Mars Express Captures Phobos and Deimos 84
westtxfun writes "The Mars Express Orbiter captured a very cool movie of Phobos and Deimos on Nov 5. Besides the 'wow factor,' the images will be used to refine models of the moons' orbits. The orbiter has also captured high resolution images of Phobos back in July. 'The images were acquired with the Super Resolution Channel (SRC) of the High Resolution Stereo Camera (HRSC). The camera took 130 images of the moons on 5 November at 9:14 CET in a span of 1.5 minutes at intervals of 1s, speeding up to 0.5-s intervals toward the end. The image resolution is 110 m/pixel for Phobos and 240 m/pixel for Deimos — Deimos was more than twice as far from the camera. '"
Anyone noticed ... (Score:3, Interesting)
That the jpg weight in at 666kb ?!!!?
Ask slashdot (Score:3, Interesting)
Nice mission overall (Score:2, Interesting)
Movie is only one of mission returns, and it surely looks like a video game to many who don't think further than WoW when thinking about exploring unknown :).
Mission itself is what is important here - being technologically advanced far more than Voyagers and giving us previews of what will come in future.... Better cameras and other instruments, better communications, faster spacecraft.... We are only beggining to see around solar system (Voyager is only 32 yrs old) and Mars Express is BIG THING.
What is also expected is downplay of whole thing, not-invented-here syndrome... But it's ok and it's temporary - results will surely be used without discrimination in world's scientific communities.
What I can't understand is why they're still inventing whole lander thing when technology for safe landing (and going back up) of people is tried FORTY years ago?!! One would expect it wil be everyday thing after so much time. Just think about how other technologies developed in 40 years span. Just compare already mentioned cameras and communications.... Weird.
Re:Nice mission overall (Score:5, Interesting)
What I can't understand is why they're still inventing whole lander thing when technology for safe landing (and going back up) of people is tried FORTY years ago?!!
We know how to land in dense atmosphere (Earth, Venus) and in vacuum (the Moon). But there are no good solutions for landing in thin atmosphere (Mars). You can't use a parachute because there isn't enough atmosphere for it, and you can't use a rocket engine because incoming flow of atmospheric gases interferes with the engine (extinguishes flame and creates oscillations like in a whistle.) That's why robots are just dropped on Mars in a big airbag. But the deceleration is too high for a human.
Re:Ask slashdot (Score:3, Interesting)
Planetary models from centuries were basically an example of:
a) idealized scenario (frictionless vacuum kind of stuff)
b) based on Newtonian physics; which is not quite accurate...
With the number of bodies and their interactions, Solar System is pretty much chaotic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_of_the_Solar_System [wikipedia.org]
Re:Nice mission overall (Score:3, Interesting)
What in the world are you talking about? Both parachutes and rocket-braked landings have successfully been used, in combination on the same mission. Parachutes are marginal due to the thin air, so you use rocket engines to slow it down. There is no significant issue with firing engines in thin air, it's a non-issue - the bit about "atmospheric gasses interfering with the engine" is 99% nonsense. The only issue with doing it entirely with rocket engines is that it takes so much fuel that you would have trouble getting it there without a huge rocket. So you aerodynamically brake it to some reasonable velocity, then finish it off with rocket engines. It's a relatively simple problem that was solved and proven i 1976 and repeated many times since.
Airbags are useful for smaller missions because it allows you to do less rocket-propelled braking and save fuel. But even the airbab missions used both parachutes and rocket braking. If you just let it fall at terminal velocity with no chute and no braking, no airbag is going to save it, you are going to dig a pretty deep hole.
Brett
Re:Ask slashdot (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, if you pick times at random, we would say that a 1% chance of encountering something is fairly low. But, of course, 1% events happen all of the time, even in Astronomy.
Here is a better way to look at probability in astrophysics and planetary physics - if you conclude that you just happened to observe something or catch some event at an unlikely point of its life-cycle, that may be a clue that you are calculating your probabilities wrong, i.e., that your theory is wrong or incomplete. So, improbable events tend to get the theorists interested. One obvious way to make Phobos less improbable is to see if the high dissipation could be intermittent.
By the way, when the short lifetime for Phobos was first realized back in the 1950's, it was thought that the orbital decay was due to atmospheric drag, which required a lot of drag at a high altitude. One way to accomplish this would be to have a very low Phobos mass to area ratio, which lead to I.S. Shklovsky hypothesizing that Phobos was a hollow spacecraft. In that case, a short lifetime would not be surprising, as a spacecraft would presumably be a fairly recent addition to Mars's satellites. Alas, with a proper tidal model and data such as the OP, there is no more need for that hypothesis.
Odd Phobos striations (Score:3, Interesting)
What's the deal with the curious striations running longitudinally across the whole surface? Notice, in particular, that they even continue down into and through craters! What could cause that?
My first thought was that Phobos must have a fast spin in addition to its fast orbit, and that it was acquiring those gouges as it spins through clouds of debris. Then I read the notes and learned that the "N" marked the north pole of its axis, meaning that the striations are running perpendicular to its rotation!?
Back to the drawing board....