One Year Until Phoenix Mars Mission Launch 116
pipcorona writes "The principal investigator of the Phoenix Mars Lander Mission released an article yesterday describing how the mission is progressing, talking about landing sites and informing the public that they are officially one year away from launch." From the article: "In parallel with the assembly of the spacecraft, our Payload Interoperability Testbed (PIT) in the Tucson Science Operations Center has been integrating engineering models of all the science instruments. Besides validating the integration procedures for the instruments, this facility will be used to verify that all our instruments work as a team-important since they were developed individually. In particular, the digging of soils and delivery of samples to instruments will be thoroughly tested."
Open letter from Mars to NASA (Score:5, Funny)
We were pleased to learn about your upcoming Phoenix mission, and look forward to this opportunity to once again secretly study your technology from our invisible bunkers on the Martian surface. (Whatever you do, don't try to dig below 500m, retaliation will be swift and final.)
On your journey, please keep in mind that Mars uses the metric system. Any space probes detected using "Imperial" units (whose very name are an affront to the Martian Emperor, may he live forever) will be silently deflected by the planetary protection shields.
Yours truly,
Mars Department of Blue Planet Studies and Relations
P.S. Regarding any rumors you may have heard about invasion, don't worry, the chances of anything coming from here are a million to one...
Re:Open letter from Mars to NASA (Score:5, Funny)
Dear Mars Department of Blue Planet Studies and Relations:
We have decided that you have outlived your usefulness. Our scientists even as we speak are preparing kinetic strikes [asu.edu] against your hidden bunkers.
Regards,
The Blue Planet.
Re:Open letter from Mars to NASA (Score:5, Funny)
Thank you for bringing the THOR project [asu.edu] to our attention. We find your idea to fire projectiles at high speed into our planet rather disturbing. Should you decide to go through with this plan, please keep in mind the following: remember that asteroid strike that wiped out most large mammals on your strangely-colored planet about 65 million of your years ago? That was us.
Yours in peace, for the moment,
Department of Marsland Security
Re:Open letter from Mars to NASA (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Open letter from Mars to NASA (Score:1)
Thank you for bringing the huge asteroid strike to our attention. Unfortunately, the existence of dinosaurs and all the "theories" implicated by such an event and timeline are still up in debate. Therefore we reserve the right to withhold comment on such an eventuality and your claims of responsibility for fear of offending anyone.
Also, as demonstrated by various asteroid and great movies starring Tim the Tool Man Taylor, we want to remind you that we will never give up and we will never su
Re:Open letter from Mars to NASA (Score:1)
Dude, that was a comet that hit Jupiter. If you were really responsible, I think you'd know what kind of projectile you used.
-- alienmole, from Slashdot.mars
Re:Open letter from Mars to NASA (Score:1)
Re:Open letter from Mars to NASA (Score:1)
The Council of Elders is silent (Score:2, Funny)
Martian Defense (Score:4, Funny)
There's hope yet... (Score:5, Funny)
for Dan Quayle.
Phoenixes... quayles... same difference.
Name change (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Name change (Score:2)
Which will get them in trouble with Pontiac, not to mention Knight Rider fans. Mission Commander David Hasselhoff anyone?
Re:Name change (Score:2)
No problem
let the 'why space-exploration' debate start again (Score:5, Insightful)
But, although economic viability is important to create a mass-usuage of space(travel), I fail to see why it should be the only possible motive to start exploring space. It's a pretty narrowminded, materialistic and typical capitalistic view on things. It's the same view that makes progress on medication for very rare diseases, or for diseases that are prevalent in continents that are poor, so slow: corporations can't see how they are ever going to get profit out of it, so they all turn their backs on it.
If ppl (including states) are only going to do something when they are sure of an immediate profitable return, the world has become a sad place. (And we should leave it the sooner
Arguments based on such a viewpoint fail to recognise other incentives apart from economical ones.
And the reason why we shouldn't (only) rely on robots? You can explore, but you can not colonise with robots. The will to explore is deeply entrenched in the human race, but with a reason: it has survival advantages.
A species that doesn't colonise new territory and adapt, will perish. I think it's paramount that humans always keep their adventurage spirit and keep exploring and expanding, because the moment we will go "ah, let's sit back in our sofa's and let our robots/droids do it", we're basically finished, even when not being aware of it at that moment.
So, to to all the people saying we don't *need* space-exploration (human or otherwise); we don't *need* the pyramids neither, nor all those great buildings and artworks, nor any luxery, etc.
The only thing we 'need' is food and shelter.
Based on what we truelly 'need' thus, we should go back living like cavemen.
But ofcourse, we don't, and the reason is that we, as humans, look beyond our immediate needs and have (and should have) grander visions.
What you say is what I already indicated: economics (and also the ratio of costs/science output) is less good with human spacetravel then robotic ones. Contrary to some zealots, I do not dispute that.
But, as I have said, I do not think one should measure everything in terms of economic benefits. Even if you could send a hundred, or a thousand robots for the price of one human mission, it still would not change the fact that robots can't colonise planets, and augment the survival chances of the human race (and earths' ecology) through interplanetary spreading.
Re:let the 'why space-exploration' debate start ag (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:let the 'why space-exploration' debate start ag (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course you can't imagine it. Because it hasn't happened. Contrary to popular belief and decades of NASA propoganda - the technology transfer from space to other fields has been essentially nil.
Historically various providers of space rated components have been conservative in the extreme - they tend to use and reuse the same materials again and again. Partly because it's expensive and difficult to qualify new materials, partly because the costs of a mistake are so high. Overall, they (the space industry) wait until a new material has been thoroughly proven in another application before trying it themselves. (Kapton for example has been used for insulation (both electrical and thermal) since the mid 60's.)
Not really. Medical monitoring systems at use in a typical hospital are better than that used by the astronauts by orders of magnitude or more. The systems used by the medical industry are a seperate (and much more advanced) evolutionary path.
And generally ones not needed elsewhere because spacecraft need combinations of lightness, strength, and extreme enviroments not found anywhere else.
Both developed prior to and seperate from the space program.
Based on history to date - no, there won't be.
Re:let the 'why space-exploration' debate start ag (Score:2)
One luxery we truelly need (Score:1, Flamebait)
(Beware the grammar ninja)
grammar nazism (Score:2)
That, or I'm not native english, and the spellcheckers I have are in my own language.
It's sometimes funny how people automatically assume everyone should speak/write perfect english, while they would fare far worse, if the international language was something else then their native tongue. And sometimes, it is annoying for non-english speaking people on Slashdot (and anywhere else) to always get those remarks, especially knowing full well *they* often can speak/write hardly any other language at all.
Re:grammar nazism (Score:2)
Re:grammar nazism (Score:2)
I'm not getting upset,
My title 'grammar nazism' was meant to be ironic, since, indeed, this is often used to describe it and the poster h
Re:grammar nazism (Score:2)
Welcome to /. You must be new here.
Re:grammar nazism (Score:2)
I probably was here before you, even though I lost my first login/pasword under 'newsbyte'.
I know it's often done around here, that's why I don't get upset anymore, only mildly annoyed. The fact that it often happens doesn't it make it less lame, however.
One consolation I have, is that often the more thoughtful posters DO focus on the content rather than the form, so I'm usually not missing much when I ignore an arrogant 'spelling nazi'.
Re:grammar nazism (Score:2)
"I really don't want to agree with what you said, but given that your point was so well thought out and obviously true, I must find SOMETHING that is incorrect. Given that your post was 100% correct in content, I will change the subject and criticize your spelling or gramme
Re:grammar nazism (Score:2)
Re:grammar nazism (Score:2)
I noticed this too, and it's (mis)used rather frequently on forums. I never feel inclined to do the same, however, but that's just me (or, as I said, maybe a cultural difference): if you can't debate something with arguments, then one better leave it as it is. Let alone focussing on spelling-mistakes. That is so...lame.
Another poster argumented it should be seen as a helpful hand, an oportunity to improve, etc.... but heck, that's rather naive: I can't remember one case where I've seen a person meing
Re:let the 'why space-exploration' debate start ag (Score:2)
Some opponents of human space exploration set science as the major interest, and go on to say that much more science can be done by robots, costs being equal.
Anyway, many (most?) people agree that one should not necessarily limit oneself to economically viable things, and th
'why space-exploration' (Score:4, Interesting)
And thus, it IS a matter of economics, because no one is seriously going to claim humans are less versatile and able to do in situ research then whatever robot we can create these days, if costs do not matter. Robots do not do a better job then humans; they only do a better job per buck that is being put in (exept for human-biological spaceresearch, of course). With this I agree, as I said.
The argument about 'let's do it when it becomes affordable' is, indeed, also very much heard, but I think this is a bit of false argument. I mean by that, that it can be used all of the time, for everything. For instance, let's imagine in a hundred years technology has become so cheap one can send humans to Mars for a tenth of the price of today. Well, then, if technology has become so cheap, it has become equally cheap for robotic missions, so it STILL will be 1000 times cheaper to send probes and robots then humans. and this will *always* be true: it will always be far more expensive to send humans then robots, nomatter how cheap things get. So, one no distinction for a treshold with this argument since the relative price-difference will always exist, and thus, it becomes rather arbitrary to decide what costs are worth it. I think it's worth the costs now, you may think it's not, but purely base on this 'argument' one can never reach a logical consensus, since the argument merely boils down to an opinion.
Thus, I leave that economic argument for what it is, and, as said earlier, I argue from other reasons beside the purely economical.
"After all, Columbus would not have been granted all the funding necessary for a huge research effort into creating shipbuilding technology; he was given a couple of standard-technology ships. "
Yes, but if they had made that huge research effort&funding, instead of 'waiting' for standard, more affordable ships (in analogy with what you claim), they could have discovered America 100 years sooner!
"Now, add to the mix that the massive investment of NASA credits into making expensive launchers is an economic deterrent for the development of cheaper launchers, and you can well conclude that supporting space exploration implies opposing existing space agencies...
Well, let's be honest; if it had been up to NASA, the spaceshuttle would never have been made in the first place. That expensive piece of 'launchvehicle' was the result of political compromise. And I'm not counter-arguing that politicians often squander huge amounts of money.
And, as said, if you argument that not only companies (or the economic viewpoint) should matter, then we're back at the starting point: it will always be cheaper to send probes than to send humans, and thus, always that much more science can be done by robots, costs being equal.
Re:'why space-exploration' (Score:1)
It is false because it will never become affordable until the early adopters (NASA) work out all the kinks. The process of making it affordable means that we have to spend a lot of money up front to develop the technology to the point where it can be reliably mass produced.
Re:'why space-exploration' (Score:2)
I realize I mixed up arguments that should have remained separate, which led me to some poor reasoning. As you and another poster note, the "let's do it when it becomes affordable" argument is a false argument. However, I am in a "let's focus on making it affordable so we can do more of it" mindset.
What I should have said is this. First, if the taxpayers are prepared to set aside a fixed amount of money for spaceflight, then you have to take the economic point of view in order to make the most of what
'space-exploration': good points (Score:2)
"What I should have said is this. First, if the taxpayers are prepared to set aside a fixed amount of money for spaceflight, then you have to take the economic point of view in order to make the most of what you have; the "we should do it anyway" attitude comes down to convincing the government to increase the budget, which is separate from the best way of using it."
Well, yes, but note that you already use a premise about what 'the best way of usin
Re:'space-exploration': good points (Score:2)
Well, it's refreshing to have a debate with real arguments, for a change, thanks... Even though I suspect we already agree on quite a few points. :-)
I assumed that "the best way" was to make the most of a given budget, to do as much of "the stated goal" as p
Re:'space-exploration': good points (Score:2)
I think so too.
"I assumed that "the best way" was to make the most of a given budget, to do as much of "the stated goal" as possible."
Yes, I can agree to that...but it still remains a bit of a self-fulfilling definition. Even 'the most of a given budget' doesn't really explain anything more, since 'most' can be interpreted in different ways. For instance, say
one more thing (Score:2)
"I'm not sure about that. Is it now cheaper to send a person or a robot to do some work in Antarctica? After all, an autonomous robot has to be very sophisticated; it may well become cheaper to send a man, including his life support equipment, than to build and test a robot on the complexity level e.g. of the current Mars rovers."
I doubt this is true, and your analogy seems a bit far fetched. The extra costs of getting (and maintaining) a human in space is large
Re:let the 'why space-exploration' debate start ag (Score:1)
Bottom line here is like all things in the universe,.. this planet will eventually die. Humans have to look to technology to get us off this rock. Keep your religion (humans seem to need it) but push technology as fast as possible also.
Re:let the 'why space-exploration' debate start ag (Score:2)
That's the only part I don't agree with in your post.
Atheists and agnostici don't seem to need it, and they are humans too!
Re:let the 'why space-exploration' debate start ag (Score:1)
Yet peoples faith can not be put aside, there mind is stuck in an infinite loop with no way out.
I have come to the understanding that we are floating
Re:let the 'why space-exploration' debate start ag (Score:2)
You've clearly not been to Europe the last 50 years
(Well, ok, not counting the new EU members)
"Only the strong survive."
Actually, it's the ones that adapt best to their environement. But I mostly agree with the general tenure of your posts.
Re:let the 'why space-exploration' debate start ag (Score:1)
You have the neo-philus human, who embraces change and looks to the future.
And you have the neo-phobus human, who fears change, and looks back to comfort or tradition as the answer against change.
Remember, most economic markets rely on a lack of change to prop them up. When volatility or change is introduced, heads roll by the hundreds. Beyond "growth", markets crave routine and predictable paths. That's why the na
Re:let the 'why space-exploration' debate start ag (Score:2)
I'm an aerospace engineer. I need the work.
Closer to the launch date... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Closer to the launch date... (Score:2)
Re:The 'First' (Score:1)
Re:The 'First' (Score:1)
Re:The 'First' (Score:1)
Re:The 'First' (Score:1)
As far as American in a worldly viewpoint, the way I see it is [] review news from multiple countries/websites [] except from FoxNews
Re:The 'First' (Score:2)
"Majority rule" is pointless when people aren't going to agree on the basics. If we had the entire planet under a single "majority rule" we would all be living like Bangledeshi farmers, knee deep in a rice paddy.
Most of the "industrial powers" these days have 110% of their revenue dedica
Re:The 'First' (Score:1)
Still, even side-stepping the issues of Bangladesh rice farmers and the United States of Europe, Russia and China are two examples of countries who have their own independent space programs. At least an attempt to intermingle with the Russians has been made a la Mir. It'd just be nice if we could perhaps go a step farther, as small as that step may appear in the grand view of things. Hell, Japan would
Cue the creatures! (Score:2)
Stationary lander makes no sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Why in the heck would we be launching a stationary lander when the Spirit and Opportunity have been roving the surface for over 2 years? Think of how crudy the rover missions would have been if they were stuck in one spot. We would have seen the inside of 1 ten foot crater and a rubble monoscape. Instead the rovers have climbed mountains, traversed huge craters, found exotic sedimentary deposits, and produced amazing panoramas. Mobility is invaluable. What are NASA planners thinking?
Re:Stationary lander makes no sense (Score:5, Informative)
The idea is to have a lower cost mission. Congress is constantly not giving NASA a budget that can support the kind of vision both Scientists and Engineers want from the agency. In addition, the types of experiments that Phoenix is doing only needs a good landing pad. The idea isn't to go and run around the whole polar region and identify every square foot of rock and soil. The purpose is to find a region on the edge of the polar cap that is representative of the average region and test there. If they had an unlimited budget, I am sure the lead scientist and engineer would love to make the project mobile and maybe do this test a multiple sites. This is not the reality of a scientific agency that is constrained by the whims of a fickle public and an overly bureaucratic government.
Re:Stationary lander makes no sense (Score:1, Insightful)
How much does it cost does to copy the current rovers in use now? Nasa is such a lost cause right now. Anytime they say anything, it is "we dont have enough money". Well, then why dont you just take the plans you used successfully a couple of years ago, exchange out some modules, and they walla.. Your new rover. In addition, why dont they try outsource it for a change? They are acting like a bunch of children...
Re:Stationary lander makes no sense (Score:2)
Re:Stationary lander makes no sense (Score:1)
Sounds like you have all the answers. Maybe you should write a proposal and see if you can
Re:Stationary lander makes no sense (Score:2)
Why not send a rover to the poles? Well, you could, but it would have to be a smaller one, with a different design. Other factors such as solar input and temperature are also quite different. B
Re:Stationary lander makes no sense (Score:1)
And a huge chunk of NASA's budget is spent on pork bullshit [usatoday.com]. They don't have the fucking money, period. And if you believe the "moon then mars" crap our president spewed recently then you are a complete fucktard. Wait for your hydrogen powered flying car and we'll talk...
Stationary lander still makes no sense (Score:2)
What a load of crap. The marginal cost of duplicating the rovers, perhaps many time, and even adding soil sampling experiments, has to be less than a new dedicated mission. The problem is NASA planetary operations are far too mission focused. It has always been like that. It is like that to this day. There are few common spacecraft buses and subsystems. With the increasing frequency of Mars missions there needs to be much more technical continuity.
Funny thing. (Score:2)
Re:Stationary lander makes no sense (Score:3, Informative)
Because they don't have the money for sending new rovers, but they do have enough to launch the old spare of the one that crashed on Mars last decade due to insufficient testing.
Digging for ice (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Stationary lander makes no sense (Score:2)
For the same reason earthbound geologists will sometimes spend weeks or months camped in a single spot examining a small area or a single feature intensively. Taking random samples from the surface only tells you so much - sometimes you need to study whats *beneath* the surface. After you've done a broad area search - it's time to start looking at the details.
S
False choice (Score:2)
You are surely talking out of your ass. It would be easy and cheap to equip a rover with a drill or trenching tool and get the benefit of both. Also
Re:False choice (Score:2)
Fine, you come up with a cheap design to add on to a rover that will
Re:False choice (Score:2)
Duplication should achieve significant cost savings
Small, inexpensive instrumentation features that any mission would have to implement
Same as first.
Irrelevant
Enveloped by ice? (Score:2)
The stated mission duration for Phoenix is 3 months. And your point is? Also, the lander won't be "enveloped by ice". It will be covered with CO2 frost a few microns thick, just like Viking 2 was.
Re:False choice (Score:2)
Nope. I'm not.
planned before Spirit & Opportunity (Score:2)
Oh come on (Score:1)
Re:Oh come on (Score:2, Funny)
Tucson, eh? (Score:3, Informative)
(see also: Joint Strike Fighter, and -- lest the Europeans gloat -- anything made by Airbus)
Re:Tucson, eh? (Score:1)
They got these university things [arizona.edu] all over the place. Turns out this Tuscon place has one of the best optical sciences [arizona.edu] groups in the world, the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory [arizona.edu] who have built instruments for interplanetary spacecraft, and a lot of space industry is based there.
I can see what you mean. It does sound just like a bunch of pork spread around undeservedly.
Even the name admits it's hoax?!? (Score:1)
What? But... but... You mean "Phoenix" *isn't* pronounced "foe-knee"? Look at the first part, "Phoe". You pronounce "hoe" with a long 'O' sound, so logically, this would be "foe". Then there's the ending, "ix". There aren't many 'ix' words, but everyone remembers "prix" (as in racing), which is pronounced "pree". So, logically, "Phoenix" should be pronounced "foe-knee", ri
Re:Even the name admits it's hoax?!? (Score:2)
(Hint... it has to do with burning to ashes. Sure, a baby phoenix traditionally rose from the ashes, but somehow I don't think NASA has put that capability in place yet.)
Re:Even the name admits it's hoax?!? (Score:2)
Interesting name choice. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Interesting name choice. (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Surveyor_2001_L
Probably not the best choice of name. (Score:2)
(dictionary.com)
Phoenex: A bird in Egyptian mythology that lived in the desert for 500 years and then consumed itself by fire, later to rise renewed from its ashes.
But perhaps that last part suggests we could clone the astronauts back if there were a mishap.. ?
Re:Probably not the best choice of name. (Score:2)
Re:Probably not the best choice of name. (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_(Iliad) [wikipedia.org]
Thank you, 2010 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086837/ [imdb.com]), for otherwise I wouldn't know this bit of trivia.
Put this in your pipe and think... (Score:1)
Some stronger weed, please (Score:1)
Are they sure it is Phoenix? (Score:2)
Re:Woohoo!!! (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Woohoo!!! (Score:2)
Re:Woohoo!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Woohoo!!! (Score:1)
Re:What's wrong with us? (Score:5, Insightful)
And sometimes, again, just sometimes, things such as researches work as a chain of events in a way that we can't see the results until they are already upon us:
take for instance this [sciencedaily.com] to this this [sciencedaily.com]
And Ta-DA!! We have NASA's technology reducing poverty in the world! Isn't science marvelous!?
Re:What's wrong with us? (Score:3, Informative)