Making Tracks on Mars 179
An anonymous reader writes "In a remarkable series of orbital pictures, the Mars Global Surveyor's cameras have imaged the tracks of the Spirit rover on the surface. Individual debris pieces including the backshell and lander are visible with remarkable clarity using an innovative roll of the satellite."
An Initiative roll? Already made the saving throw (Score:4, Funny)
I wonder what the Satellite has for initiative roll bonuses?
Re:An Initiative roll? (Score:5, Informative)
It is a line camera, X resolution is set by number of pixels, Y resolution by mars rotation speed and number of scans per second. If the satelite rolls opposite to mars rotation, it is as if mars rotates more slowly, therefore higher Y resolution. Price to pay is you end up rotating out of view, so smaller pictures, but more detailed ones.
Re:An Initiative roll? Already made the saving thr (Score:2)
Re:An Initiative roll? Already made the saving thr (Score:2)
Crap. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Crap. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Crap. (Score:2)
Re:Crap. (Score:3, Informative)
Why should we? What possible reason is there to keep every damn thing in the universe in pristine, untouched condition? Besides, it's not like we're going to Mars and throwing a McDonald's bag out the window, scattering burger wrappers and half-eaten McNuggets all over the Martian surface. These are spacecraft components that, first chance we get, will probably be brought back to Earth and examined.
Re:Crap. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Crap. (Score:2)
Re:Crap. (Score:3, Insightful)
Max
Re:Crap. (Score:2)
Why not? Nature left the entire planet covered in dirt. Why can't we leave a few stamped impressions of tire tracks.
Don't make it sound like the planet was a pristine horticulture mecca. It's dirt. It can't get any dirtier.
Re:Crap. (Score:3, Funny)
True. But the article does not discuss the Moon. It talks about Mars Rover.
Re:Crap. (Score:2)
That has what connection to his crack about the litter we left on the PLANET Mars?
What else... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What else... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What else... (Score:2)
Re:Not a bad idea at all. (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, from the journal of Michael Watkins [nasa.gov], manager of the navigation team:
But we're also still working, and for Opportunity, the Navigation Team wants to get our first solution for the position of Opportunity as quickly as possible to help assess the condition of the rover.
Ten minutes after landing we get it - it's about 10 km further downtrack (
Snoopy, where are you? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know the Surveyor guys are like "oh, sure, NOW you can look around and tell us what's interesting to investigate!"
No no no (Score:2)
Any chance that they can use this process to search for Apollo Lunar Lander ? If you know what I mean
I may be wrong (Score:2)
Re:I may be wrong (Score:2)
Well, if we did, it would be proof positive that they never went to the Moon!!
This is old news (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is old news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is old news (Score:2)
Re:This is old news (Score:2)
What does this say about Earth imaging? (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, *anything* we ship to Mars is a design compromise in terms of weight and size. So I'm sure the camera is sophisticated, but isn't this one of those times when size matters, especially on the objective lens?
I've found my house on Terraserver, and I couldn't see features as small as this picture gives us. Makes me wonder what spy satellites can do, what commercial imaging satellites can do, and what DHS wants to let us have.
Re:What does this say about Earth imaging? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What does this say about Earth imaging? (Score:2)
That is exactly why I wear Tin Foil Sombrero's, and I make a new one each morning before work.
Guaranteed to stop those mind control waves along with making you close to impossible to be followed by face recognition spy sattilites.
Re:What does this say about Earth imaging? (Score:2)
Of course I know about the hat recognition satillites, thats why I make a new one each morning!
Re:What does this say about Earth imaging? (Score:2)
Just wait for Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. (Score:5, Informative)
Given that MRO will likely use a modified version of the same camera system used on the Ikonos imaging satellite (Ikonos can resolve down to 100 cm resolution from a 300 km orbit through Earth's thick atmosphere), the combination of the lower orbit and the very thin atmosphere on Mars means there are estimates that the MRO cameras could resolve objects as small as 150 millimeters across in the visual light spectrum! At that resolution, MRO could finally put to bed the controversy about the anomalous features on the Cydonia plain of Mars that some people claim are not natural features of that plain.
Damn! (Score:4, Funny)
I think I just shat myself.
Re:Damn! (Score:2)
Re:Just wait for Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. (Score:4, Informative)
Where the middle layer three CCDs deep are the "Blue", "Red", and "Green" (approx.) CCDs, while the others are the panchromatic (really the same as the "Red" in the color portion of the array). Each of the CCDs is something like 1024 pixels across, with a 6 pixel overlap on each side.
Check out:
http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu [arizona.edu] http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/hirise [nasa.gov]
Re:Just wait for Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. (Score:2)
Re:What does this say about Earth imaging? (Score:2)
Nope, keep those hats on. (Score:2)
Because the limits on resolution can be compensated for with image processing. For example, take a large number of photographs of the same thing, then use the differences to interpolate the real image.
Re:Nope, keep those hats on. (Score:2)
Re:What does this say about Earth imaging? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What does this say about Earth imaging? (Score:2)
Re:What does this say about Earth imaging? (Score:2)
Re:What does this say about Earth imaging? (Score:2)
Which is pretty amazing, considering how hard it is to read license plates from overhead even if you're just standing on a bridge or overpass.
Re:What does this say about Earth imaging? (Score:2)
Given the fact that the current Keyhole satellites use essentially a modified version of same technology used on the Hubble Space Telescope, my guess is that our current spy satellites can resolve down to about 4-5 cm (around 2 inches) resolution from a 300 km orbit. At that resolution, you could make out the larger mark
What about the Moon? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What about the Moon? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What about the Moon? (Score:2)
Re:What about the Moon? (Score:2)
Maybe they can use nuclear batteries to power the flash so they can photograph the dark side.
Re:What about the Moon? (Score:2)
Actually, you can look for some of the space junk yourself. They left a reflector next to the lander that will reflect any light directly back to it's source. Just take a laser and point it at the right area of the moon and use a reasonably sized telescope to measure the light bouncing back. You can actually measure the distance to the moon using this tool and prove to yourself that at least that on
Erosion? (Score:5, Interesting)
Dan East
Dust Storms (Score:2)
Hey you kids! (Score:4, Funny)
Unearthly (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe it's just me, but when I'm on an exotic vacation, I don't go out and start taking pictures of my car.
Re:Unearthly (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Unearthly (Score:2)
If I took my Enzo Ferrarri to the utah salt flats and had a choice of pictures of salt, or pictures of my car tearing it up on the flats, I'd have to go with pictures of the car.
Re:Unearthly (Score:2)
Honest honey, I was taking a picture of the car (Score:2)
Picture one us Americans on vacation in Europe. We park next to a topless beach and take a picture of our rental car. "Honest honey, I was taking a picture of the car".
Yeah, ok, well, I'm a programmer not a commedian.
On Beagle 2 (Score:3, Interesting)
What would happen if hubble could image on mars? I suspect the optics are not designed to image something like mars, and wouldn't be effective?
Otherwise surely we would have close to 1m resolution of mars?
Am I missing something? Or is hubble too busy?
are visible in this image from the Mars Orbiter Camera on NASA's Mars Global Surveyor orbiter. North is up in this image I think the images released are not the full resolution, or if they are then they at least with less compression (unless they transmit them compressed - which would be an insane idea) it should be clearer.
I would guess that they transmit all data back in raw, with lots of error checking.
Hubble HAS imaged Mars (Score:4, Informative)
Re:On Beagle 2 (Score:2)
I said, the originals must be: larger, less compressed (if compressed at all!)
The version shown was far too compressed.
Haar Haar Haar
Terraforming or ecosynthesising mars (Score:5, Interesting)
They harp on about oxygen levels. I started to wonder - what gas other than nitrogen would be good to compose the other 80% (assuming we reach earth density - could we have a 1/5 less atomosphere than was 99% 02?
So I think (although mars contains nitrogen - composition [uoregon.edu]) the matter is how to make nitrogen and oxygen and enough co2.
Nitrogen in the air is vital for plant life also, so I think a valid nitrogen cycle, water cycle and healthy o2/co2 ratios would need to be established.
Would they find thier own levels, or will it be *bloody* hard to establish a balanced eco system?
Any other thoughts on mars ecosynthesis?
Re:Terraforming or ecosynthesising mars (Score:3, Funny)
I don't think anything that has evolved on earth could survive in such an atmosphere for very long. And having things from earth there is the point of terraforming, right?
Also, if you had played The Little Terraformer's Virtual Lab (aka Sim Earth) long enough, you would know that if the oxygen ratio is higher than 25%, trees st
Re:Terraforming or ecosynthesising mars (Score:2, Informative)
Here's the first hit off of Google for partial pressure:
http://wine1.sb.fsu.edu/chm1045/notes/Gases/ [fsu.edu]
Re:Terraforming or ecosynthesising mars (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Terraforming or ecosynthesising mars (Score:4, Informative)
So Mars' lack of atmosphere is likely due to a combination of factors, with the lack of magentosphere being perhaps necessary but hardly sufficient. The question for terraformers is whether or not it is possible to create and sustain an environment like the one we have on Earth via biological means.
It is worth noting that in the absence of life, Earth would be a lot less habitable than it is. That is, life on Earth has created conditions that are suitable for life on Earth. Or more correctly, life on Earth has found relatively open evolutionary niches due to the actions of other life on Earth. The most obvious thing like this is oxygen, which would weather out of the atmosphere in a few million years were it not a waste product thrown away by plants.
--Tom
Re:Terraforming or ecosynthesising mars (Score:3, Interesting)
I was actually thinking about shipping oil and gasoline out there. :) Use bottled oxygen and use IC engines for transportation. That's a sure way to fill up the atmosphere with CO2. Then in selected areas, inject nitrogen into the atmosphere and just grow plants. Do that for awhile and eventually you have an entire planet capable of supporting human life!
(might take awhile, though)
From the "coal to Newcastle" department... (Score:2)
Are we still talking about Mars here? Because Mars' atmosphere is already 95% CO2. [nasa.gov]
Sean
Re:Terraforming or ecosynthesising mars (Score:3, Interesting)
Instead of looking to off-earth as a possible (waaay into the) future home for us meatbags, why not consider moving underground?
Probably a stupid question.
There is life on Mars! (Score:3, Funny)
They need to stop this monkey business! (Score:3, Funny)
We'll never prove the existance of life on Mars at this rate!
Beagle 2, Viking's, Polar Lander, Mars landers..? (Score:4, Interesting)
I would be interested to see if the Viking landers are still visible, or if they're now covered in martian dust? Maybe it'll be a better job for the MRO when it gets there.
Re:Beagle 2, Viking's, Polar Lander, Mars landers. (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mgs_mpf_vik
Time of image (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, I hope that Mars Express will give it a try, too.
Hey what an Idea! (Score:2)
Been reading old Heinlein short stories lately? (Score:2)
1 cell resolution (Score:2)
heat shield impact site opportunity. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm thinking that the heatshield impact should have dug a pretty nice divot out of the ground, which might make a pretty good opportunity for examining deep layers of soil on the edge of a large impact crater.
Possible to find all sorts if interesting things in there... almost as good as the crater itself. (presuming that the rover can get out on the other side, that is.)
Re:I'm not so sure. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I'm not so sure. (Score:2)
Re:This is nothing new (Score:2)
You have heard that all theses recent missions to Mars used parachutes during the landing process, right?
Dan East
Re:This is nothing new (Score:4, Funny)
Point 1) Mars has an atmosphere [google.com].
Point 2) The moon isn't a planet.
Other than that you're completely right.
Re:This is nothing new (Score:2, Informative)
Re:This is nothing new (Score:2)
That PDF you pointed too didn't really give the best explanation, but a little searching and I found it described as the moon not orbiting around the earh, but instead the moon and the earth both rotating around their combined center mass. Therefore, neither is considered a "satellite" of the other. Meanwhile, they both orbit the sun.
Of course, most of the info out there was rather sketchy, mainly saying "they're a double planet system cause the moon is so big." You
Re:It's pretty amazing when you think about it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, you're talking about a statistical sample of 2 planets (out of what, thousands of billions?). (And I daresay we've hardly explored #2 - heck, there are great chunks of EARTH we haven't explored.) To wash your hands of it saying 'well, haven't found life yet, we must be alone' is a bit presumptuous.
Second "Things like irreducible complexity in bacterial flagelli or the inability to intentionally design life from scratch while claiming that a roll of the dice made all this seems absurd." NOBODY (except Creationists commonly hiding behind the title of 'intelligent design theory' and busily building strawman arguments) has ever suggested that life is the result of the 'roll of the dice'.
We KNOW that in the presence of radiation, complex hydrocarbon chains such as those found around the universe will form amino acids (found both in liquid water on earth, and in insterstellar dust clouds http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0328/p11s01-stss.ht
We KNOW that these acids can spontaneously form proteins and quinones, among lots of other stuff, which in turn form proteins and (it's surmised) possibly the precursors to RNA.
Granted, we're not clear on that last, teeny step. But give scientists some benefit of the doubt - they've resolved the simplest forms of life down to the point where serious research projects are going on now to create life at a molecular level; to the credit of the researchers in the field, there seems to be a hesitation going on while some of the ethical and moral issues are discussed before proceeding.
I don't dispute with you your essential point - it IS pretty amazing when you think about it. I find the system of the universe a glorious and joyful ballet of energy, matter, and life. I don't know why people feel compelled to assume that God isn't competent enough to build it from the beginning to do what He wanted, and that He would have to stick his hand in and 'make' stuff happen.
Re:It's pretty amazing when you think about it. (Score:4, Insightful)
> People have been discussing Asimov's three laws of robotics for decades. But we're no closer to robots with synthetic intelligence than we were in the glory days of AI research. (i.e. we're not close at all).
And you know this exactly how? In 1899, the vast majority of the world's brightest minds were openly saying that there was very little left to learn in the realm of physics, since Newtonian mechanics had been quite thoroughly explored by that point. It only took six years to turn that on its ear, and nobody (not even Einstein) knew it was coming. How you propose to know what technological or innovative breakthroughs will or won't occur in AI is beyond my understanding. As simple (to us) a device as the steam engine took more than 300 years to develop, and societies as far back as the Romans had the materials to make it happen, just not the innovation.
> There is no evidence these projects that you say are "going on now to create life at a molecular level" are likely to succeed.
Nice spin, but to reverse it, there's also no evidence that they're likely to fail, either. See above. Isn't acting clairvoyant a violation of Christian ethics?
> See this for reasons why the 1950s Miller experiment was not an accurate replica of supposed primordial conditions...
Since that particular experiment doesn't have much to do with current efforts (because, y'know, it was not an accurate replica of supposed primordial conditions) this point is irrelevant. If they simply wanted to replicate the old experiment, then they'd have done so.
> You must have considered the apparently unique earth we have: it's wonderfully balanced Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen cycles, the temperature and the position of earth w.r.t. to the sun, the qualities of water, and the wonder that is the water cycle,the wonderful balance of plant and animal life...
I'm familiar with this argument, but it's not valid because it's two-sided. You argue that the Earth is perfectly designed for humans, and I argue that humans developed specifically to survive Earth conditions, and these things support both points, so they support neither point.
>
I agree that there's no good explanation for this as yet. Again, though, it doesn't disprove any reasonable theory, it puts bumps in the road for the theories. Whether we will learn what caused it will remain for time to tell, but I see no reason to accept the young-Earth theory on the strength of this alone, and so far it's the only thing you mentioned that I can't answer directly.
> Consider how the continents were one supercontinent to begin with (as the Bible describes in Genesis) or how the Bible, rather off-handedly, describes the earth as a sphere (Book of Job).
In a book the size and scope of the Bible, you will find plenty of references to stuff that turns out to be true. However, you must counter mentions in the Bible of stuff that turned out false as well, if you care to use it as a scientific reference. You might start by Googling for "geocentrism".
> And then there are the smaller details: look up and consider how the sun, and the the moon have the same relative size...
What? What relevance could this possibly have? If you think this is anywhere approaching a good piece of evidence in defense of the existence of God, you're going to be very easy to dismiss. Besides, they're not all that close, unless 20 percent different is "close enough".
> how all humanly-recorded history begins 5000 years ago...
Re:It's pretty amazing when you think about it. (Score:2)
Indeed, how dare I? In fact, let me show you a worse outrage!: where I quote 3 peer-reviewed secular journals. [slashdot.org].
> >But we're no closer to robots with synthetic intelligence
> >than we were in the glory days of AI research. (i.e. we're
> >not close at all).
>
> And you know this exactly how?
I studied AI while working toward an MS in Computer science a few years ago.
> There is no evidence the
Re:It's pretty amazing when you think about it. (Score:3, Insightful)
My pointing out the thinking of physicists in 1899 was to demonstrate that even those who have studied a field extensively can't usually predict watershed changes in the field any better than layfolks, so it's a bad exercise to say "we're no closer to..." about it. Studying AI makes you better informed about the current state of AI, but it doesn't help you predict the future.
> Advances in "AI" (a badly named field) are
Re:It's pretty amazing when you think about it. (Score:2)
from seeds carried in the waters.
-- Most importantly, though, why do you say that there's nothing stopping them from living longer?
Because the 2 oldest were still living in the 20th century.
-- Again I present, you've given no reasonable argument that the age of the Earth can be determined by the age of trees in any case.
No, but I have an explanation why the trees observed are no older. You
Re:It's pretty amazing when you think about it. (Score:2)
As this site [answersingenesis.org] says:
the standard long-age scenario of our evolution-riddled culture says that such encounters between pterosaurs and man have never happened, because all flying reptiles, along with the dinosaurs, allegedly became extinct some 65 million years before man came on the scene.
But what we know is [angelfire.com]:
The Sioux Indians have long told the story of the huge "thunderbird". They gave it this nickname because this flying reptile was hi
Loving the Stretch (Score:2)
You point out that the Souix tribe's description of a thunderbird that matches a description of a pteronadon is proof that humans and dinosaurs lived concurrently. To that I say it proves that one tribe saw one dinosaur, even if it truly was a dinosaur, which I'm willing to allow for. Heck, there are th
Re:Loving the Stretch (Score:2)
OK
> "I say it proves that one tribe saw one dinosaur,
> even if it truly was a dinosaur,..."
The posting about the thunderbird was ancillary - I decided to try to validate the creationist reports and found the thunderbird picture as described.
> "There are no descriptions of dinosaurs in Egyptian culture.
> None in Sumerian culture. None in Inca culture."
You put effort into posting your viewpoint - thank you for that. But I have put in effort too -- ple
Re:It's pretty amazing when you think about it. (Score:2)
> It does. But you wouldn't know that.
I was going to go on with the retort, but this comment pretty much closes the door, and makes it pointless to continue the dance. Have fun with your faith.
Virg
Re:It's pretty amazing when you think about it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Um. So? Millions of years ago they didn't have the same size, as the moon was closer to the Earth. Millions of years from now they won't be the same size, as the moon is steadily moving further away.
no tree has more than 5800 yearly tree rings (and there is no reason they can't - these old trees were cut down, still living, in this century).
You can extend it back a lot further if you look for more than one tree. You find a live tree going back, say, 4000 years. The you find an old stump whose later rings match up with the earlier rings of your tree. Then maybe you find a petrified log whose later rings match up with the early rings on the stump. We have tree ring data going back 10,000 years. Here's [ingenta.com] an example of a study going back 7400 years.
Also, we have ice cores and varves with annual layers going back tens of thousands of years.
And please don't disappoint me by quoting some rubbish from the ICR or answersingenesis.
Re:It's pretty amazing when you think about it. (Score:2)
Since you're asking about faith... God can do that, but he didn't. The basis of your faith - the Bible - tells more about this.
"Wonderful revelation you have about the Earth being unique. Don't you think every planet is unique in millions of different ways?"
Yes.
"Why do you point to Bible support for things we already know from scientific methods such as "Consider how the continents were o
Re:It's pretty amazing when you think about it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Most (if not all, I'm not an astrophysicist) of the planets we've discovered in other solar systems are Jupiter-like - enormous and gaseous. (They've also mostly been almost as close to their suns as Mercury is to ours).
Jupiter-like planets may be easier to detect, but they're not very hospitable to life. Give it time, we'll find something.
Re:It's pretty amazing when you think about it. (Score:2)
Please demonstrate conclusively that bacterial flagelli are irreducibly complex and must have been created. Show your work and there might be a Nobel Prize for you.
Re:figures -- we humand are pigs (Score:2, Funny)
I think it was called "Salvage 1"
OMG. Andy Griffith's forray into sci-fi. And here I thought that I had blissfully forgetten it. Thank you very much for reminding me about it.
Re:Beagle2 (Score:4, Interesting)
I, too would like to know where the Beagle2 lies. It is about as small as one pixel from an orbiting camera, so they'll need to find some other evidence (ejecta from an impact crater, etc.) to find it. It's very likely Beagle is the crack of a rock, for example.
Re:Beagle2 (Score:2)
"The Mars Orbiter Camera's narrow-angle camera has now examined nearly 4.5 percent of Mars' surface, including extensive imaging of candidate and selected landing sites for surface missions."
4.5 percent! At high resolution, a reasonably small area can rapidly contain lots of pixels, for example if we were to image a 20kmx20km area *known* to hold the lander, that would mean 400 million pixels at 1m/pixel, or 1.6 billion at 0.5m/pixel. Oh, and
Re:White Rabbit (Score:2)