The Phoenix Has Landed 369
Iddo Genuth writes "Precisely at 7:53PM EST, the "Phoenix Mars Lander" touched-down on the desert-like surface of Mars. Since its launch on August 4th, 2007, the spacecraft has covered more than 680,752,512 kilometers, traveling at average speeds of around 120,000 km/hr. Upon arriving at its destination, the Phoenix will begin its exploration of our intriguing neighbor planet, in a mission to help astronomers resolve at least some of the many questions regarding Mars. The key question remains: can the Red Planet support some form of life?" Hella grats to our nerd brethren — you looked great on the Science channel. Yes I'm watching this live. Can't wait to see what happens next.
Update: 05/26 03:0 GMT by KD : zof sends a link to the first pictures from Phoenix.
Update: 05/26 03:0 GMT by KD : zof sends a link to the first pictures from Phoenix.
Doesn't even have to be live life... (Score:5, Interesting)
But then... what if they do find evidence of life? I mean large, complex forms of life, not some fossilized bacteria that everyone will debate and bitch about. That's what I'm hoping they dig up.
Enormous congratulations to them all (Score:3, Interesting)
Ever since I read the Mars Trilogy (red, green, blue) I have really hoped that it could come true in some way like those books show. (not all the bad obviously)... I would love to see it start, I really would.
Amazing how short sighted ppl are (Score:5, Interesting)
A couple of days ago, I mentioned that the reason for human missions to the moon was because of uranium/plutonium. Yet, ppl were upset about what a waste human missions were without realizing that we could fire up new MUCH LARGER missions to mars and elsewhere and let them use plutonium. I never bought off on W's idea that the moon would be a good launch pad based on the hydrogen that is there. But if we have LOADS of plutonium, that is a different matter. We can easily rail launch missions combined with large amount of energy via plutonium without worrying about it being spread all over the earth's atmosphere. Hopefully, at some point, Americans realize that one idea does not need to preclude another. For instance, human missions do not need to prevent robotics from going (or vs. versa).
Re:Doesn't even have to be live life... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Doesn't even have to be live life... (Score:5, Interesting)
It also provides a map of population density in the world. Another article provides information on the surface area of the Earth. [wikipedia.org]
Approximately 29.2% of the surface is dry land. 13.31% of this land is arable, with only 4.71% supporting permanent crops.
148,940,000 km is dry land. (1.940 x 10^14 mÂ)
Assuming a buried person takes up 1 square metre.
Assume that there have been 120 billion skeletons buried all over the place (125 minus 5 billion still living).
Then you have 1.20 x 10^11 / (1.940 x 10^14 mÂ)
which gives 1.20 / 1.940 x 10^-3
or 0.000618556
6.18556 x 10^-3
So, you have a 1/1616 chance of finding a skeleton. Your odds will be affected by the cultural traditions of the local population, the local geology (limestone will dissolve bone). The natives might think twice about burying tribe members on farm land.
Re:Enormous congratulations to them all (Score:3, Interesting)
did anyone else notice the logo? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Doesn't even have to be live life... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Amazing how short sighted ppl are (Score:3, Interesting)
Although there are certainly applications for nuclear power on interplanetary spacecraft, I don't think that it would have been appropriate for a small stationary scientific probe.
Once the probe has done its stuff, and examined the surface around its landing site, there's not a whole lot much more it can do. Mission accomplished.
And even as much as fears regarding nuclear power may be overstated, Plutonium is, and will always be pretty scary stuff. We don't want to contaminate our atmosphere, oceans, and land, and also don't want to do the same to the surface of Mars.
Public perception also plays a role. Can you imagine if Columbia had been carrying a substantial amount of fissible material? The entire state of Texas would have been launched into a state of mass-hysteria, even if the containment vessel remained intact. NASA would be dismantled within a week.
Although Spirit and Opportunity are somewhat limited by their power source, they have indeed been overwhelmingly successful missions.
Launch failures are increasingly rare, though not quite reliable enough yet that we shouldn't err on the side of caution. Radioactive materials have been released into the atmosphere before as a result of launch failures, and although it's not the end of the world, it's also something we should avoid if we can.
It's all about managing risk. Nuclear power is risky, and thus NASA avoid it unless it's necessary for the mission.
Credibility of TFOT site?... (Score:1, Interesting)
I found this particularly interesting since I have a second window open, and I'm watching the -relativistically speaking - "live" coverage from JPL on NASATV. In this coverage, they have JUST begun to get images of the solar panels a few minutes ago... And from what I can tell, none of them look like the "third person" photo on the TFOT site. Tried to post a comment to this effect on TFOT, but couldn't.
*sigh* this all must have been faked just like the lunar landings....
NASA web site (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyway it's great to see they pulled it off. It's weird how so many space shots worked on the first try and then we totally blew the next half-dozen tries. I blame the Martian strategic defense system.
Re:And then the next story (Score:3, Interesting)
Phoenix Mars Lander Touched Me Liberally
Oh wait, that's kuro5hin.org. Never mind.
Re:Pictures (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:lander, not rover (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Again, EXACTLY. (Score:3, Interesting)
It would be much simpler, safer and cheaper to simply put a small nuclear reactor in the spacecraft. Tiny reactors use ordinary cheap weapons grade uranium fuel. Before the reactor is turned on, the virgin fuel isn't even significantly radioactive, so no launch issues. Unlike RTGs, the power output of reactors can be adjusted as needed.
The Soviet Union launched a few dozen nuclear reactors into orbit in the 1970s that are still whizzing over our heads. IIRC, they had a power output in the range of hundreds of kilowatts. It's straightforward and mature technology, and it would be a good way to get rid of the excess weapons grade uranium that we have stockpiled from the cold war.
Re:live (Score:4, Interesting)
the principal investigator of this effort, Peter Smith of the university of Arizona, does not have a Phd.
His credentials are ofcourse amazing, but it just happens he is not a dr.
Re:Doesn't even have to be live life... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Pictures [color] THEY'RE HERE... (Score:2, Interesting)
You mean tinted, or 2-filter? They don't look tinted, for I've experimented with tinting myself on other mars missions and have learned to spot the difference, barring careful retouching. It does appear that some of the originals were taken through different filters, but its not clear which filters and how many.
Re:EXACTLY. (Score:3, Interesting)
It has simply been easier for us to buy the stuff from Russia over the last couple of decades. (This probably has had the beneficial side effect of keeping some of their nuclear technicians gainfully employed.)
Re:Pictures (Score:2, Interesting)