flashlights on their guns, those guys with the big shield thingies"
7. Re:Pretty pictures but... by Rei · 2016-09-12 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  Well, not all of their findings. Their research on ocean navigation was superb, but I'll admit that their research on which northern European peoples made the best slaves was indeed controversial at best.
  
  --
  "I need swat, tactical, the guys with the flashlights on their guns, those guys with the big shield thingies"
8. Re:Pretty pictures but... by PmanAce · 2016-09-12 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  Funny but derails the thread. :(
  
  --
  Tired of my customary (Score:1)
9. Re:Pretty pictures but... by cyberchondriac · 2016-09-12 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  I don't agree with him but I think I get what's he's trying to say: that NASA doesn't appear to be developing any special tech or sensors to detect signs of life, and putting it on their rovers, so continuing to send them ill-equipped is costing money; but he's not sure what tech you *would* need but figures NASA should have a better idea.
  He's missing the fact that many of the devices, e.g. the spectrometers on the rovers, should be able to detect signs of life -present or past- if it just ran across some. Or at least organic compounds.
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
10. Re:Pretty pictures but... by Rei · 2016-09-12 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  NASA doesn't appear to be developing any special tech or sensors to detect signs of life, and putting it on their rovers
  They are. The fact that he doesn't follow what payloads rovers carry does not change this fact.
  Tools that Curiosity was sent with for finding life (as well as other purposes) include ChemCam and APXS for determiing spectra, MAHLI (if anything would be fossilized, or be a mineral-forming organism), and SAM (direct organics analysis).
  Sorry that there's no magical "Tool That Finds 100% Whether Mars Has/Had Life Or Not" that you can just set on a rover.
  
  --
  "I need swat, tactical, the guys with the flashlights on their guns, those guys with the big shield thingies"
11. Re:Pretty pictures but... by Maritz · 2016-09-13 23:13 · Score: 1
  
  ...ultimately useless.
  Useless to you.
  You think one mission is meant to do all that? Ha.
  You'll be moaning about ExoMars doesn't do once it lands. Awful predictable posting.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
12. Re:Pretty pictures but... by Coren22 · 2016-09-14 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  We just need the Enterprise, and have Data sing his song.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
With sensible Javascript-free fallback! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 01:19 · Score: 0

Yay! Kudos to NASA's webmasters. Thanks.
We can't stop here! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 02:09 · Score: 0

This is Jawa country!
Good luck! by argStyopa · 2016-09-12 02:18 · Score: 1

That looks like a deadly place for a fragile little rover.
The slate (?) shelves look like they're collapsing constantly.

--
-Styopa
1. Re:Good luck! by R3d+M3rcury · 2016-09-12 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  Little? Uh, the thing's the size of a small SUV...
Conspiracy, fake landing, etc by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 02:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

How come they (NASA) are constantly reminding people that what they see is NOT Utah?
1. Re:Conspiracy, fake landing, etc by Oswald+McWeany · 2016-09-12 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  Because it's not Utah. It's Texas.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
2. Re:Conspiracy, fake landing, etc by Maritz · 2016-09-13 23:15 · Score: 1
  
  I know you posted AC, but they'll be coming for you for saying that. Knock, knock...
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Doctor Who was right by Somebody+Is+Using+My · 2016-09-12 02:44 · Score: 1

Strange, to me it looks a lot like those endless rock quarries used in the innumerable low-budget sci-fi shows produced by the BBC in the '70s and '80s.
I mean, I am as excited as the next guy to see pictures of Mars and all, but "amazing vistas" these are not. It's grungy, dusty rocks not that dissimilar to what you might find on Earth, without even any funky colors we've been trained to expect from space (they need to use more red filter so people "know" its Mars ;-). Who knew that the universe subscribed to the Real is Brown philosophy?
Black spots/shapes in sky by JustNiz · 2016-09-12 03:02 · Score: 1

It appears to be just dead pixels and/or compression artifacts and/or dust on the lens since its pretty much identical in several different pics, but you already know The UFO conspiracy theorists are going to have a field day with several of those images.
1. Re:Black spots/shapes in sky by Tablizer · 2016-09-12 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  I also notice a thin light line down the right-middle of many recent Curiosity photos, and not just from this site. I wonder if the camera imaging grid had a column of pixels die.
  Not a big deal, easy to interpolate away on processed versions.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
bot-vs-man fight [Re:Still rolling] by Tablizer · 2016-09-12 04:35 · Score: 1

We could have sent a blimp to spend months in the skies of Venus with a multiuse phase-change/bellow balloon lander to sample all across the surface for that price.
The surface of Venus is 800 degrees Fahrenheit. A balloon would have its electronics fried. You'd need something akin to a rocket with A/C to get down and back up fast to sample the surface in a re-usable way. That ain't gonna be cheap.
That being said, I generally agree with you. A Titan boat-bot would be cool both scientifically and conceptually.
Mars gets attention because allegedly there's going to be a manned mission there such that we have to survey it first. But I hate to see general planetary science get steam-rolled by a manned focus.
The bot-vs-man battle of space-flight politics and funding is a tricky fight. Bots just don't have the political "glory factor" that astronauts do. We can try to sell bots until the mechanical cows come home, but it will likely fail yet again.

--
Table-ized A.I.
1. Re:bot-vs-man fight [Re:Still rolling] by Rei · 2016-09-12 06:38 · Score: 2
  
  The surface of Venus is 800 degrees Fahrenheit. A balloon would have its electronics fried
  There seems to be some confusion here. Note that there were two things mentioned: balloon *and* lander. Venus's atmosphere has a strong temperature gradient, like ours - it just continues downward to the extremes. Long-term flight in Venus's atmosphere is quite reasonable (and there are a number of missions that have proposed this) at the more temperate altitudes. There are even locations on Venus that are temperate by human standards (let alone Machine standards), and are a proposed location for a human colony (which actually has quite a bit going for it vs. a Mars colony). I take it you're not familiar with Landis's work?
  Back to the near term: there have been some proposals for long-term surface missions to Venus, but it's exceedingly challenging. Most surface missions are focused on the short-term (and indeed, all surface missions thusfar have been short-term). However, missions so far have only been on a one-way trip: land and then simply rely on thermal inertia to stay cool as long as you can (the maximum achievable for a reasonable mass probe is a few hours, as a general rule). However, a craft that can return to higher altitudes (samples in tow) can cool, recharge its batteries, and make any number of subsequent descents. There are three main approaches for this.
  One is a phase-change balloon, wherein you have a material that can change between solid and gas filling up all or part of the envelope. As the balloon rises, the temperature drops and condenses out the material, reducing lift, and vice versa (pressure works somewhat counter to this, but not to the degree that temperature drives it). This has been tested on Earth with the ALICE project. If you want to stay down, you can collect the liquid in a pressure vessel, and release it back into the envelope when you want to descend. It's effective, but challenging on Venus, because you need an envelope that remains flexible yet intact at surface temperatures. PBO is one investigated substance; there's also various metal and carbon composite envelopes under investigation.
  The second possibility is a bellows balloon. This is a metal "balloon" shaped like an accordion, that has an electric winch on the inside. When they want to descend, they reel in the winch to reduce the volume. When they want to ascend, they unreel the winch to increase the volume. A prototype has been built and validated at Venus surface conditions.
  A third possibility is just to borrow a page from submarines - a rigid spherical envelope. This may sound absurdly massive, but because Venus's surface pressure is so high, you actually don't need a very large envelope. Changing lift is thus a matter of pumping air in or out of the envelope. This approach however is more limited in the maximum altitude achievable versus the others.
  It's important to stress that all of these things have already had a great deal of work on them, and there are literally about two dozen mission designs out there in various stages, half a dozen or so actively in the process of trying to get their missions funded at present.
  
  --
  "I need swat, tactical, the guys with the flashlights on their guns, those guys with the big shield thingies"
2. Re:bot-vs-man fight [Re:Still rolling] by ChrisMaple · 2016-09-12 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  Cows on Mars! Yes! Not only will no human lives be at risk, we can test the hypothesis that methane causes global warming.
  And if cow colonization is successful...
  All hail our new bovine Martian overlords!
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
3. Re:bot-vs-man fight [Re:Still rolling] by Rei · 2016-09-12 06:48 · Score: 0
  
  To give a sense of how much "$2,1 + whatever cost overruns we happen to see" can do on Venus, one of the current missions under proposal is for both a balloon and lander for a New Frontiers mission (these generally run around $800m, give or take). Now, that's much more limited - the balloon is only a short-term one (not much longer than Vega, about 3 days) and a one-way lander. But with three times the budget? Totally feasable. We could be answering pretty much all of the *massive* unsolved questions about Venus (what's the mystery UV absorber? Why is the mercury in the atmosphere literally at least three times of magnitude less than our models exist? What are the metallic / crystalline snows / frosts in the highlands? Are the highlands actually old continents? What on earth carved Venus's canals, the longest rivers in the solar system on a body devoid of liquid? What is the nature of the lightning that we're pretty sure is there (and possibly very weird), and where is it? What is the nature of volcanism on this, the second most volcanically active body in the solar system yet a place where we've never had a mission to actually observe it? Carbonatites? Kimberlites? I could go on and on. We could be solving almost all of this on a Mars 2020 budget. It's a LOT of money.
  And instead they're doing things like flying around RC helicopters (on one of the worst possible bodies in the solar system for a helicopter that still has an atmosphere). Don't get me wrong, there's a couple nice things on the instrument list, like ground penetrating radar. But most of the hardware comes across as either wild-stab-in-the-dark or "space toys in the guise of science". I expect more from a mission that expensive, Cassini-scale returns.
  
  --
  "I need swat, tactical, the guys with the flashlights on their guns, those guys with the big shield thingies"
4. Re:bot-vs-man fight [Re:Still rolling] by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 09:02 · Score: 0
  
  ** Should read "change between liquid and gas", not "solid and gas". And for some reason I felt the need to capitalize "Machine". Wish I knew why I seem unable to type a coherent post this evening...
5. Re:bot-vs-man fight [Re:Still rolling] by Tablizer · 2016-09-12 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  It's important to stress that all of these things have already had a great deal of work on them...
  I'm skeptical. That "great deal of work" is mostly with simplistic models: spherical-cow kind of stuff. If it's new technology it generally ends up costing far more than originally expected when actually implemented. And there's a good chance of failure on the first try.
  I would suggest starting simple: send two sample-return probes to two diverse locations on Venus. Forget about the re-use angle.
  (Another problem with sample return is quarantine. Any sample return will have to pass through Venus' atmosphere, which could harbor microbes in the mid altitudes. Let's not risk a planetary Darwin Award.)
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
6. Re:bot-vs-man fight [Re:Still rolling] by Rei · 2016-09-12 13:27 · Score: 1
  
  I'm skeptical. That "great deal of work" is mostly with simplistic models: spherical-cow kind of stuff.
  You would be wrong.
  Name a particular aspect and I'll go into detail about what's been done on it.
  
  If it's new technology it generally ends up costing far more than originally expected when actually implemented.
  
  It's no more new technology than what's going on Mars 2020.
  
  I would suggest starting simple: send two sample-return probes to two diverse locations on Venus
  If you can go down to the surface and then back up then it's absurd to not repeat the process.
  
  Another problem with sample return is quarantine
  If you're thinking of return to Earth, rather than just to the cooler cloud deck, then that's entirely different (and far more expensive) challenge altogether. Getting off Venus is nearly as hard as getting off Earth. I'm not aware of any mission (well, except HAVOC) currently under proposal that is looking to go that far.
  
  --
  "I need swat, tactical, the guys with the flashlights on their guns, those guys with the big shield thingies"
mars by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 04:53 · Score: 0

the fact that mars looks like the most miserable arid dry places on earth where almost no one would want to live, begs the question why we spend so much time on mars; i don't really get it
1. Re:mars by ChrisMaple · 2016-09-12 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Mars is the second-nearest big thing in space that can be walked around on without protection against an extremely toxic and corrosive environment. Mars has at least some potential for terraforming, in that it can hold an atmosphere much better than Earth's moon. Details of the moon are easy to see with a good telescope, but Mars requires more effort to get equivalent information. Other places potentially available for (difficult) colonization are farther away (Jovian moons?, etc.)
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
2. Re:mars by Maritz · 2016-09-13 23:16 · Score: 1
  
  You don't get it, you're never going to get it. Stop trying to get it. Just go play with the worms in the fucking garden. Cheers.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
What's that? I'm in frame? Roger that. by poofmeisterp · 2016-09-12 05:07 · Score: 1

I know it's not a staged thing, but I have to mention what I saw anyway.
First thing I saw in the image of the rover's large viewfinder is a dude w/o hair, tilting his head down and holding an earpiece against his ear. His single-piece sunglasses look hip, too.
No outer space by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-12 07:09 · Score: 0

Axiomatic, how the masses cannot help believing lies.
No, there really is no outer space, the Van Allen Belts are an euphemism for solid, impassable raqia.
The '50s bold "rockoons", if they ever made it to the firmament (about 60 miles upward), were all but "analyzed" into confettis.