Mars Express Successfully Deploys First Boom 116
Psiolent writes "As reported yesterday, the Mars Express team is beginning the antenna deployment process. The BBC reports that the satellite has successfully deployed the first boom of the primary antenna. The article also states that 'the mood amongst instrument team members is now said to be positive, following the problem-free deployment of the first boom.' The second boom of the primary antenna is scheduled to be deployed Sunday."
Wasn't really much of a boom, really (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wasn't really much of a boom, really (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Wasn't really much of a boom, really (Score:2, Informative)
You need a medium to transmit your sounds through
But on the spacecraft, you HAVE a medium: The spacecraft itself.
I bet that there are some kind of acceleration/attitude sensors which picked the 'sound' of the boom deployment up.
Re:Wasn't really much of a boom, really (Score:2)
Re:Wasn't really much of a boom, really (Score:3, Funny)
Re:You just lost your geek license (Score:1)
but.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:but.... (Score:1)
Re:Reported Yesterday? (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, there wasn't a "Who gives a flying fuck?" option.
Re:Reported Yesterday? (Score:3, Funny)
I don't know why Slashdot Editors are held to a standard they have never EVER reached. 'Tis a strange world you live in.
Falling standards (Score:1, Interesting)
Remember the day when an entire manned space flight going without a hitch was barely considered newsworthy?
Prior to the Challenger explosion, it seemed almost inevitable that mankind would simply get better and better at putting men and objects out into space.
Since then, we've had blurry telescopes, lost probes, crash landings, re-entry burn-ups, space station fires, metric conversion errors, and a plethora of other
Re:Falling standards (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Falling standards (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Falling standards (Score:2)
Re:Falling standards (Score:5, Insightful)
It's only pathetic if you judge the space program in terms of cool stunts, which for the most part is what the manned program has been. In terms of collecting data for scientific purposes, we've mapped Mars, photographed the outer planets, and had the Hubble peer at planets outside our solar system. All done with automated "toys" like rovers, probes and orbiters.
So real space exploration doesn't look like "Star Wars". Tough shit. Grow up and get over it.
Re:Falling standards (Score:2)
We've been sending humans to LOE for 40 years or so, and that makes it old and not that innovative. Robot rovers on the other hand are a new thing, especially in the sense of exploring another planet. If anyone thinks doing so is easy they are a fool who has seen too
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
Re:Falling standards (Score:2)
Also the knowledge we'd gain from finding life or its remains on Mars is far, far greater than what some half-assed manned mission could ever hope to achieve.
Personally, I'd love to go to space although going to another planet is iffy. Given current technology such a journey would not
Re:Falling standards (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Falling standards (Score:4, Insightful)
No matter important we humans think we are, a robot or a computer is much better suited to the task of exploration. They don't need feeding, they don't need oxygen, or gravity. A computer doesn't get bored, it doesn't make human errors, it can explore for decades in outer space and won't go insane. Think a human would last long in a pod on Mars? How long 'till he opens the door to commit suicide?
We could explore the entire galaxy without a human even leaving LEO.
As for finding habitation for when the Earth is hit by an asteroid, what makes you think that an asteroid-hit Earth in a perpetual global winter will be any less of a habitable place than Mars? If you can live in a 'space city' on Mars with artificial oxygen/water/food generation, you can do the same on Earth, with less hassle if something goes wrong.
Space isn't like on Star Trek or Star Wars, it won't be full of exciting planets all with Earth gravity and human-breathable atmosphere, filled with aliens who both look and sound like humans, and speak English or have a perfect translator. Space is largely a dead and empty place, planets are years of travel apart, inter-stellar would take decades, and you wouldn't find much when you got there. Space-stations or planet/moon habitations wouldn't be nice places to be. There'd be little or no gravity, you'd spend most of your time floating around, shitting and pissing in tubes, and eating re-hydrated powder.
Even if there was a largely-pleasant space-station to live on, within a few months the novelty would wear off and you'd be begging to go back to Earth, even if just to breath fresh air or to feel rain.
Re:Falling standards (Score:2)
Re:Falling standards (Score:1)
(It seems our machines are better situated to survive than we are.)
Re:Falling standards (Score:2)
Re:Falling standards (Score:2)
*raises hand*
Re:Falling standards (Score:5, Insightful)
I've personally been anxiously awaiting the Marsis deployment since last year. This "very tiny part" should hopefully settle the question of whether or not there are bodies of subterranean water currently on Mars. I don't know about you, but I consider the possibility of Martian aquifers quite exciting.
What was the biggest triumph of space exploration in the last ten years?
There's plenty of options:
* the first landing on an asteroid
* the discovery of bodies of water in the past of Mars
* the first privately-funded suborbital human spaceflight
* the first landing on Titan
* the first in-space test of an ion propulsion engine
* the discovery of and first images of extrasolar planets
* the discovery of a sub-surface ocean on Europa
* the collection of dust samples from a comet
* high resolution (10m) maps of the Martian surface
No, our highwater mark for the last ten years is a solar-powered toy car which rolled around for a few days on the surface of Mars. Pathetic.
And Einstein was a guy who thought about stuff for a while and wrote them down.
Re:Falling standards (Score:3, Informative)
Brett
Re:Falling standards (Score:2)
Re:Falling standards (Score:2)
Re:Falling standards (Score:1)
But those were more exciting! (Score:1)
Re:Falling standards (Score:1)
Thank you -- that was great. (Seriously)
Re:Falling standards (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Falling standards (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember the day when an entire manned space flight going without a hitch was barely considered newsworthy?
Yah, I also remember a day when ALL of Nasas resources were dedicated to one single mission, rather than a 100-200. You just think it might be a bit easier to accomplish one single goal while dedicating all your resources to it than it is to work on 100 things at the same time? We spent billions upon billions of dollars for a guy to play golf on the moon and get some rocks back. That's great, and we learned a lot but in terms of science it was peanuts compared to the science we get from all the missions being worked on now.
Since then, we've had blurry telescopes, lost probes, crash landings, re-entry burn-ups, space station fires, metric conversion errors, and a plethora of other humiliating failures.
True. We've also had wonderfull sucesses. We fixed the "blury telescope" in orbit, and have upgraded it several times since. We've STILL got two robots wandering around Mars far after they were designed to operate. We had a probe land on a moon of Saturn, had another probe land on an asteriod, and have another set to crash into a comet. We've got another probe set to orbit mercury for the first time ever. Oh, and we've got a small armada of probes set to be sent to mars over the next few years. Compared to the "glory days" where we also had massive failures like rockets exploding, I think we're doing damn well. As far as past failures, if you want something with that's a bit safer, try something a bit more easy like designing ashtrays.
No, our highwater mark for the last ten years is a solar-powered toy car which rolled around for a few days on the surface of Mars
Quite a manipulative way to put it. The rovers have produced an enourmous amount of information on the geology of Mars in the more than a year they've been active. We never would have gotten the evidence for liquid water on Mars we have without being able to move around the surface.
But you seem to be more upset that we're not doing "glamorous" things like going to the moon, or producing pretty pictures of Saturn. If all you care about is sexy space stuff, I'd suggest one of the fine eye-candy sci-fi movies hollywood puts out. Nasa is in the business of science, and partially in the business of manned exploration. Creating "Star Trek" isn't in that mission.
Re:Falling standards (Score:2)
It is doubtful that full scientific potential of any space mission can be fulfilled without a human component.
More resources always increase the scientific potential of any mission. More money, more time, more talented engineers, whatever. The key is of course getting the most scientific
Designing Ashtrays? (Score:1)
Re:Falling standards (Score:5, Informative)
Here's some examples of what you conveniently forgot:
- Two rovers on Mars, which have covered more than 10 km so far, combined, and taken tens of thousands of high resolution photos and other measurements, found solid evidence of past water, and expanded our knowledge of our closest neighbor so much that it will take years and years to even fully comprehend it all
- Huygens landing on Titan
- Cassini's elaborate tour of Saturn which is revolutionary in how much it teaches us about how the solar system came to be
- High resolution mappings of the moon, Mars, Jupiter & moons and Saturn & moons, as well as a few asteroids
- Vast amounts of experience about large scale construction work (crucial to planetary missions) and long duration living in space
- Near 100% track record of current satellite launchers, such as the Titan, Delta, Soyuz and Ariane rockets. Majorly improved from the days of Apollo
- Major advancements in adaptive optics in telescopes, which give ground based telescopes close to equal resolution to the Hubble
- First private flight to space
- The arrival of commercial companies in larger scale to the space business (Orbital Sciences, SpaceX, Starsem, etc.)
- A high number of new members of the space launch capable countries; India, Japan, China, and soon Brazil, South Korea and probably many others I've forgotten
Pretty much the only thing we haven't done is go to Mars or continue going to the moon. But going to the moon always has been a topic that is very hard to understand for many. Because it's so much further away than low earth orbit, people assume that going there is equally much more complex and hard. That's simply not the case.
The biggest challenge by far in space exploration is getting heavy equipment to go fast enough that it stays on orbit. To get to low earth orbit, you have to reach a velocity of nearly 8km per second. And the main challenge here is that you're launching through a thick atmosphere. Once you're in low earth orbit, getting to the moon only requires a very small (proportionally) amount of additional velocity. You don't burn the engines all the way to the moon - you just light them up for long enough to accelerate 2 more km/s. To go to Mars, just a tiny bit more velocity still is needed compared to going to the moon.
The navigational challenge of going to the moon is actually quite simple. We're doing orders of magnitude more complex things right now with probes like Stardust, NEAR, Cassini, Gallileo, all of the Mars probes, and for example Rosetta. Compared to what those have done in terms of navigation, going to the moon is child's play.
And of course, to land on the moon and go back to earth, all you have to do is change your velocity a little bit more. But since the moon's gravity is low and because there's no atmosphere, it's way easier than launching a rocket to space from earth.
ESA's Smart-1 probe is a good example of what we can do today. It went to the moon using less than 100kg of fuel, and using pin-point accuracy navigation. It did so hitching a ride on an empty slot of a rocket that was putting up a couple of satellites in geosynchronous orbit. With less than 100kg more fuel, and a lot of smart people, it's nor orbiting the moon.
That's how far we've come from the Challenger days. That's what you're calling pathetic.
And sure, we've had some problems too. But no more than we used to back in the Apollo days. Or have you forgotten Apollo 1, Apollo 13, Gemini 8 spinning out of control and making an emergency landing, Friendship 7 (Mercury) failing to jettison the retro rocket pack and nearly burning up on the way down, Aurora 7 (Mercury) running out of fuel, Liberty Bell 7 (Mercury again) having a hatch just suddenly blow after landing, without being commanded to do so, half the Ra
Re:Falling standards (Score:2)
No, our highwater mark for the last ten years is a solar-powered toy car which rolled around for a few days on the surface of Mars.
I am generallly critical of the current US space program, but the Mars rover missions are truely historic. "Roll around on the surface for a few days", you say? They have been alive for almost 1.5 years! They have discovered and imaged evaporite rocks, salts, dust devils; climbed up hills, into craters, probed rock outcrops, got stuck in sand dunes...! This is success beyo
Re:Falling standards (Score:1)
Stay tuned folks... (Score:3, Funny)
The primary antenna's second boom is now due to be deployed on Sunday.
Stay tuned folks. We'll find out late next week whether today's boom deployment will have been successful.
Happy Scientists (Score:2, Funny)
Antenna salute (Score:3, Funny)
"boom" (Score:1)
No boom today... (Score:1, Funny)
Mars Empress Successufly Deploys First Bomb (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Mars Empress Successufly Deploys First Bomb (Score:2)
No boom Today... (Score:1)
You know what they say.. (Score:1)
"If there is life on mars, the dutch will find it" (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:why is it (Score:3, Informative)
It's an ESA mission, not NASA. The fact that this is the first ESA mission to Mars makes it slightly more newsworthy, ESA has never worked at these distances before.
Re:why is it (Score:1)
Re:why is it (Score:5, Insightful)
How would you suggest anyone "guarentee success" with anything when the most you can do is mitigate risk through testing? I would say the biggest problem NASA has, is educating taxpayers who have an unreasonable expectation of perfection because they once wrote a flawless "hello world" in highschool.