Slashdot Mirror
Mars Express Beams Back Images of Ice-Filled Korolev Crater (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: The stunning Korolev crater in the northern lowlands of Mars is filled with ice all year round owing to a trapped layer of cold Martian air that keeps the water frozen. The 50-mile-wide crater contains 530 cubic miles of water ice, as much as Great Bear Lake in northern Canada, and in the centre of the crater the ice is more than a mile thick. Images beamed back from the red planet show that the lip around the impact crater rises high above the surrounding plain. When thin Martian air then passes over the crater, it becomes trapped and cools to form an insulating layer that prevents the ice from melting. The latest picture is a composite of five strip-like images taken from the European Space Agency's Mars Express probe, which swung into orbit around the planet on Christmas Day 2003. On the same day, the orbiter released the Beagle 2 lander, a British probe built on a shoestring budget, which touched down but failed to fully open on the surface. Mars Express photographed the Korolev crater with its high-resolution stereo camera, an instrument that can pick out features 10 metres wide, or as small as 2 metres when used in super-resolution mode.
So how long until corporate exploiters destroy it for profit, as retarded-growth-economic paradigms dictate as the only suitable outcome?
What does this have to do with SpaceX landings? (They're still more successful than Martian probes, BTW.)
Ezekiel 23:20
No one else in the world has been able to land a (spent) rocket on its tail until SpaceX. No one has repeated it. Falling in the ocean is default behavior for everyone, including SpaceX. They reuse the hulls either way.
At least you weren't trying to pretend you were some kind of aeronautical wunderkind like a Trumptard might do. "I'm best at rockets"
Stick to digging yourself deeper I guess.
VTL was demonstrated 40 years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39cjZTCay24
You Muskies think everything is new. And guess what. It is a tunnel. Just a tunnel. Not even a good tunnel.
Meanwhile Boeing/Lockeed Martinâ(TM)s United Launch Alliance (ULA, a.k.a., Unlimited Loss Alliance) scrubbed yesterdayâ(TM)s launch from Vandenberg. Funny how they use Russian RD-180 engines too.
That's one of the sweetest pictures of Mars I've ever seen.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
That glacier won't last long with global warming.
A composite picture of the Korolev crater in the northern lowlands of Mars, made from images taken by the Mars Express High Resolution Stereo Camera overlaid on a digital terrain model.
Anyone know why they had to, or chose to, use a digital terrain model, rather than just give the complete real pictures?
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
sublime away?
What a cool picture, even if it is a bit fabricated. Also, thanks to whoever posted/accepted the article. This is much better than the latest political horror show and more reflective of "News for nerds, stuff that matters."
All images are "fabricated" - Or did you think the original galactic photons flew out of the film and onto the paper, then into your retina where your "brain" processed them into an "unfabricated" image?
Whining about politics while pretending not to be talking about politics a is different kind of "fabrication" also. If you want to omit it, omit it. If you want to pretend it's not news, go fuck yourself.
Successes at powered landings on other bodies of the Solar System predate successes at powered landings on Earth from space, so you'd expect the landings on other bodies of the Solar System to be more successful today. But in fact, even though the landings elsewhere got better over time, they're still not perfect. Meanwhile powered landings on Earth have gotten better withing years instead of decades. It might have something to do with the frequency of attempts, though.
Ezekiel 23:20
"Butt-hurting Nazi traitor tries hand at creative writing, fails harder than Melania. News at 11"
I specifically said spent rocket booster hulls, which 100% of fall into the sea before SpaceX. If you need help reading, let a teacher know that. Musk did not invent rocketry, that's true moron. Nor did he invent literacy.
If you think you're not digging a hole yourself, then you won't be affected when I just shovel over and bury you there. Nobody here mentioned Musk until you did. Man-crush status approved.
Now I'm eager to read some of the next wave of "man on Mars" books from Kim Stanley Robinson and others.
" so you'd expect the landings on other bodies of the Solar System to be more successful today. " - Until you realized how far away they are, then you'd probably reevaluate your linear math for cosmology as required.
The video claims the LLTV had no computers. In fact, it had a fly-by-wire computer system.
Also, it's not a space-bound launch vehicle re-entering from hypersonic velocity at Mach 8, which is the novel aspect here. I don't think that anyone ever claimed that it was the first time someone shortly hovered for a while.
Ezekiel 23:20
No, I realized instead that distance is not a factor for landing success.
Ezekiel 23:20
Yeah it is.
Good thing. Those shots of your mom dick-riding a orangutan were frighting. It's reassuring to know they were fabricated.
Yep, an airplane landing in Melbourne from Tokyo will have it way harder than the airplane landing from Canberra. The local weather conditions always change when Mother Nature detects a long-distance flight. /s
Ezekiel 23:20
Robots can plant flags, which will happen long before humans arrive. There's no point in putting anyone on Mars right now except proving it can be done. Will humanity survive long enough to colonize it? Unknown.
At this rate, potentially unlikely.
Stay in school kid, then pretend to control what other people think - once your homework is done. Run along now, space isn't going to tolerate a blathering slacker, there's NO EXTRA AIR for it!
Yeah it does take more technology to make a plane go further actually. But beyond that, one is Earth and ONE IS MARS. There is no difference between Tokyo and Melbourne, but a big difference between Earth and ANOTHER PLANET. Musknuts!
Also, cosmology has nothing to with contemporary space travel in any case. Cosmologists are not concerned with such puny items as solar systems, not to mention out Solar System's planets.
Ezekiel 23:20
My mother died in 1986. Her last words were "Don't let that lying faggot Seven Spirals blather his bullshit, own his punk ass with logic." - and I've lived every day to her words, QED.
Yeah it does take more technology to make a plane go further actually.
And so does making upper stages inject their payloads onto higher energy trajectories, but neither of those things has anything to do with landings.
But beyond that, one is Earth and ONE IS MARS.
That's exactly the point. The procedure of landing on Mars and it comparative difficulty is determined by conditions on Mars, not by how far away the conditions are located.
Ezekiel 23:20
Statement from NASA spokesman Mark Watney, "Now you tell me. If I had known this earlier, I might not have lost my eyebrows."
The point is you're willing to pretend it's as easy to land on Mars as it is to land on Earth. Wrong, as lander failures have indicated. You don't work in the field obviously, but your dishonesty to defend ego is admirable, in a Trumpian sense.
My mars rover says there is ice everywhere and my computer says it is all extremely low temperature. My attack bot says all the ice is covered in deep doo doo and only to drink water if we find it. My main computer says not all the ice is covered in deep doo doo. There is a clean patch in one place. My main computer also produces a correlated result suggesting warm water may be found in Martian canals. How do you like that for robotic professionalism?
I'm not "pretending", implying, spelling out, or in any way saying that the two are comparable in any way. If you re-read what I wrote, it becomes obvious.
Ezekiel 23:20
Cosmological maths are required for space travel. You don't work in the field and have proven yourself willing to lie unplausibly. Goodbye.
Cosmological maths are required for space travel.
No, it's not.
You don't work in the field
Perhaps, but I've known since the age of ten how cosmology differs from celestial mechanics. (Are you nine, by any chance?)
Ezekiel 23:20
You are a fucking moron. A plane landing with a local pilot doesnt have the same level of demand as a remote controlled remote programmed landing. The local human pilot and correct for issues as they're happening locally. Issues that occur during landings on other worlds have to be pre dealt with in logic or best effort out by the computer on the vehicle.
They're not even close to the same thing moron.
Right. They are not comparable. So what?
Interestingly, local conditions on other interesting bodies of the Solar System such as Moon or Mars are also much more boring and easier to pre-program for; hence the difficulties lie elsewhere. But congratulations for completely missing the whole point yet again (I can only assume that you're trolling, since it's the most flattering explanation), given how I was NOT comparing a plane landing to a Mars landing, but rather two plane landings from different distances. In exactly the same way, a Mars landing does not care about Earth's distance at any point.
Ezekiel 23:20
If we could just as easily send a spacex rocket to mars as we can send one to an earth orbit, then I'd agree.
Delta IV doesn't use Russian engines, that is the Atlas V rocket.
You should take a selfie with your team of robots
At least you admit you don't work in the field, now that we've established you're willing to lie about the difficulty in landing on another planet vs. Melbourne.
https://www.space.com/16042-cosmology.html - learn something real, bitch.
Now you idiots will whine about going even more. Fuck Mars.
So that makes the top-level comment meaningless, as I immediately pointed out in my first comment.
Ezekiel 23:20
"local conditions on other interesting bodies of the Solar System such as Moon or Mars are also much more boring and easier" - known dishonest moron continues to blather bullshit, yadda.
Do you even realize how dumb you sound trying to continue to defend your indefensibly stupid position lol? Of course you don't and cannot. Ignorance does not cure itself with facts, it doubles down.
If you look at it from a conservation of energy principle, the long flight analysis is correct. If you look at it from a safety of dissipation of rocket fuel perspective, the local analysis is right. I suppose you could optimize for individual parameters, especially if neither approach provided an optimal value for some important parameter. Either way the pilot will be safe, just do they get ejected forcefully or gently? Maybe break some bones in one case. Is that a parameter worth optimizing for?
Delta IV is also unsustainable and won't fly anymore after April 2019, with the exception of the Heavy version that will have a few more remaining flights still until Vulcan can replace it.
Ezekiel 23:20
Why would I do something so nonsensical?
Ezekiel 23:20
Wrong, Newtonian mechanics work fine for getting a craft to Mars. Cosmologists use General Relatively and other more difficult maths
The nation's in danger? Most of the shit going on today was happening under the Obama administration and you fuckers never said a fucking word. You don't give a fuck about people and principles, it's the party that matters to you most. Just like the little bitch ass Nazis you claim to be against. Keep goose stepping asshole.
Until today...
"Although NASA's Hubble Space Telescope is probably best known for its astounding images, a primary mission was cosmological. By more accurately measuring the distances to Cepheid variables, stars with a well-defined ratio between their brightness and their pulsations, Hubble helped to refine measurements regarding how the universe is expanding. Since its launch, astronomers have continued to use Hubble to make cosmological measurements and refine existing ones."
"Cosmology is a branch of astronomy that involves the origin and evolution of the universe, from the Big Bang to today and on into the future. According to NASA, the definition of cosmology is "the scientific study of the large scale properties of the universe as a whole.""
Only a willful retard (and above-caught liar) like you, Kyosuke, could possibly try to infer that accurate measurements are unnecessary for deep space exploration.
Only a willful retard (and above-caught liar) like you, Kyosuke, could possibly pretend landing on Mars was the same as landing in Melbourne.
You are a moron, not an astronaut, not a cosmologist, not an astronomer, not even an astrologist - you're not believable in any topic you lie about here, sorry.
The simple facts include you lying about Mars being the same or easier to land on as Melbourne, Australia. The simple fact is you're a simple liar, not an engineer in any related field.
Wrong, you have yet to prove that. All probes sent to Mars have been sent since Relativity. Eventually your Newtonian orbital mechanics become out of sync with the proven relativistic mechanics.
Even if you "could" get there with inertial guidance and old maths, Kyosuke claimed it was EASIER to land a craft there than in Australia. Contemplate this silly bitch for me, we're done.
What you in fact argued was that Cosmological MATHS were not required at all for deep space exploration. I accept your ego as my trophy, it will not be polished however. It is worthless and dishonest bullshit.
Like your claim that Mars was somehow easier than Melbourne. Egotists like you need punched out by the likes of Buzz Aldrin, it's the only way to deal with it now that facts, science or honesty don't apply to you.
Until today, when I owned you with logic AND invective simultaneously, very true. You will probably walk funny for a few days, that is normal when you're fucked so savagely. The ego may sting a bit like Kyosuke's. Par.
But then again you seem oddly used to it. Maybe you can walk it off, we'll see. Either way you have no argument that heals your butthurt wounds. Good luck, heal up quick for the next round.
I'm ready when you are.
I though the question for decades was "Is/Was there water on Mars?"
Either I was wrong about the question or we've somehow missed this frozen lake 50 miles wide?
ERBASMEDYA nternetin yaygn olarak kullanlmaya balamas ve sosyal paylam sitelerinin
hayatmzn odak noktas haline gelmesi ile birlikte, daha fazla hedef kitleye ulaabilmek için
çeitli yöntemler aranmaktadr. 7/24 kesintisiz olarak çalan ERBASMEDYA son derece
güvenilir bir yere sahip olan bu site, sizlere beklentilerin ötesinde bir kalitede hizmet salamaktadr.
ERBASMEDYA sayesinde siz de istediiniz sayda takipçiye sahip olabilir
ve ksa sürede bir instagram fenomeni haline dönüebilirsiniz.
(instagram türk takipçi, smm bayilik paneli, instagram para kazanma, smm bayilik panelleri, smm bayi paneli, erbasmedya, erbas medya)
erbas medya
instagram kaliteli beeni
what bullshit, no relativistic corrections needed for Mars trip. All of us who studied orbital mechanics for our physics degree know this, you want proof pick up any of the standard texts.
So how many times before General or Special Relativity did you visit Mars? How many probes have you sent using your ancient Newtonian understandings alone? Exactly bitch. Zero. Keep studying.
You may lie plausibly some day about your math skills, but not today.
You're fucking retarded, OP here, you stuck to your guns and that's worth a buck but wow... dumb to re-read this shit. Dumb. You put your name on it.
How did anyone miss a 50 mile wide lake on Mars? WTF. Open our fucking eyes I guess. lol
[($)]
Distance has nothing to do with it. All that travel is completely passive, barring the odd correction burn. You need energy to establish an orbit but not to maintain one. Mars could be right next to the moon or out past the orbit of Jupiter and it would be exactly as hard.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
>No, I realized instead that distance is not a factor for landing success.
Actually it is - in two big ways:
- The lander is subjected to much longer thermal and radiation stresses during the long slow flight to Mars (since for whatever reason we haven't landed on the moon much), which means more probability of hardware failures.
- Since we've abandoned MAnned spaceflight beyond orbit, the lander must be pretty much fully autonomous - since any human interaction is subjected to light-speed delay - 2.6 seconds round-trip to the moon, which is difficult to deal with for any but the most minor of problems, and 6-45 light-minutes to Mars, which makes any intervention during the landing routine completely impossible.
It's also a major factor in the cost and frequency of the attempts, and well as the demand for them. There've been a grand total of 48 launches to Mars spread across 56 years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_of_Mars), several governments, and multiple generations of scientists, engineers, and administrators. Not all of those launches even included a lander, and of those that did, they couldn't learn anything from the previous several landers launched, since those hadn't yet reached Mars by the time the current one departed.
Contrast that to the 46 Falcon 9 booster landings SpaceX has attempted in just the last six years, all under the guidance of one man, by one mostly-coherent team. All completed sequentially, so that any lessons learned from one landing attempt could be immediately applied to the next.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
No, it really isn't. You don't even need relativity - plain old Newtonian mechanics is quite sufficient for navigation within the solar system by anything yet built by Man. You'll get some discrepancies if you pay close enough attention, but nothing that wouldn't be corrected by dead reckoning, if not lost in the noise of other imperfections in your rocket.
You need orbital mechanics to hit what you're aiming for, but that's still simple stuff, and it'd be a real stretch to call that "cosmological maths" (what exactly do you mean by that phrase?) - neither dark matter, dark energy, nor any other cosmological-scale factor manifest noticeably in something as tiny as a solar system. And very little in cosmology cares about things that happen on human timescales, other than the explosions.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
LOL. That lander wasn't even American.
joint mission of the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Russian space agency Roscosmos
Try again.
So they found a first landing place for humans?
"You'll get some discrepancies if you pay close enough attention" - Or if you play your model forward 100 years on Newtonian alone... but mankind has NEVER landed on ANY planet before relativistic physics. Fact.
MAYBE you could, but it never happened. It's a hypothetical. We've had a lot of advancement in instrumentation as a result of refining the physics. To deny that plays a role in deep space travel is idiotic.
And I wasn't talking about just Mars, that's the nearest body. It's also beyond our means now for human development really. That ought to be a clue, none of this is easy. He tried to say it was harder to land in Australia.
You decide.
"All that travel is completely passive" - bullshit, that's if everything goes perfectly. It doesn't always. And when communication takes several minutes that adds difficulty and reduces control. There's no getting around it.
He's an idiot, you're coming to his defense because you're illiterate apparently. It is harder to land on Mars than in Australia, final answer, you are wrong. I know because I have myself landed in Australia, and not Mars.
Fact. Deal with it.
Your bullshit assertions about Australia being harder than Mars are the unsustainable non-flying part here, right now. Keep shoveling kid.
Obviously, equipment lifetime is the one thing that can be a factor here. But I don't see how how non-autonomous nature would have helped you here. Pretty much all time-sensitive operations such as vehicle ascent and reentry are pre-programmed and under computer's control. Even on manned vehicles, even on Earth, where real-time ground control *could* be an option, we still opt for pre-programmed scenarios, since you don't want to entrust anything more complex than an abort switch to people under the circumstances of time-critical flight sequences. Frequency of attempts I already mentioned above - it's logical that we'll gather it more quickly here.
Ezekiel 23:20
Kyosuke claimed it was EASIER to land a craft there than in Australia
I claimed no such thing. I said that places don't care about the distance from which you arrive to them. Mars won't make you landing easier just because you're only departing from Deimos either.
Ezekiel 23:20
Just because the pilot is probably a robot, doesn't mean there's no use for a human captain.
Even if it's only an abort switch under the control of human judgement, that's still a potentially big improvement over full autonomy, since even the best-programmed/trained AI won't have the same understanding of abort-worthy situations as a human.
And in reality, it's quite likely that other things benefit from human judgement as well. For example, landing on unfamiliar territory where additional information is becoming available with every passing moment. Maybe best to let the computer do the flying, but quite likely an advantage to have a trained human at a real-time landing-target adjustment screen e.g. displaying the rapidly improving terrain map of the potential landing zone overlayed with the rapidly shrinking potential landing zone and current target, along with both AI and human-flagged hazards to avoid and most-promising landing points.
It will be interesting to see just how much the landing experience gained here will actually help elsewhere. I'm strongly hopeful, I mean it *should* be a lot easier to land on Mars, the moon, etc. where atmospheric variability isn't a confounding factor. Whether it actually *is* or not? We shall see - reality has a way of laying bare unsuspected assumptions and oversights. I'm sure the experience will translate to a much better starting point - but I still wouldn't want to be on board the first BFR to try landing on the moon. But hey, sign me up for the companion BFR in lunar orbit, serving as a micro-lag orbital "ground control".
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.