New Mars Lander to Touchdown Next Weekend

  • Thread starter Thread starter FoolKiller
  • 138 comments
  • 10,071 views

FoolKiller

Don't be a fool.
In Memoriam
Messages
24,553
United States
Frankfort, KY
Messages
GTP_FoolKiller
Messages
FoolKiller1979
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356629,00.html

LOS ANGELES — Like a miner prospecting for gold, NASA hopes its latest robot to Mars hits pay dirt when it lands Sunday near the red planet's north pole to conduct a 90-day digging mission.

The three-legged Phoenix Mars lander fitted with a backhoe arm is zeroing in on the unexplored arctic region where a reservoir of ice is believed to lie beneath the Martian surface.

Phoenix lacks the tools to detect signs of alien life — either now or in the past. However, it will study whether the ice ever melted and look for traces of organic compounds in the permafrost to determine if life could have emerged at the site.

Before this robotic geologist can excavate the soil, it must first survive a nail-biting plunge through the Martian atmosphere. Despite the rousing success of NASA's twin Mars rovers, which landed in 2004, more than half of the world's attempts to land on the planet have failed.

"It's kind of like first-day jitters," said Ed Sedivy, program manager at Lockheed Martin Corp., which built Phoenix. "There's a lot of excitement, but there's also some nervousness."

The spacecraft's main tool is an 8-foot aluminum-and-titanium robotic arm capable of digging trenches 2 feet deep. Once ice is exposed — believed to be anywhere from a few inches to a foot deep — the lander will use a powered drill bit at the end of the arm to break it up.

"It'll be a construction zone," said mission co-leader Ray Arvidson of Washington University in St. Louis. He predicts the ice will be "as hard as a sidewalk."

The excavated soil and ice bits will then be brought aboard Phoenix's science lab. It will be baked in miniature ovens and the vapors analyzed for organic compounds, the chemical building blocks of life.

The last time NASA did tests for organics it was on a hunt for extraterrestrial life in 1976 with the twin Viking spacecraft. No conclusive signs of life were found.

On this mission, Phoenix will also probe whether the underground ice ever melted during a time when Mars was warmer and wetter. If Phoenix finds salt or sand deposits, it might be evidence of past flowing water.

Phoenix's landing target — a broad shallow valley in the high northern latitudes comparable to Greenland or northern Alaska on Earth — was chosen because if organic compounds existed, they're more likely to have been preserved in ice.

Researchers do not expect to find water in its liquid form at the site because it's too cold.

"The polar region is a great preserver," said principal scientist Peter Smith of the University of Arizona, Tucson. "Just as in your kitchen you preserve your food in the freezer, so the planet preserves organic materials and the history of life ... inside of the ice."

On Sunday, Phoenix will punch through the Martian atmosphere at more than 12,000 mph. Over the next seven minutes, it will use the atmosphere's friction and a parachute to slow to 5 mph.

Seconds before touchdown, Phoenix will fire its thrusters for what scientists hope will be a soft landing. If all goes well, ground controllers expect to hear a signal at 7:53 p.m. EDT.

Smith calls the entry the "seven minutes of terror."

"Try holding your breath for seven minutes," he said. "It's plenty of time to get very nervous."

The last time NASA tried a soft landing on Mars, it ended in disaster. In 1999, the Mars Polar Lander was angling for the south pole when it prematurely shut off its engine and tumbled to its death.

The loss, coupled with the earlier failure of the Mars Climate Orbiter during NASA's "faster, better, cheaper" era, forced the space agency to scrap another lander and restructure its Mars exploration program.

Phoenix, named after the mythological bird that rose from its own ashes, was cobbled together from the mothballed lander mission in the wake of the back-to-back failures.

Barry Goldstein, project manager at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, said engineers extensively tested Phoenix's systems and instruments to minimize risk of failure.

"Since we inherited a lot of hardware, we spent a lot of effort in testing this vehicle and understanding how it works," Goldstein said.

If successful, Phoenix would join the twin rovers Spirit and Opportunity on the Martian surface. Together, the rovers have traveled more than 10 miles in their four years exploring opposite sides of the equator. They have uncovered geologic evidence that water once flowed at or near the surface of ancient Mars.

Unlike the six-wheeled rovers, Phoenix will stay in one spot. The cost of the mission is $420 million, excluding the $100 million NASA sunk into the canceled predecessor. Phoenix will communicate with Earth through the two NASA orbiters circling the planet.

Once on the ground, the 772-pound Phoenix will wait 15 minutes for the dust to settle before unfurling its solar panels. Then it will hoist its weather mast and beam back the first images of its surroundings.

Over the next several sols, as days are known on Mars, it will check its instruments and stretch its robotic arm to scoop up the first soil sample. A Martian day is about 40 minutes longer than a day on Earth.

By around sol 10, Phoenix will dive into the digging phase that is expected to dominate the rest of the mission, excavating about two hours a day.

While scientists say there's a chance Phoenix could live a month or so beyond its 90-day mission to see late summer or fall, it won't survive as long as the rovers.

That's because its solar panels won't produce enough power to keep it alive during the Martian winter.

Said Arvidson: "Its feet will be embedded with dry ice and the sun will be below the horizon."

As the success rate of these kinds of landings are low I am giving this at best 10/1 odds of surviving.

Does anyone know if we have worked out the bugs in these soft landings? Or is this one slightly different than past attempts? And could cold polar temperatures affect the parachute?

And why can't we just go with the giant bubble crash landing thing like the rovers used?

And is such a short mission (~90 days of study before it becomes too dark to recharge with solar power) worth the $400+ million?

Anyway, thoughts?
 
I always wonder. Why do we keep sending crap to Mars? Is there anything actually on Mars worth collecting or going to or are we just wasting a ****load of money cause we're curious if Mars ice is the same as the ice in our freezer.

I'm going to sound like a hippy but when we have billions of starving people on earth, I'm sure there are much better ways to spend $520 million, than to see if a bacterium existed 5 billion years ago, 5 billion miles away.
 
I always wonder. Why do we keep sending crap to Mars? Is there anything actually on Mars worth collecting or going to or are we just wasting a ****load of money cause we're curious if Mars ice is the same as the ice in our freezer.

I'm going to sound like a hippy but when we have billions of starving people on earth, I'm sure there are much better ways to spend $520 million, than to see if a bacterium existed 5 billion years ago, 5 billion miles away.
Except of course it can lead us to possibly better understanding human origins, which may even have side benefits toward medical science. If we discover something in the genetic coding of a bacterium on Mars that could cure cancer is it worth it?


Complain about the space agency all you like, and I agree we have a large amount of waste in NASA, but there is a lot of life saving technology being used today that came from space science that may not have even been looked at for decades more if NASA hadn't done it.


Of course, if the Spanish government had told Columbus that he had to go to India in the traditional route because the money for his expedition could be better spent feeding the poor...
 
I think half a billion dollars is a reasonable sum to spend on such a mission, given the amount of information a successful mission will obtain, life or no life. I guess half a billion is peanuts in today's money - we Britons chuck away 20 times that amount every year on food we never eat... :sick: Yes, $500 million dollars could help alot of people for a short time, but it's also money very well spent on this mission too, given that the alternative is to stop looking for these sorts of things altogether, and have our species become a bunch of cosmic hermits...
 
I'm sure there are much better ways to spend $520 million, than to see if a bacterium existed 5 billion years ago, 5 billion miles away.

If humanity determines that bacteria existed on Mars 5 billion years ago, it will be the single greatest discovery ever achieved by mankind.
 
They can have a Mars Meet! Spirit, Opportunity, and Pathfinder can hangout with Phoenix and chill.

If humanity determines that bacteria existed on Mars 5 billion years ago, it will be the single greatest discovery ever achieved by mankind.
I thought they proved it already; wasn't there there a recent discovery of a meteorite that landed in Antarctica many years ago, that showed traces of bacterial existence?

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lpi/meteorites/life.html

Edit: Never mind, it wasn't really proven. But close...
 
Half a billion is money very very well spent IF it lands, but if it does burn up or something on entry then future funding may be a lot less forthcoming.
 
Half a billion is money very very well spent IF it lands, but if it does burn up or something on entry then future funding may be a lot less forthcoming.
Isn't it amazing how close complete success and abysmal failure are?

I hope the retro's from DQuaN's post are all working on Monday or there will be a new crater on Mars.
 
Half a billion is money very very well spent IF it lands, but if it does burn up or something on entry then future funding may be a lot less forthcoming.

First rule of government spending: if it didn't work, you didn't spend enough. ;)

Seriously, a failed mission is not a good reason to stop trying.
 
Why is every mission to find the same stuff.. like 'signs of life'.... have they not found anything already!?.. its seems like after every mission no knowledge has moved on..

Basically spendings billions to see if the place has moss is ludicrous in my eyes...

Robin
 
Why is every mission to find the same stuff.. like 'signs of life'.... have they not found anything already!?.. its seems like after every mission no knowledge has moved on..

Wow, it's hard to imagine being more wrong. Every single space mission (even spectacular failures) has advanced our knowledge. A mission like MER doesn't just look for signs of life, it looks for geological history on mars. It helps us understand how mars formed, what mars's history is like, and how it's similar to Earth.

Some missions, like the Cassini mission, aren't really looking for signs of life. They're investigating the internal structure astronomical bodies, chemical composition, keys to formation and history etc. etc. Cassini never expected to discover life. It attempted to discover the secrets of saturns rings (how they're formed, what causes them, their composition), and saturn's crazy moons like Titan and Iapetus.

Phoenix is attempting to understand the internal structure of mars by drilling into the surface. Life is not the only knowledge it's searching for. It's also looking at chemical composition, and clues for Mars's history. Every piece of data it returns will help us better understand the formation of our solar system.

The search for life, for understanding of the origins of our solar system, or for understanding the early stages of chemical and geological development on Earth, are some of the most important research avenues we pursue. It's a legitimate function of government and a noble pursuit.

Unlike the attempt to steal from the rich and feed the poor, which is an illegitimate function of government and unjust (and we spend far more of our rich people's money on that).
 
I guess I get frustrated with the lack of info that we gain from missions particularly to Mars....... every time they go they say we are going to find out if there was life.... they have been saying this since like 1995!

Nasa is never going to release anything 'juicy' its all going to be top secret (bad example Transformers Movie :sly:)... so all we hear is stuff like oh we found some microscopic moss, or channels were water used to be... all very unimpressive stuff considering the huge cost..... Then they show pictures which could have been taken in Utah!

Im all for the space race and colonizing other planets etc but seriously soil samples don't thrill me! Its a bit like Time Team (the archaeological programme) they try and make stuff some a lot more fascinating than it is... Oh look at this piece of mud! :lol:

Bloody send some men to Mars... now that will be amazing!

Robin
 
I guess I get frustrated with the lack of info that we gain from missions particularly to Mars....... every time they go they say we are going to find out if there was life.... they have been saying this since like 1995!

*gasp* that's sooooooooooooo long ago! You want to find life? We'll you've had 13 years already!

Nasa is never going to release anything 'juicy' its all going to be top secret (bad example Transformers Movie :sly:)...

Uh... no. NASA is basically transparent to the public. They discover it, it gets posted on the NASA webpage almost immediately.

so all we hear is stuff like oh we found some microscopic moss, or channels were water used to be... all very unimpressive stuff considering the huge cost..... Then they show pictures which could have been taken in Utah!

Im all for the space race and colonizing other planets etc but seriously soil samples don't thrill me! Its a bit like Time Team (the archaeological programme) they try and make stuff some a lot more fascinating than it is... Oh look at this piece of mud! :lol:

Dude, that's real science. It's not science fiction, this is how real useful knowledge is obtained.

Bloody send some men to Mars... now that will be amazing useless!

Fixed.
 
First rule of government spending: if it didn't work, you didn't spend enough. ;)

Seriously, a failed mission is not a good reason to stop trying.

+1.

500 million? When we spend billions watching useless movies like... errh... "Transformers"? :lol:

Government expenditure is huge, but if you want to feed hungry people, you can start by taking all that extra money people spend on Starbucks... :lol:

Knowledge is power. And however much you spend acquiring it, knowledge gained is a resource that keeps on giving. If absolutely every last spare cent available in the world could be spent on space exploration and the development of newer, cheaper, more cost-efficient ways of sending man into space, that would be ideal.

Sending man into space isn't useless either. A few million years down the road, we may have to, anyway, to ensure our ultimate survival as a species.
 
The search for life, for understanding of the origins of our solar system, or for understanding the early stages of chemical and geological development on Earth, are some of the most important research avenues we pursue. It's a legitimate function of government and a noble pursuit.

Unlike the attempt to steal from the rich and feed the poor, which is an illegitimate function of government and unjust (and we spend far more of our rich people's money on that).

Reminds me of a lyric from "Inner City Blues" by Marvin Gaye, which seems to address both of these issues in the first verse... seems to disagree with you on the first point, but agree with you on the second!

Rockets, moon shots
Spend it on the have nots
Money, we make it
'Fore we see it, you take it...

As for Robin.'s comments, I'm disappointed in you Robin.! :indiff: Danoff is right to say that real science appears alot more mundane than science fiction, but meaning is everything...

Titan_surface.jpg

This image is something that few people would consider worthy of making an avatar out of, yet it's a more staggering image than most you'll see today... The fact that the picture is not very exciting to look at it doesn't take away from the fact that this is the surface of an alien world, where, for all we know, life may currently exist. If you took a picture during a dust storm in Utah and it came out identical to this, you'd chuck it in the bin (oh, how terribly old school of me!)... sorry, you'd probably delete it from your flash card and give up the career as a nature photographer. But it's not a picture of Utah.... it's not even from Earth, or the Moon, or even Mars... and that fact alone makes it a billion times more interesting as a picture...
 
Basically spendings billions to see if the place has moss is ludicrous in my eyes...

The discovery of complicated, multicellular life on a world the size of the Earth's core, with little atmosphere, one-third Earth's gravity and no magnetic field, 50 million miles away would be spectacular.
 
The discovery of complicated, multicellular life on a world the size of the Earth's core, with little atmosphere, one-third Earth's gravity and no magnetic field, 50 million miles away would be spectacular.

I would have thought it greatly increases our current thoughts on what a habbital zone is, and increases our perceptions of the poetential chances of life in around the universe
 
Amongst many and varied other things, yes.


Ludicrous is something it certainly isn't.
 
I thought that they’ve already confirmed the existence of water cells millions/billions of years ago (not flowing water, but some evidence that past life probably existed). Come on... When are they going to release those robotic solar-powered A.I dragonfly explorers? :)
 
Its a bit like Time Team (the archaeological programme) they try and make stuff some a lot more fascinating than it is... Oh look at this piece of mud! :lol:

Welcome to the science of archaeology. I get very excited when I find a soil change that isn't supposed to be there because it sometimes indicates human activity in the past. You can learn a ton just from looking at dirt.

===

As for the mission, I support it 100%. I used to kind of be a downer on NASA but the more I've looked into it, the more I see a use for it. I agree that if we were to find solid evidence of life on Mars, it would be the single greatest discovery ever, to know that we aren't alone in the universe (I don't believe for a second we are, but without evidence it's just a best guess).

One thing I would like to see in the future on Mars is an archaeology/paleontology excavation to see if there are any remains below the surface. Life could have existed million or even billions of years ago on Mars and we just can't see the remains. As I've said this has to be way down the road.
 
Eek, that landing does look like it has a very high risk. I hope it works! :scared:

Sending man into space isn't useless either. A few million years down the road, we may have to, anyway, to ensure our ultimate survival as a species.

People seem to assume that we are ultimately going to survive. Space exploration is the only way it’s going to happen, but personally I find it hard to believe we’ll ever inhabit another solar system. Everything is just too far away.

Stations on Mars, sure. But beyond this solar system I don’t know if it will ever happen. And we need to get out of this one to survive in the long term.
 
It's possible. Currently, it's not cost-effective to live out in the vacuum, but eventually, with manufacturing and food-production techniques developed in vacuum, it just might be possible to seed colonies in orbit. All it takes is the ability to reach critical mass... maybe a few hundred people or more... or a thousand, if we don't have good enough technology... to start expansion.

Oh... the technical challenge isn't really the distance... well, it's part of it. It's how to keep people alive outside the biosphere that's the problem. If we can't run self-sustaining colonies on solar-power alone, it may never happen.

Whether its us, artificial life developed by us, or something else entirely... leaving at least one "Kilroy was Here" floating out in the universe (be it a probe, a space colony, a beacon, etcetera) for other savants to see some millions or billions of years from now, would, I imagine, be the ultimate and most significant accomplishment of mankind.

Come to think of it... Voyager was our first "Kilroy". But it's 2008. We really ought to leave something better... :lol:
 
The thing about solar power is that the further away from the sun you get the harder it is to harness, so I don’t see it being the technology that will get us out of this solar system and keep us alive. It will have to be nuclear power IMO.

And yeah, whether we can create a self-sustainable environment in a giant canister floating in space, well… that’s quite the challenge.
 
If we want to have any chance i think we need to figure out ways to travel. Im certainly not qualified to say anything and i dont know the difference between sci-fi and reality but things like

worm holes
time / space bending
stargates :lol:

Because even travelling at speeds of light isnt enough to get out of our solar system.
 
Relativistic travel to the rescue! Even though nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, a person could theoretically travel immense distances even in their own lifetime at sub-light speed.. although I don't profess to fully understand how, if someone accelerates at 1g (increasing speed by 9.81 m per second, every second), they would approach something like light speed after not too long. Travelling at ever increasing speeds, the way you would perceive time would become increasingly different to how an observer on Earth would perceive it... so there's good news and bad news...

The good news is that you could actually physically travel from one side of the galaxy to the other, which takes light 100,000 years to do, in a little over 12 years - but you couldn't stop to look around... if you wanted to "visit" a point 100,000 light years away, it would take about twice as long... and if you then wanted to return, the round trip would take about 50 years... A round trip to the nearest galaxy (M31) and back would take 60-70 years at this accel/decel rate... So, in theory it is possible, even without breaking the speed of light limit...

The bad news is that although you would have experienced only 50 years, you would actually have been away for 200,000 years as experienced here on Earth - and hence your former home world would almost certainly be a very different place on your return. Countries as we know them would no longer exist... Humanity may no longer exist, or exist in a recognisable form - you'd be as alien to humans then as Neanderthals are to us... the planet may not even be there at all... and if it was, you could bet your library books would have accrued unbelievable overdue fines.. on the up side, however, perhaps a decent thread might have appeared at THA by then? (I know, this is a bit of a stretch of the imagination)... And as for intergalactic travel, a trip to M31 would age you 60-70 years, but you would actually have been away for 5 million years...
 
The bad news is that although you would have experienced just 50 years, the Earth would be 200,000 years older than when you left

I find this difficult to comprehend (Don't say anything daan). TM, Can you explain how that works?
 
Relativity:

Perceived speed of light is a constant.

A person standing still and having a bullet shot past him sees the bullet go by at incredible speed. A person flying at a speed just under the bullet's speed sees the bullet just a little bit faster then himself.

A person standing still (whatever "still" is) sees a beam of light go by him at about 186,000 miles per second. A person travelling at 185,995 miles per second sees a beam of light go by him at (drum roll . . . .) about 186,000 miles per second.

The way that happens is his perception of time is changed. It takes MUCH longer for a second to pass for him than it does for someone "at rest." So his perception of the speed of light is unchanged, even though he's approaching it himself. His clock slows down to compensate, so moments go by instead of decades.

Not applicable to Mars missions, but since a guy called Touring Mars brought it up . . . .

Oh, by the way, he becomes incredibly massive in this process as well, becoming more and more difficult to accelerate.
 
Back