Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space United States Science

Whatever Happened To The Mars Network? 21

Posted by timothy from the blast-from-the-recent-past dept.
mhw25 writes "There is a NASA/JPL project, conceptualised back in 1999, that proposed to launch a Mars Network. It boldly projected that "Deployment of a prototype Microsat, tentatively scheduled for 2003, would be the first step in creating this Mars "Internet."" With 2003 drawing to a close and no .mars domain registration offered, perhaps it is time NASA and other space agencies to rethink and revisit this worthy project, especially in light of the recent problems faced by the Beagle2."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Whatever Happened To The Mars Network? More

Whatever Happened To The Mars Network?

Comments Filter:

  • Isn't that basically what is happening now? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Eevee ( 535658 ) on Sunday December 28, 2003 @02:41PM (#7822470)
    As I understand it, the Beagle 2 probe is supposed to normally communicate via the orbiting platforms.

  • Latency...? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by skinfitz ( 564041 ) on Sunday December 28, 2003 @03:07PM (#7822616) Journal
    Using regular satellite gear with a sat in geostationary orbit over Germany from the UK I see latency in the realm of 2500ms - 5000ms.

    If it's 9 minutes from Mars to Earth then we will be looking at 540000ms !!

    I wouldn't fancy running a Windows Update over that.

    • Re:Latency...? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Tumbleweed ( 3706 )
      Windows Update wouldn't be that big of a problem - that's more of a bandwidth intensive operation.

      But in gaming, you'd be the Ultimate High Ping Bastard! w00t!
    • Run really big TCP windows.
    • If it's 9 minutes from Mars to Earth....

      I thought it was more like 45 minutes for a signal to go from Mars to Earth?
      • Probably both depending on where Mars and Earth are in relation to each other. Sometimes there's a great big hot yellow sun in between them too. Maybe need to route via Venus. That's going to add ms.

  • New Usenet Newsgroups (Score:5, Funny)

    by rudy_wayne ( 414635 ) on Sunday December 28, 2003 @04:17PM (#7823079)
    alt.binaries.martian.pr0n

    Cool!!

  • News Flash! (Score:5, Funny)

    by bedessen ( 411686 ) on Sunday December 28, 2003 @04:23PM (#7823115) Journal
    News Flash -- Impressive thing of the future fails to materialize as promised. Advocates of the flying car, personal nuclear generator, and personal rocket packs send their condolences to anyone holding out for hopes of an interplanetary network anytime soon.

  • Irridium (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MarkusQ ( 450076 ) on Sunday December 28, 2003 @07:04PM (#7823929) Journal

    This was my favourite idea for what to do with the Iridium nodes: send up rigs to boost them into a slow (or at least low delta V/sec) orbit to Mars, to set up a communications backbone there. They were pretty much what you'd want for the job, with plenty of capacity to spare.

    As a semi-aside, I get irked by the kneejerk reaction to de-orbit everything, when getting it up there is 90% or so of the cost. If there was ever an environment were recycling made sense...

    -- MarkusQ

    • I get irked too! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by GPS Pilot ( 3683 )
      The worst example of unthinking de-orbiting was Mir. There you had many, many tons of aerospace-grade titanium, aluminum, and steel in orbit. Everybody talked of either continuing to man and maintain Mir, or burning it in. No one considered the third and best option: boost it to a higher orbit where atmospheric drag is neglibile, and wait patiently until it becomes an incredibly valuable resource of raw materials for on-orbit industry.
      • Out past GEO in the decay orbits are thousands of satellites in similar situations...once someone finds out how to go harvest them all, they'll be rich.

    • Re:Irridium (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I get irked by the kneejerk reaction to de-orbit everything, when getting it up there is 90% or so of the cost.

      I think the bigger problem is that people don't really unstand that LEO isn't really very far into space. (no flame intended, really)

      Sorry I couldn't find better numbers, but your 90% is way off. Here's the best quote [islandone.org] I could find.

      Contemporary launch vehicles have launch costs of $10,000 to $20,000 per kilogram of net payload to low Earth orbit (LEO) and $60,000 to $120,000 per kilogram of n

  • Ping... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Bob Cat - NYMPHS ( 313647 ) on Monday December 29, 2003 @02:20AM (#7826022) Homepage
    ... ...
    (the return signal will be posted in the dupe) ...

  • .mars domain.... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Steve Cox ( 207680 ) on Monday December 29, 2003 @05:28AM (#7826513)
    From what I remember of this in an IEE lecture, they were thinking a bit bigger than a .mars domain.

    They suggested having .mars.sol and .earth.sol. Gives a bit more room for expansion in the future I guess.....

    Steve.

Slashdot Top Deals

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Close