Phoenix Digs First Mars Soil Sample To Analyze

An anonymous reader writes "Nearly two weeks after its historic landing, the US Mars probe Phoenix has scooped up its first sample of Martian soil and begun analyzing it for water and organic compounds. The test dig made Sunday by the Phoenix Mars Lander's 8-foot-long robotic arm uncovered bits of bright specks in the soil believed to be ice or salt. Mission controllers will send instructions to the lander to dump the sample into one of the Thermal and Evolved-Gas Analyzer (TEGA) ovens. The TEGA ovens, which are about an inch long and the diameter of a pencil lead, will heat up the soil samples and use a mass spectrometer to detect the gases that come off the samples, which will shed light on some of the materials in the soil, specifically those formed by the process of liquid water."

Dig it, baby!

[Anonymous Coward]

I first read that as Phoenix really getting a kick out of the sample. Man I'm old.

Re:

[Tablizer]

I first read that as Phoenix really getting a kick out of the sample. Man I'm old.

HIPPY SCIENCE NEWS

Today the Phoenix lander told NASA that it digs soil samples. The scoop's teeth made the rocks really groovy. The filter screen ended up stoned when removal of smaller particles left big pebbles behind. Too many pebbles have made scientists leary of further experiments until the problem is understood. Mars is more than 50 million miles away right now. Thus, its far out, man.

I wonder what kind of flyer miles I'll get?

[Majik Sheff]

Perhaps some day in my lifetime we can get some feet on mars. God only knows it won't happen in the current climate.

Re:

[mopower70]

There's a good chance that in your lifetime the current climate will become like Mars'.

Re:

[mazarin5]

Unlikely. However, our climate could end up like Venus's with a big enough push.

Re:I wonder what kind of flyer miles I'll get?

[physman_wiu]

We have the technology to get there, but not really the drive. Why spend billions of dollars to get there to just find out that there is nothing there? That would be a big slap in the face to the space program. Sure I want to get there as much as the next guy, but from a politicians point of view there is no real need. Right now there are more important things to take care of (like teaching common sense in Washington.)
The only reason why we are pushing to go back to the moon is the Chinese. Same reason as we made it there last time. Just a different country.

Re:I wonder what kind of flyer miles I'll get?

[Lumpy]

We have the technology to get there, but not really the drive. Why spend billions of dollars to get there to just find out that there is nothing there? That would be a big slap in the face to the space program.

Yup you're right. The Apollo missions were a HUGE FAILURE and a giant slap in the face to NASA. Everyone was pissed that we did not find anything on the moon.

Sarcasm aside, Going to mars now is as difficult as it was to go to the moon in the 60's. Cripe we went from "whats a rocket?" to "I can see my house from here" to "hey the moon really isn't made of cheese! it tastes like dirt!" in an incredibly short time with NASA back then. we need to take the same "steps" like that to gear up to a mars mission.

Re:I wonder what kind of flyer miles I'll get?

[rbanffy]

"Sarcasm aside, Going to mars now is as difficult as it was to go to the moon in the 60's"

I think it's much, much harder. In the 60s we had, basically, to build reliable rockets and spacecrafts for a week-long trip. In order to go to Mars, we need to build spaceships that go farther, faster and last longer. A LEM would not be able to get back to space if it stayed on the Moon for more than a month. We have never landed anything bigger than my desk in anything remotely like Mars. Those are really messy problems.

We could, probably, do it. But let's not say it'e easy. It's damn hard.

Re:I wonder what kind of flyer miles I'll get?

[quanticle]

Going to the moon was extremely difficult too. Remember, before the creation of NASA, the US had never launched anything into space, nor had we ever attempted to attain escape velocity. To go from zero, as it were, to craft capable of taking humans safely to orbital, and then escape velocity was a huge achievement.

By comparison, much of the prototype work for the Mars trip has already been done. We already know how to get to escape velocity, we've worked out the orbital mechanics, and we even know the basics of landing. Hell, the Viking landers figured all that out in the '70s. The big obstacle now is to make a life-support system capable of sustaining human life for the three month voyage. True, its no easy task, but I don't think it's more difficult than building a space program from scratch.

Re:

[Gavagai80]

Actually, half the spacecraft we sent to mars become craters -- not an acceptable risk level for a human mission. Also we've never sent anything to mars which returned to earth. Taking off again from a gravity well makes it twice as difficult as a one way trip. Plus there's the fact that a year of living supplies makes for a very large spacecraft, which then needs much more propellant too.

Re:

[quanticle]

Taking off again from a gravity well makes it twice as difficult as a one way trip.

That's true, but we've figured that out on our moon missions. Granted, the moon has a much smaller gravity field, but the same principles could be used to design a Mars lander.

Plus there's the fact that a year of living supplies makes for a very large spacecraft, which then needs much more propellant too.

Who says you need a single large craft? Why not send supplies ahead, and then send astronauts only when the supplies have either landed or are prepositioned in Martian orbit?

Re:

[rbanffy]

"the same principles could be used to design a Mars lander."

You would need a much larger mass in order to be able to take off too. In the Viking and Phoenix part of the orbital speed was reduced with parachutes, heat shields and, finally, rockets, that were used only in the final seconds of the trip.

A manned landing would require an entirely different craft. While it could rely on parachutes to do part of the landing, it would still need hefty rockets to climb back to orbit. Even if it doesn't carry enough

computers help

[Quadraginta]

I would say a huge difference between the 1960s and today is computational power. In the 1960s there was no ability to simulate what would happen to various rocket designs under various conditions: you had to build one and try it, or, if that was too expensive, just go with a mix of safety factors and prayer. The difference in time, effort and money between sorting through engineering designs in silico and in real life is substantial. There's a good reason why Boeing was an early and enthusiastic purchas

Re:I wonder what kind of flyer miles I'll get?

[kannibal_klown]

What's the big deal? Our space program doesn't really get much in terms of funding, especially compared to other Government programs. There's a lot of pork to cut from our budget, and if politicians start focusing on something that's a small part of a federal budget then I think they should first focus on the big blunders that got some of them rich (like the "Bridge to Nowhere").

In any case, Politicians should not be dictating what we peruse with science. They are not qualified and would let personal beliefs and "the bottom line" cloud their judgement.

As far as Science is concerned, learning that something is not there is just as important as learning as something is there. We learn something, maybe it has little value or maybe a lot. But we learn something that may be important down the line.

Not everything has to be quantified in terms of "what do we get out of it." And nothing should be quantified in terms of "what do we (the politicians) get out of it."

Re:

[physman_wiu]

Of course our space program doesn't get much funding. And I agree that our politicians shouldn't be the ones who pick where the fundings go. Unfortunately life doesn't work that way. The Human race by nature is not patient. The average person likes to see the immediate benefits with anything they do (whether it be starting a business, learning a language, or going to Mars.) The average person also doesn't understand the benefits that we get from the space program. They are not aware of the important role th

Re:

[utopianfiat]

Terraforming, brah. Terraforming.

Re:I wonder what kind of flyer miles I'll get?

[rbanffy]

"We have the technology to get there"

Erm... No.

We have no experience of long-duration space flight outside Earth's magnetic field. The longest (and only) manned flights outside it have been to the Moon and lasted only a couple days. We are talking about multi-year flight with little protection from cosmic radiation. We need to properly shield the spaceship or they will be cooked before they get there.

Even if we ignored that, we still need to build a spaceship that can carry astronauts to Mars and back, and that is not a trivial task. It has to be big enough to carry crew, supplies and spare parts for the redundant system. We are talking about something the size of the IIS, with a big engine attached to it. Even if we don't use solar panels and go nuclear (in violation of several annoying treaties), the spaceship required would be quite big.

There is also the question of the Mars landing. We have never landed anything there that's bigger than my desk. We are talking about a powered landing of several habitats, supply-storage facilities and fuel manufacturing facilities and the solar or nuclear power required to power them.

After the landing, we will also have to shield astronauts from cosmic radiation, since Mars have no magnetic field to speak of. They will have to be protected on the ground for the duration of the stay.

As for coming back, we will have to conduct a launch of a reusable, probably single-stage-to-orbit (as we want to cut down complexity as much as we can), vehicle. We never did that, but Mars has a more forgiving gravity than the Earth and we may already have the proper technology for that.

After that, the vehicle I just described must dock with the return vehicle (which may of may not be the same vehicle they arrived in) to return to Earth. They may carry additional Mars-made fuel in the lift-off vehicle if the weight budget allows and maybe use its engine to assist the return craft own engines.

As much as I would like to see it done next year, I know there is a lot of homework to be done before we can take someone to Mars and back.

It's hugely complicated.

Let's get back to the Moon first, make sure we have the technology to survive there for long periods and then venture on to Mars. A dozen dead astronauts won't help.

Re:

[physman_wiu]

"We have the technology to get there" Erm... No.

We do indeed have the technology. We know what we need to do and have the skills to be able to get us up and running. But yes, a lot of homework needs to be done, even a little research (like on how to properly shield astronauts from long term radiation effects.) I didn't mean to imply that we didn't. If a billions were pumped into the space program things would take off surprisingly fast. Say within a few years at least.

Re:

[Urkki]

We do indeed have the technology. We know what we need to do and have the skills to be able to get us up and running.

Call me cynical if you will (I prefer realist), but until we actually have the equipment built and working, in my opinion we don't have the technology. At best you could say that we may have the technology, unless there's something unexpected for which we need to develop new technology.

Technology is much more than just the tools. It's also the knowlege to put it all together. To analogize (is that a word?), just 'cos we have a hammer, nails and a pile of planks doesn't mean we automatically have the techno

Re:I wonder what kind of flyer miles I'll get?

[quanticle]

We have no experience of long-duration space flight outside Earth's magnetic field. The longest (and only) manned flights outside it have been to the Moon and lasted only a couple days. We are talking about multi-year flight with little protection from cosmic radiation. We need to properly shield the spaceship or they will be cooked before they get there.

That's a fair point, and one that I don't think that people emphasize enough. The difficulty of designing a life-support system for long term spaceflight is not to be underestimated.

It has to be big enough to carry crew, supplies and spare parts for the redundant system. We are talking about something the size of the IIS, with a big engine attached to it. Even if we don't use solar panels and go nuclear (in violation of several annoying treaties), the spaceship required would be quite big.

Why would the spaceship require an especially large engine? In space you don't have nearly the same amount of friction and drag that you do on Earth. Even relatively small rockets can be effective once you're outside the atmosphere.

There is also the question of the Mars landing. We have never landed anything there that's bigger than my desk. We are talking about a powered landing of several habitats, supply-storage facilities and fuel manufacturing facilities and the solar or nuclear power required to power them.

Who says we have to deliver it all in one giant load? It'd be much more effective to launch all of the supplies ahead of the astronauts and make sure that everything had landed properly before sending humans on their way.

As for coming back, we will have to conduct a launch of a reusable, probably single-stage-to-orbit (as we want to cut down complexity as much as we can), vehicle. We never did that, but Mars has a more forgiving gravity than the Earth and we may already have the proper technology for that.

Why does the orbiter have to be "reusable"? I mean, look at the Apollo missions - the lunar lander had a single-use return to Earth module. Shouldn't we use a beefed up variant of that design?

After that, the vehicle I just described must dock with the return vehicle (which may of may not be the same vehicle they arrived in) to return to Earth.

Assuming that you've got the life support requirements worked out (which you've had to do in order to make the trip out to Mars), this procedure is virtually identical to the procedure that the Apollo astronauts had to do in order to return to Earth. The LEM had to dock with the command module for the return trip. This is the same thing, only you're docking with something like the ISS, rather than the Apollo command module.

It's hugely complicated.

That it is, but you're forgetting that a lot of it has already been done

Let's get back to the Moon first, make sure we have the technology to survive there for long periods and then venture on to Mars. A dozen dead astronauts won't help.

How will living on the moon help us with going to Mars, pray tell? The moon is still inside the Earth's magnetic field, so it won't help us with the most pressing issue - designing a craft to carry humans through interplanetary space. And, as for the other problems, they were already all solved during the '60s. Why do we need to solve them again?

Re:

[Cassius Corodes]

Plus the commenting is atrocious. What the hell does ballastwasser mean?

Re:

[CowboyNealOption]

Why spend billions of dollars to get there to just find out that there is nothing there?

But then WE will be there. I looked at the cost of the recent mars lander; we are throwing away more than one lander every two days in Iraq.

Re:

[DerekLyons]

We have the technology to get there

That's what folks have been claiming since the late 1960's/early 1970's. Reality seems a little different, as going by the life support (and other [msn.com]) difficulties onboard the ISS... the odds are that at best the mission is limping and hoping they can reach home before something serious goes wrong and at worst are dead.

Re:

[physman_wiu]

Right now we have not tried to land anything extremely heavy on Mars. From the data from landing other craft on the surface it would be extremely difficult and a very big hurdle, though not impossible.

The best hope on the horizon for making the human enterprise on Mars possible is a new type of supersonic decelerator that's only on the drawing board. A few companies are developing a new inflatable supersonic decelerator called a Hypercone.
Imagine a huge donut with a skin across its surface that girdles the vehicle and inflates very quickly with gas rockets (like air bags) to create a conical shape. This would inflate about 10 kilometers above the ground while the vehicle is traveling at Mach 4 or 5, after peak heating. The Hypercone would act as an aerodynamic anchor to slow the vehicle to Mach 1.
Another alternative discussed at the 2004 Mars Road Mapping session was the space elevator.

http://www.universetoday.com/2007/07/17/the-mars-landing-approach-getting-large-payloads-to-the-surface-of-the-red-planet/ [universetoday.com]
Implimenting any of these technologies way to much seeing what the current funding is. But if were to only have a "do or die" kind of attitude then we definitely would be able to land

Re:I wonder what kind of flyer miles I'll get?

[jamesh]

Perhaps some day in my lifetime we can get some feet on mars

A foot we can probably manage now. A whole astronaut is probably even possible with current technology, maybe we could even get one there alive!

Getting the astronaut home again though is the real problem...

Re:

[maxume]

Getting the astronaut home is only a problem if you promise him that you are going to try.

I wouldn't do it, but I'm pretty sure that you could get someone willing to take a one way trip in exchange for their place in history.

Re:

[Gavagai80]

Then once he gets there he changes his mind and wants to live, and pleads for a recue mission on international TV... that creates horrible publicity for NASA and kills the space program.

Re:

[maxume]

It would be easy enough to provide him encrypted only communications equipment.

"Oh, uh, we lost contact" wouldn't quite be enough of a cover story, as the equipment would be able to make radio noise, but "Oh, uh, the equipment is on automatic." covers that.

Re:

[jamesh]

That wouldn't work. He'd wander around the planet for a bit and find one of the previous probes or rovers and then rig that up and communicate with earth at 300bps.

Maybe what would work is if NASA declared that the astronaut had a brainslug and was only trying to get back to Earth to infect the rest of humanity.

Re:

[MmmmAqua]

I would do it. Screw my place in history - I'd happily be recorded as Astronaut Ian Paul Freeley - it would be worth it just for the experience of getting off this rock and planting my feet on an honest-to-jebus other planet.

There's no greater opportunity for an explorer at heart. I think NASA/ESA/whoever would have more of a problem picking the perfect applicant than just finding them in the first place.

Re:

[elrous0]

And piss off the Martians? No thanks.

Re:

[rbanffy]

"God only knows it won't happen in the current climate."

I must correct you.

Everybody knows a manned Mars landing is ludicrous in the current geo-political climate.

Let's keep omnipotent, all-knowing, invisible super-beings out of this. ;-)

Re:

[f00dif00]

Phew - that was close....thanks!

Re:

[Tablizer]

Perhaps some day in my lifetime we can get some feet on mars. God only knows it won't happen in the current climate.

A compromise may be to send your ashes there. Some ashes of the discover of Pluto is currently bound for Pluto (flyby) inside the New Horizons probe. (I'd hate to be the guy who discovered Uranus, though. Who wants to brag about your anus going to Uranus ;-)
       

Re:I wonder what kind of flyer...(CORRECTION)

[Tablizer]

Correction: should be "discoverer", not "discover". (That word must have been invented by a stuttererer.)
   

A shame that the first attempt was a flop!

[BigBadBus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7442233.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Re:A shame that the first attempt was a flop!

[SpinyNorman]

Yeah - hardly "news" when it's:

a) days old
b) superceded by failure - aka wrong

Who'd thunk that at -80C - -30C stuff would clump together when there's moisture present?

Re:A shame that the first attempt was a flop!

[SiliconEntity]

They made it so they can shake the screen and hopefully get some material through. They just haven't shaken it yet, everything is done slowly and carefully and checked many times before they take the next step.

As for the ice, the digger has a sort of drill on it that is supposed to grind up the ice into fine shavings, and then those shavings are what will be picked up and dumped in. So when they are ready for ice, that should be in small pieces that can get through the screen. They have a bunch of ovens so even if this one stays clogged they can still use some of the others for the ice samples, which is more important.

If they can't get any dirt into the oven, they might be able to use the ice drill on the dirt to get some finer pieces if they want to try again on that.

Re:

[MrMr]

The sieve was probably not tested at martian gravity or they would have fitted one of these:
http://www.navco.org/ [navco.org]

Re:

[confused one]

Actually the platform does have one of these in miniature. It didn't work.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up. It's more up to date. The first digging happened several days ago (or sols ago, Mars time), they dumped the sample onto the open doors to the furnace/analyzer and ...

Nothing Happened

More specifically, the instrument did not detect any of the particles that should have passed through an infrared beam inside that is set up for detection of the sample. So, they figure that nothing went through the 1mm screen, and they are working on what went wrong.

Even that news is days old (Friday). As of

Hope it finds Oil...

[lobiusmoop]

'cause then an American manned mission to Mars would be guaranteed!

/ducks.

Re:

[elrous0]

You just gave me a great idea for a made-for-Scifi movie! Someone get me Caspar Van Dien and Eric Roberts on the phone!

Re:

[4D6963]

'cause then an American manned mission to Mars would be guaranteed!

On Soviet Mars, worn out jokes don't laugh at you.

Mod OP down.

[goodmanj]

*Sigh*. If you're going to use Slashdot to pimp your pointless tech blog, please at least make sure your information is up-to-date.

Latest news: dirt seems to be stuck, possibly too cakey to enter test chamber. Engineers are working on a solution.

Now where's *my* ten million site visits?

Re:Mod OP down.

[CraftyJack]

Better yet, skip the tech blogs and go to the source: http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/ [arizona.edu] http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/phoenix/main.php [nasa.gov]

Re:

[Goffee71]

I hope these aren't the same engineers that designed an oven the diam. of a pencil lead.
What the heck were they thinking? Now they need to send up a three year old, the only system known to man that can get mud into any hole that small.

Remember guys, dust and ice = mud

Re:

[xaxa]

I hope these aren't the same engineers that designed an oven the diam. of a pencil lead.

What the heck were they thinking?

Yeah, go metric! Silly Americans, with their inches and pencil leads.

To be fair, everything on NASA's website (e.g. in the press kit PDF [nasa.gov]) about Phoenix is in metric. The measurements have been butchered about by American media, the 1cm-long, 2mm-diameter oven is given as 1 inch long in the summary.

Also, they obviously have those pencils you give to children when they're learning to write, if they think pencil leads are 2mm diameter.

Re:

[argStyopa]

That was my first question when I heard how tiny the 'ovens' are...to get the soil into an oven aperture of 2mm is a non-trivial task, and already makes significant assumptions about the viscosity and granularity of the soil. I don't get that. I am not a space scientist, but mentally grabbing a small shovelful of soil from a number of different soils here on earth (let's even limit ourselves to the most dessicated soils) and trying to dump them into a hole the size of a pen-ink tube and successfully GET s

A Better Update...

[Tablizer]

Rather than complain about stale stories, link to newer ones. You may even get modpoints for it. Anyhow, here's the best update I've found so far:

http://planetary.org/blog/article/00001501 [planetary.org]

They are having problems getting the soil to go through the screen. Although one of the pod doors (insert HAL jokes) didn't open all the way, the soil appears to have reached the screen based on the images. They dumped an extra-large load to compensate for the jammed door. The problem is that the sensors did not detect any soil going through the screen. They are now trying to figure out if its the nature of the soil (clumpy?) or an instrument problem.

If its an instrument failure, fortunately they have 7 other "ovens" to try. Redundancy is nice.
       

Re:

[ColdWetDog]

Much better article. Thanks. Have you considered at editorship at Slashdot?

Re:

[Tablizer]

Thanks. Have you considered at editorship at Slashdot?

And be chewed out for accidentally letting dupes slip by or posting stale articles? Hell no :-)
       

Re:

[SpinyNorman]

If its an instrument failure, fortunately they have 7 other "ovens" to try. Redundancy is nice.

OTOH if it's a design failure, they're fucked.

Gotta wonder what made them go with such a tiny diameter oven and tiny admission size sieve. Would it have been so difficult to get a larger more clump/flow tolerant design to work?

Re:

[Tablizer]

Gotta wonder what made them go with such a tiny diameter oven and tiny admission size sieve. Would it have been so difficult to get a larger more clump/flow tolerant design to work?

My understanding is that the actual "oven" that cooks the dirt is very narrow. Larger pebbles could easily jam the entrance. Thus, they felt its better to filter dirt via a larger screen up-front than use the actual oven entrance as the filter.

OTOH if it's a design failure, they're [bleeped].

I'm sure they tested it with a var

Re:

[Autonomous Crowhard]

But ultimately, if there was just someone there to give it a whack, then there's be no problem.

Update 2: Vibrator works

[Tablizer]

The following image sequence confirms that the screen vibrator works, because the soil on the screen slumped down after a vibrating session. This rules out one device problem, but does not rule out problems with the soil detection sensor inside, below the screen. It appears they believe clumpy soil is the likely culprit for the problem and they are devising and testing work-arounds to use on the other ovens. This means they may abandon the first oven, at least for a while.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/p [nasa.gov]

dig down further

[192939495969798999]

Those bacteria in greenland were what, 2 miles into the ice? They're gonna need a longer digging arm.

Re:dig down further

[Anonymous Coward]

Those bacteria in greenland were what, 2 miles into the ice? They're gonna need a longer digging arm.

There are bacteria on the top too. You just didn't hear about it, because it's obvious there are bacteria on the top. Finding them deep in the ice was news.

Thanksgiving?

[Slimee]

"The TEGA ovens, which are about an inch long and the diameter of a pencil lead" I wonder if it can roast a turkey dinner...

Re:

[Tablizer]

"The TEGA ovens, which are about an inch long and the diameter of a pencil lead" I wonder if it can roast a turkey dinner...

Only if you rent a steam-roller, or invite McGuyver over for Thanks-Giving. (Just don't do both.)
     

Huhh?

[Kral_Blbec]

"process of liquid water"

Last I checked liquid water is called ice, is a noun not a verb, and the only materials that need to be present for it are hydrogen and oxygen.

Re:Huhh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I checked liquid water is called ice

perhaps you should check again.

Re:

[hkmarks]

Last I checked liquid water is called water, and is a noun and a verb. Ice would be solid water.

Not that that sentence makes any more sense.

Re:Huhh?

[Legion303]

"Last I checked liquid water is called ice"

Close! Liquid water is called "water."

Re:Huhh?

[nguy]

Last I checked liquid water is called ice

Maybe you should check again :-)

Re:

[Miladinoski]

There are 3 types of water:

• Liquid water - water in liquid [reference.com] state .
• Solid water - ice [reference.com]
• Gaseous state - water vapor [reference.com]

Re:

[squizzar]

Just to be awkward, I submit that ice is a verb and a noun, since one can ice a cake, things ice over and there is that song that rather confusingly suggests you should ice ice. Baby.

Mars Melting?

[SloWave]

Is it my imagination or is Mars melting?
If you look closely at recent pictures of the first trench it looks like the white stuff has melted. Also the sample in the scoop looks a little runny.

Re:

[Lumpy]

yes it is. the group "mars first" is scheduling a protest today about how all our recent landers and SUV sized rovers are ruining the Martian climate and creating global warming on mars.

Our thoughtless ways on mars is destroying the climate. Wont someone think of the..... the...... dust devils?

Re:

[smoker2]

I don't care how fucking runny it is !
Have you got some ??!!

Re:

[GonzoPhysicist]

I believe you're thinking of the Moon, not Mars.

Re:

[Tablizer]

it looks like the white stuff has melted. Also the sample in the scoop looks a little runny.

"Dammit, Jim, I'm a rocket scientist, not Betty Crocker!"
       

Why a lander?

[kidcharles]

Given how successful the mobile rovers have been, does anyone know about the logic of going with a stationary lander this time around?

Re:

[Overkill Nbuta]

The main reason is while wheels are nice they take up so much weight and room on the probe that there is much much less scientific gear you can carry.

Re:

[mapsjanhere]

Also, the rovers are too successful by NASA politics. Since they are working, the public and the scientific community makes them actually keep gathering data with it. That costs money that could be used for new projects.
Stationary systems can look only at so much horizon before people get bored. So maybe the unit can play tic-tac-toe in the dust for amusement.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have to worry about it lasting too long and getting boring. It will be encased in the polar ice cap when winter rolls around.

Re:

[confused one]

Cost and weight restrictions. Not to mention there's zero chance that Phoenix will survive the Martian winter.

Re:

[antdude]

Question: When is winter in Mars in Earth time?

Re:Why a lander?

[confused one]

It depends. Earth and Mars don't necessarily stay in lock step with each other. Also, a Martian year is approximately two Earth years. Mars axis tilt is similar to Earth's (25 degrees), so it has experiences seasonal temperature changes (more severe than Earth due to the lack of atmosphere which provides insulation and heat transport on Earth). The blog on the Phoenix lander web site basically comes out and says that in roughly 150 days (Martian days are nearly the same as Earth days) there will not be enough incident sunlight on the solar panels to continue operating the electronics and heaters. Phoenix will freeze to death.

Re:

[antdude]

Wouldn't it be possible to make a lander to hibernate for the winter with almost no power usage? Then, wake up when up the sun is available?

Re:

[confused one]

It would not survive the cold. We're talking -200 degrees at the pole, for months at a time. At those temperatures the batteries freeze and crack, components pop off circuit boards due to differences in thermal expansion rates, and mechanical joints (like those in the arm) get irrepairably damaged.

Re:

[antdude]

Ahh, that's cold. Too bad NASA can't design the hardwares to withstand that cold temperature. :(

Re:

[confused one]

What I didn't say before, is that a significant portion of the power budget typically goes to electric heaters. Without power there are no heaters. No heaters means boards and batteries fail.

Re:

[DerekLyons]

Two reasons. The first is, as the other poster said, the fairly steep mass and volume penalty paid for being mobile. The second is that there is no chance of an extended mission here - come winter, Phoenix dies. Period.

Re:Why a lander?

[compro01]

Not quite period. While the likelihood of it surviving is very low, they have planned for that eventuality by building in a "lazarus mode" to make it try to call back if it manages to survive the winter.

Re:

[rbanffy]

Because they were reusing a probe that was canned by the time the rover concept got proven?

Re:Why a lander?

[camperdave]

Contrary to popular opinion that there were weight/cost considerations, the reason is that a rover simply wasn't needed. As an example, if you're going to check whether a lake has fresh water or salt water, it doesn't matter where you take your sample. The water isn't going to be any different at the dock than it is in the middle of the lake, or off the far shore. Similarly, if you're going to test the composition of permafrost, you land in the middle of a permafrost field, and test. It's not going to make much of a difference if you test where you land, or test 30 metres to the left.

If the science goals called for a rover, they would have sent a rover, and the weight/cost considerations would have been modified.

Re:

[Tablizer]

Given how successful the mobile rovers have been, does anyone know about the logic of going with a stationary lander this time around?

As another reply pointed out, its expensive to have both roving abilities and decent on-board labs. For this mission, decent on-board labs won out because of the uniform nature of the poles. (The current rovers have no internal labs.)

However, NASA is working on a big-ass rover that has decent on-board labs. It's about 3 times bigger than the current rovers. But, its the mo

also spectacular new photo of Earth from Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/214812main_EarthMoon-browse.jpg

But the question is, where are the stars?

Apollo Project Financial Comparison

[Suzuran]

Apollo Project, Total Cost (1962-1973, 2007 USD): $114,758,279,830.00
Total NASA Budget (1962-1973, 2007 USD): $233,725,177,610.00
City of Tokyo, Japan Gross Domestic Product 2006: $1,191,000,000,000.00
City of Chicago, Illinois Gross Domestic Product 2006: $460,000,000,000.00
Taiwan's Gross Domestic Product 2006: $346,400,000,000.00
Estimated Cost of Space Shuttle Program at Retirement: $174,000,000,000.00
State of Iowa's Gross Domestic Product 2006: $106,346,000,000.00
Microsoft Corporation Earnings for 2006: $

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you post this over on the "Google makes you stupid" thread? This is a perfect example of data without analysis.

Re:

[Gavagai80]

Analysis: if sell Iowa, we can go back to the moon.

Oh no it's CmdrTaco!

[ChrisCampbell47]

CmdrTaco -

I have been reading Slashdot for all of your 10 years, so I think I've got standing to say this. Your other "editors" do a better job at posting stories, so please let them do it. Your posts are frequently either poorly chosen (as in this case), or have regettable editorializing at the end. Just let the other guys do post selection, or figure out some new way to stay involved with story selection without actually doing the posting.

Your audience thanks you for your continued efforts :)

Another Cock-Up?

[rubycodez]

the dirt landed on the outside of the lander but none made it inside the oven: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=5020876 [go.com]

I have the answer!!!

[turgid]

Now listen to me before the Vogons destroy the earth.

Here's how we win the "War on Terror" and get to Mars (and back safely) at a fraction of the cost of the war in Iraq.

So we, the West (unfortunately I'm a Brit and we don't do outer space but humour me please) send people to Mars and back on a long term project with permanently personned outposts etc. in a continuous cycle.

Hell, I'll volunteer to design the nuclear propulsion for the craft.

Meanwhile we carpet bomb the ignorant Islamofascist dictatorshi