Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Mars Space NASA

Mars Lander Snaps the Most Detailed Pics Yet 130

Posted by kdawson from the feeling-its-way dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The Mars Lander has taken its very first microscopic image of a piece of Martian dust (image). The particle, according to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, is shown at a higher magnification than anything ever seen from another planet. The piece of dust is a rounded particle about a millionth of a meter across. This particle is one of the countless specks of dust that continually swirl around the Red Planet, coloring the Martian sky pink. 'Taking the images required the highest resolution microscope operated off of Earth and a specially designed substrate to hold the Martian dust,' said Tom Pike, a Phoenix science team member. 'We always knew it was going to be technically very challenging to image particles this small.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mars Lander Snaps the Most Detailed Pics Yet More

Mars Lander Snaps the Most Detailed Pics Yet

Comments Filter:

  • 'Taking the images required the highest resolution microscope operated off of Earth and a specially designed substrate to hold the Martian dust,'

    How many microscopes do we know of which operate off of Earth?

    • Picture (Score:5, Informative)

      by iamlucky13 ( 795185 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2008 @02:46PM (#24662281)

      I don't know why so often we get articles linked to sources completely unrelated to the topic at hand. I understand and appreciate PCMag having articles unrelated to PC's occassionally for the edification of their readers, but there's no reason not to get a topical source for sharing on Slashdot. Space.com and spaceref.com are great news sites for lay-persons, and one thing NASA is generally outstanding about is having detailed, up-to-date, and accurate mission websites. [arizona.edu]
       
      /rant

      Anyways, I think calling this a picture affects readers' expectations. The atomic force microscope is a coordinate mapping tool rather than a camera. It uses tiny probes [arizona.edu] to sense the surface profile of a target and create elevation maps based on that data. It's more of a three-dimensional graph than a picture and it doesn't use light, but it can reveal much finer details than an optical microscope can.

      Here's a similar image [arizona.edu] to that linked in the summary overlayed with an optical microscope picture of the same area. Note that the optical microscope image is about 3 mm across, of a target of micromachined silicon that has a bunch of tiny pits, posts, and bumps intended to hold dust particles of different types. The atomic force microscope image is 100 times the resolution of the optical image.

      Actually, even the optical microscope on Phoenix is far higher resolution than any camera previously flown to another world, but the AFM takes the capability two steps further. Between the two, the Phoenix team is learning a lot about the soil on Mars that should allow them to deduce not only its bulk properties, but even hints about how it formed.

      By the way, the Mars Rovers have "microscopic imagers," but these are really more like close-focus cameras than true microscopes. Offhand I can't think of any other robotic space missions that carried microscopes.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Panaflex ( 13191 )

        Thanks for the info. I happen to enjoy the light space coverage myself - I don't have the time to watch the missions, and there is literally tons of info generated by NASA per day.

      • I don't know why so often we get articles linked to sources completely unrelated to the topic at hand. I understand and appreciate PCMag having articles unrelated to PC's occassionally for the edification of their readers, but there's no reason not to get a topical source for sharing on Slashdot

        Offtopic still, but I agree that's pretty annoying. It's right up there with the stupid articles which link to a blog which links to another blog which links to another blog...

      • Re:Picture (Score:4, Interesting)

        by moosesocks ( 264553 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2008 @11:01PM (#24668047) Homepage

        Kudos to NASA for doing this.

        We've got an AFM in my lab, and it's easily the most troublesome piece of equipment that I have to work with on a regular basis.

        It's slow, extremely sensitive to vibrations, and the tips have to be replaced frequently. What's worse is that it's not always all that clear when your tip's gone bad, unless you're calibrating between every image taken.

        The fact that they got one to another planet, and had it work properly without human intervention is pretty darn impressive.

        Phoenix seems full of some rather daring decisions by NASA. I'm still shocked that the suits approved their landing trajectory and location, which gave the craft about 50/50 odds of surviving the landing.

    • It is not a classic light microscope we're talking here but an atomic force one, and it's the first of it's kind.
      They did have ordinary microscopes on the diverse space stations.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by CraftyJack ( 1031736 )
      Spirit and Opportunity each have a microscopic imager, so that's two. Any more?

  • "Millionth of a meter" (Score:5, Funny)

    by blind biker ( 1066130 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2008 @01:58PM (#24661611) Journal

    It's called micrometer. I know, that sounds too sciency, sorry.

    • Re:"Millionth of a meter" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Muad'Dave ( 255648 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2008 @02:05PM (#24661729) Homepage
      In the US at least, we use that term for a device that measures very small things [wikipedia.org], a micro [=very small] meter [=that which measures]. It's pronounced 'my kromiter', not 'micro meter'. I think using it to mean a millionth of a meter would be confusing, regardless of it being technically correct.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I can just imagine a specification calling for a gap of 100 micrometers and a NASA contractor supplying 100 instruments...

      • I know micron isn't an official SI unit, but it sure as heck is better than "millionth of a meter". Otherwise just use micrometer and let context dictate whether it is a measuring device or unit of measurement.

        • I know micron isn't an official SI unit, but it sure as heck is better than "millionth of a meter". Otherwise just use micrometer and let context dictate whether it is a measuring device or unit of measurement.

          Like the cow?

          (does anybody still remember The Far Side?)

          • The Far Side is awesome, though I'm not sure to what cow you're referring.

            • Gary Larson (the Far Side author, I cannot believe that I still remember his name) mentioned that the cow has become a standard unit of measure. I don't remember the details, but it was funny, and he backed it up with years of TFS comics.

              • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

                by Smivs ( 1197859 )

                The Cow as a unit of measurement? What a load of bullocks!

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by Smivs ( 1197859 )

                  Just remembered, the Cow is a measure of liquids, easily divided by two. You know, "I'll have a heifer beer and a calf of Lager,Barman".

        • Micron isn't official, but micro- as a prefix [wikipedia.org] is. So micrometer is correct or micrometre [wikipedia.org]
          • So, like I said -- micron isn't official... Micrometre is incorrect in the United States, so micrometer it is. :-)

      • I think using it to mean a millionth of a meter would be confusing, regardless of it being technically correct.

        How is it more confusing than using "meter" in both the "unit of measurement" and also the "device which measures something" sense?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dotancohen ( 1015143 )

        In the US at least, we use that term for a device that measures very small things [wikipedia.org], a micro [=very small] meter [=that which measures]. It's pronounced 'my kromiter', not 'micro meter'. I think using it to mean a millionth of a meter would be confusing, regardless of it being technically correct.

        That said by someone who measures distance by the FOOT? [wikipedia.org]

        (
        As in: How many feet in a yard?
        Depends upon what's on the grill!
        )

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by geekoid ( 135745 )

          SO? A foot is a known standard length.

          How many meters in the yard?
          Depends on how much water they need to measure.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by lokedhs ( 672255 )
            It's only a "known" length if you're in the US... In the rest of the world, a "foot" is a pretty unknown unit.

            However, I think you'd have to stretch the word "standard" pretty far before you can even think of being able to apply foot to it...

          • SO? A foot is a known standard length.

            So is a micrometer. The point is that they both have objects that use their name.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        If you want to get technical, the correct way to spell the standard SI unit of length is "metre" [wikipedia.org], not "meter" [wikipedia.org], in most countries except the U.S. This leads to the convenient distinction that a "meter" is a device used for measurement (such as the micrometer you mention), whereas a "metre" is a unit of measurement. Therefore, a micrometre [wikipedia.org] is what you are looking for, usually abbreviated with the Greek letter mu, which I can't seem to get to display properly here, followed by an m. It is also commonly cal

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by lokedhs ( 672255 )
          I was just about to prove you wrong, because I was pretty sure that Slashdot had finally gotten the Unicode stuff right. But, alas, I was wrong. They still manage to mess it up.

          Oh well, it's a US site, so I wouldn't expect anything less from them.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Palshife ( 60519 )

        Are you afraid I'll think the particle is equivalent in diameter to a completely unrelated, unspecified device?

        If something is a micrometer across, then it's one millionth of a meter across. That's just common sense given the context.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by aybiss ( 876862 )

        Modded insightful!?!? Just proves this place is mainly yanks. Calling use of SI units confusing as opposed to realising that the vernier calipers or screw-gauge you are using have a proper name is possibly the worst violation of everything nerdy I've ever seen on slashdot.

        Stick to 'monkey wrenches' they are much more your style.

      • I always knew it as "micrometer screw gauge" in Singapore.

    • Re:"Millionth of a meter" (Score:5, Funny)

      by Eudial ( 590661 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2008 @02:05PM (#24661739)

      It's called micrometer. I know, that sounds too sciency, sorry.

      Meter sounds too European. A five thousand thousandth of a rod is colloquial enough for those imperialists to understand.

    • No, it's called a millimetre. From the french millimètre.

    • It's called micrometer.

      Also known as a micron.

    • No stupid, its 1.05702341(10^-22) light years (Score:5, Funny)

      by RudeIota ( 1131331 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2008 @02:53PM (#24662425) Homepage

      rounded particle about a millionth of a meter across

      Get it right.

      While we're at it, maybe someone would care to share arbitrary comparisons to help us visualize... like if we could line these particles up from the Earth to the Moon, it would take nearly 3.84403(10^14) of them! Or, if we encircled the Earth with these particles, it would take nearly 4.0008(10^13)! Amazing!!! It's all so clear now.

    • And a microscopic photo of dust would require a microscope just to see. I think they meant photo of microscopic dust. I'm guessing the article submitter wouldn't fare well in a programming language involving indirection.

  • wrong approach (Score:5, Funny)

    by larry bagina ( 561269 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2008 @01:59PM (#24661643) Journal
    When we wanted to analyze moon rocks, we didn't send a microscope to the moon, we brought the moon rocks to the microscope (on Earth). I think it would save a lot of time and money to just send up some astronauts to colelcts some dust and rocks and bring them back. I guess NASA needs to waste money to justify a bigger budget.
    • It's not like looking at dust is the only thing Phoenix does, you know. ;)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by arth1 ( 260657 )

        It's not like looking at dust is the only thing Phoenix does, you know. ;)

        Actually, it's not too far from the truth. Phoenix is a re-purposed duplicate probe from an earlier failed mission, on a shoestring budget. Thus, the capabilities of Phoenix are very limited compared to other probes. All it does is really looking at soil (dust) and ice (wet dust).

    • So you are saying astronauts should be interplanetary janitors and garbage men?

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by eln ( 21727 )

      Have you seen the ticket prices on a round-trip to Mars lately? No to mention if you don't upgrade to first class you get to spend the next 6 months with some guy drooling on you in his sleep from the seat next to you and some brat kicking the back of your chair the entire time. Not to mention, the hotel accommodations on Mars are poor at best, and ridiculously overpriced.

      Seriously man, maybe if the spacelines and the hotels could get their shit together and make it a worthwhile experience, you might see

    • launch day:

      "ok we're suited up and ready to go"

      "see you on mars guys! t minus ten minutes now"

      "say... this rocket looks kind a small... where's the return module?"

      "oh, it's hidden under that booster over there, don't worry about that"

      "no, i'm certain this craft is way smaller than schematics i've been shown... and it looks like we have enough fuel to only get to mars"

      "tick tock, tick tock, times a wasting guys, better get inside now"

      "look, here's the manifest, my gosh, we only have half the amount of oxygen

    • The nice thing about having the imaging device on the rover has to do with repeatability and lack of a need for supervision.

      With the rover there we can pick up all kinds of things and look at each one in turn, effectively making it so we can be examining stuff from when we start and for as long as we want, with the only limit being getting the stuff in front of the microscope.

      The second being that we don't have to support a human being on Mars. This mainly has to do with how long we can "look around" up th

      • we can be examining stuff from when we start and for as long as we want, with the only limit being getting the stuff in front of the microscope.

        Don't forget the Martian winter. The lander is a short duration mission, it won't make it through. There is definitely a time limit in play.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by zobier ( 585066 )

      When we wanted to analyze moon rocks, we didn't send a microscope to the moon, we brought the moon rocks to the microscope (on Earth).

      Unfortunately the process of bringing them back alters their chemistry [nasa.gov].
      It's very challenging to get samples back here unadulterated.

    • I guess NASA needs to waste money to justify a bigger budget.

      Considering that NASA operates on about 0.6% of the GDP ($17.318 billion) [wikipedia.org] and that a typical space shuttle launch burns around 835,958 gallons of liquid propellants costing NASA around $450 million per launch [nasa.gov] I think that they are doing quite well with their meager budget. Especially once you factor in the fact that if it wasn't for their splurging on the ballpoint pen you would still be using your No.2 Pencil and Big Chief writing pad. Not to mention the fact that the communist would have won the space rac [wikipedia.org]

  • Aka the cheapest microscope that we can put in a rocket.

  • Confucius say (Score:4, Funny)

    by Profane MuthaFucka ( 574406 ) <busheatskok@gmail.com> on Tuesday August 19, 2008 @02:02PM (#24661687) Homepage Journal

    Confucius say "Sending giant rocket to see little piece of dust like bringing mountain to Mohammad."

  • Is it just me, or is there apparently very little science in that picture (to my untrained eye, anyway)? It shows the size of the particle, true, but very little else, IMHO. I guess I was underwhelmed by the picture - I was hoping for more resolution to show any texture of the particles.

    Has anyone seen any hard science out of this mission yet? I see press releases, but no spectrographs or elemental makeup data on the soil samples baked so far.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by ZBM-2 ( 185783 )

      Looked like a little kid's drawing with MS Paint. I'm was actually hoping for a picture of something.

    • Psst. At least it's red!

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by jellomizer ( 103300 )

      I think when I get home Ill Photoshop a dust mite on it and really shake the world.

    • Seriously?

      Ok, how about confirming beyond any reasonable doubt that there are significant amounts of water ice just inches below the surface? Or the discovery that mars soil is very similar to some soils here on earth but also has some toxins that will need to be nutrilized if we ever decide to grow something there.

      With the exception of major discoveries proven beyond any reasonable doubt, Scientists don't like to publish speculation, and until the papers are written and peer reviewed that's all they are.

      • Take it easy, cowboy! I meant there was very little science in just that one image, not the whole mission. I know that eventually papers will be written, but I'd like some preliminary data, like raw spectrographs, etc. They release raw images, why not raw datasets? They teased us with the whole perchlorate thing - why not give us the raw data?
  • I was expecting to see a speck of dust, and instead I see flaming green projectiles [nasa.gov] landing on a red carpet.

    Are these simply toxic meteorites, or did the gov't slip up and accidentally post photos of aliens arriving at the Martian Academy Awards?

  • ... Species II started?

  • What! (Score:3)

    by Smivs ( 1197859 ) <smivs@smivsonline.co.uk> on Tuesday August 19, 2008 @02:20PM (#24661943) Homepage Journal

    Well, it's not what I expected. I kinda imagined a tiny rock.

  • In case of slashdotting . . . (Score:5, Funny)

    by PeeAitchPee ( 712652 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2008 @02:24PM (#24661985)
    . . . here's another view of the piece of the Martian dust: .

  • Damnit (Score:1, Redundant)

    by Kingrames ( 858416 )

    Mars is not pink.

  • Source info and images (Score:5, Informative)

    by sighted ( 851500 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2008 @02:41PM (#24662199) Homepage
    The original source for this story is here [nasa.gov]. Updates and raw daily images directly from the team running the mission are here [arizona.edu].
  • Mars is made of Legos!

  • Am I the only one who raised an eyebrow at the image they used in the article?

    Headline: NASA: Mars Lander sends most detailed Martian pics yet

    Followed by what I suppose is an artists rendition of Mars from far enough away that it only takes up a quater of the image.

    That's no speck of dust, that's a fucking planet!

  • "NASA: Mars Lander sends most detailed Martian pics yet"

    Gotta love the picture they used to illustrate that. "Most detailed pictures yet!" *low res picture of the whole planet.*

  • Stop the presses! I see a face in that pic!
  • And how much did that cost us? Come'on, dismantle NASA and let private pioneers launch space ventures. This is becoming ridiculous, individuals launches spaceships for a fraction of the cost that NASA do. Lets face it, NASA may have once been a great institution. But that was then, now they can't compete and ought not even try.

    • And to further that line of thinking...

      Turf all funding to the arts, atheletics, and social sciences. Anthropologist, archaeologists, sprinters, and sculptors have no beneficial impact on our society.

    • Maybe we should wait until private pioneers can actually launch something into space without catastrophic disintegration.

  • about a millionth of a meter across.

    What is it, like a microyard?

  • To see a World in a Grain of Sand
    And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
    Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
    And Eternity in an hour.

    http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/blake/to_see_world.html [poetryloverspage.com]

  • I've not seen any dust with colours like that go into my hoover.
  • Has ANYONE read the caption !! C'mon folks, this is an atomic force microscope. Read and learn. Please.

Slashdot Top Deals

THEGODDESSOFTHENETHASTWISTINGFINGERSANDHERVOICEISLIKEAJAVELININTHENIGHTDUDE

Close