One of the coolest things I have ever seen ...

[m0ds]

Not bad! But if they can detect and photograph "Earth II" in the nearest other galaxy to us then it feels pretty unimpressive that they can only catch a tiny lander falling on to Mars.

None the less, I'm excited to see what they find out about water under the surface. And what aliens they ressurect etc..

[Tuomas]

And if they find a new earth, first thing they'll do is build a mine and a walmart next to it.

[evenwolf]

Currently a thread about one guy trying to quit smoking is holding more interest than a mission to Mars.  People are downright RESENTFUL we landed on Mars to examine its surface.

From what you hear on this forum,  you'd think that all the Earth related questions could be answered on Earth.   This is not so.     The Moon for example, because it is a dead body from the time the Earth was created...  has answered many unanswered Earth questions.  There was 26,000 pages of data from one Moon mission alone.  You just can't quantify the expenses to shoot a rocket into space.    Not when we're dealing with the origins of the Solar System.



Not Mars.... the Moon!                    Credits: Jose Suro

The Moon has informed us about the birth of our own planet for instance.  It's taught us about the density of Earth.... that at some point a piece of the Earth's Mantle probably was hit by another planetary body and exploded off the Earth.  It *possibly* became much like Saturn's ring until it condensed into one body now known as the Moon.   The Moon has taught us that the Earth is riddled with craters that have since been recycled and buried by rock.     It's told us that our own atmosphere has shielded us from the little impacts that are evident on the Moon.  A moon %2 the size of Earth wouldn't have been hit by meteors MORE than the Earth afterall.   But because ours is a living planet,  our geologic records are not as well preserved as the Moon or Mars.  Mars has a recorded geological history that is not preserved here on Earth.   The planets were all created at the same time.   Some because of their size and proximity to the blast lost certain gases.    The similarities between Mars and Earth should be quite exhilarating.    If humans have ANY intentions to ever colonize either the Moon or Mars, these missions play front and center to that research.  We must know what ingredients are there....  one Mars rover will not cover all that information.   We need many more before ever trying a manned mission.

The fact that Mars *might* have sustained life at any point in the last 4.5 billion years is of great interest to us.    To indicate not only what leads to life on a planet, but also what lead to life on our planet.

Because the Earth is *alive* and our geology recycles itself,  we don't see but a fraction of the meteorite craters on Earth.  Whereas a dead planet like the Moon or even Mars has entombed its own planetary history in rock that has not recycled. (as much... the Moon does have some movement.. old craters are covered by new ones)   In some ways, these planets hold even more information on the creation of the Solar System than our own planet.    They might teach us of events in our own Solar System, such as gravitational changes, early planetary collisions, ANYTHING really would add to our views on the universe.   

So anyone's comments that reflect the sentiment "Earth can answer its own questions on Earth"   I find quite misinformed.      Mars and the Earth are twins in the sense that they were born on the same day, figuratively.    You assume that Mars, unless it has guys that look like us,  is useless. 

This sentiment is not very progressive.   If you resent the fact that humans were responsible for Walmart... and find this a good reason not to explore space.  Well what can I say.    What a self destructive sentiment to live by.

[Nacho]

I think it's amazing how much hungry african kids could be fed with the money spent to aquire that photo.

You never thought that advancing is science is also a path to finish with the famine in the world?

I mean, probably going to Mars and shooting a photo isn't, but that spirit is...

[space boy]

I think it's amazing how much hungry african kids could be fed with the money spent to aquire that photo.

Why does this have to come up, everytime a new scientific advance is made? And it's always feeding african kids. Never feeding indian kids, or finding a cure against alzheimers or protecting rainforests. Yes, there are problems in the world. But there are organisations that take care of those problems. NASA is not a charity organisation. Stop with those hippy kindergarten arguments.

[Darth Mandarb]

Millions upon millions of dollars come from the US to go towards the fight against hunger!  It's not an issue of money being spent, but rather the resources those nations (the ones receiving the money) put forth.  I've heard countless stories of food rotting on the docks because the governments of those nations are just as greedy as the rest of the world's governments and the food rots and their people continue to starve.

Just because there ARE starving kids in Africa (or anywhere) doesn't mean the JPL rocket scientist, who's life-long dream is of space exploration, should be forced to use his talents to fight hunger.  It's a mis-use of resources in my opinion.

I also think/agree with Nacho ... space exploration holds the key(s) to solving many of the earth's problems.

I personally think it's a HUGE tragedy that we went to the moon almost 40 years ago and have done jack-shit since.  Nothing but low earth orbits (with human passengers). 

If NASA came to me tomorrow and offered me a seat on a mission to Mars I would leap at the opportunity.  No matter the risks.

We're stagnating on Earth ... it's time to broaden our horizons.

[LimpingFish]

Isn't Barack Obama, providing he's elected President, planning to divert funding from NASA to pay for his proposed education plans?

This could be the last we see of Mars for a while.

Why he doesn't plan to divert vast sums of funding from the US military remains a mystery...

[evenwolf]

Diverting funds from the US military?   One sound bite that says "I'll take all the Armies money and give it to fund education" would kill him in November.   This is a candidate who has been pounded again and again for lack of experience.   And for being too liberal, not a good war seasoned vet like McCain.    No such thing will be proposed and its no mystery.   Its called *political suicide*.

Limping:  http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26647

None of the 3 candidates are highlighting Space Policies.  This one issue is pretty much the only thing I disagree with Obama about.   He has said that going to the moon "is no longer inspirational."    It inspires me.   I don't know about you.   But there is a good point that space disasters put everyone off.   So sending rovers is probably a good move for now.

The lackluster policies for space travel are due to present day economic woes, I feel.     AGSers' negative comments show me just how uninspired people are by space travel.  When I was a kid I would have DIED to attend Space Camp.   It's amazing that a planet full of Star Wars nerds can say "been there, done that"   when they haven't.   They haven't even scratched the surface.

[Quintaros]

This fall I saw how uninspired people are about space travel.  I was in Orlando the week of a launch and there was no anticipation from people.  I missed it because I didn't even know about it and only saw the exhaust trail after hearing a few onlookers excited "woo!"s.  There was maybe 2 minutes of local news coverage on it later that day.

I do have an apetite for science and don't lament every dollar that is spent on a space program.  I recognize the positive technological off-shoots. 

There is an assumption used often in science fiction that goes something like:  "Any civilization advanced enough for interstellar travel must also be peaceful." 

I guess I look more forward to that than I do to the actual travel.

[evenwolf]

Because of science fiction, humans are sensitive to *destroying* other planets and civilizations.   That it is the overwhelming theme of sci fi.   That of two alien races, one will be more threatening.


But if you ponder the "fact" that we've soiled the earth... that much is true only of certain species.   An asteroid will one day wipe us out completely and all human effects on the Earth will become a blink in the left eye of the planet.    Another ice age perhaps and all our toxins and greenhouse gases will be no more.

So in this sense, having a sustainable colony *anywhere* but the earth doubles humans chances of survival.  And humans could hardly do much damage to a dead planet like Mars.   ... not that there's sustainable life there.  But it would certainly give us practice or a space port in which to further explore the Solar System.

[evenwolf]

I think it's amazing how much hungry african kids could be fed with the money spent to aquire that photo.

I think its amazing the amount of hungry children in your own city could have been fed with the cost of your computer.

[Quintaros]

About a year ago, a friend asked me if I thought we could colonize Mars and my reply was:  "Earth has everything going for it and we can't even sustain it."

I don't worry about us spoiling other planets.  I'm fine with colonizing other worlds once we've proven we can manage our own.  

Lately I've been seeing the world's problems as being social and economic but I'd like to return to a mindset that said:  "Scientific discovery will provide solutions."

Maybe you're right and the key to learning how to manage earth is by studying other worlds.

[Jeopardy]

Maybe you're right and the key to learning how to manage earth is by studying other worlds.

Well Mars especially is an excellent example of what can happen to a planet, scientists conjecture that Mars was once very much like Earth, We can learn from Mars, find out how it got that way, and work to prevent it on our own.

Yes, I love the idea of colonising other worlds, as soon as we figure out as much as we possibly can about our, Space Travel still excites the same way it did when I was a child, but if I die before we colonise Mars, knowing that we have spent that time trying to improve our own world I won't mind a bit.

[InCreator]

I think its amazing the amount of hungry children in your own city could have been fed with the cost of your computer.

I think you're being a dick.

Those costly space programs come nowhere near donation a single individual. As a taxpayer, I've fed my kids alright.
If I was an American, I would be quite disappointed of getting a crappy photo for my tax money.

[evenwolf]

So let's look at the rhetoric.

"I have a budget set aside for feeding my family."

"I have a budget set aside for buying a computer."   These are two separate budgets? Correct?


Great, we're making headway.   First - imagine that your computer could be bought for half the price but it would not operate if you paid that price.    So not a fully functional computer.  Likewise, imagine that NASA set aside a budget to land a rover on Mars, but only built the thing to go halfway.

These are two totally different budgets.  1. Starving kids  2.  Mission to another planet.   

Not a lot of wiggle room.   "We can do without milk" DOES NOT = "We can do without rocket fuel."

And there's 9 planets in the Solar System.   If you think we should be focusing on a closer planet to Earth then maybe you have a point.   We'll spend half the money and travel to that planet.  It's a sound opinion.

But unfortunately I don't respect your opinion since your computer and internet service are denying starving children in Ethiopia.  That's according to your own logic, so I'll be taking your word for it.

[Quintaros]

Reducing the space program's funding doesn't mean trying to go to Mars with no rocket fuel.  It means splitting the project into phases that are executed over a longer time span. 

[evenwolf]

Sure. I was just making an allegory.  NASA's budget and ending world hunger are not the same

Is solving world hunger a matter of shipping Doritos to Africa?   No.   To solve world hunger with our existing food supplies is IMPOSSIBLE.   Even if we sent all the food in the US overseas, the overall effect would not be "Yum, yum, the world is full! Thank you."  It would be "More Please!" The whole idea of ending world hunger tomorrow is  rather idealistic.

Instead, research should be done to double the yields of  Earth's crops.  There are researchers doing this.  Namely Dr. Norman E. Borlaug, Founder of the World Food Prize who  "struggles to integrate the various streams of agricultural research into viable technologies and to convince political leaders to bring these advances to fruition."  Dr. Borlaug studies the use of genetically modified crops and he actually receives a lot of harassment because some view genetic crops as immoral.    The irony?

You might see a hippy with 2 bumper stickers on his car.

"End World Hunger!"

"Organic Foods Only"

So here's a researcher trying to feed millions of people.  There is a feasible means to do it.   Using science.   Then there's group of people saying "You can't feed them that.  That's unnatural."   These people are starving.  Why not?   Besides its food.   There's a massive contradiction and its similar to this Mars conundrum.

People want to end world hunger.  World hunger =  lack of sustainable resources for humans.   Traveling to Mars consists primarily of researching "sustainable resources for humans"   

But people generalize it as "dumb pictures of a robot on Mars."   Utterly naive and backpedaling. 

Yes we should spend more money on researchers like Borlaug.   But will doubling or tripling Borlaug's budget instantly result in the end of world hunger?    No.   Neither would using a time machine and giving George Washington Carver a ferrari.     This is a ridiculous analogy but the point is this.   Research takes a nimble mind and many many mistakes.    We're working on world hunger.   Should we allot more money to solving the problem?  Yes.

Should we cancel all feasibe NASA missions and throw a bag of money at another group of researchers who are working steadily towards their goals?   Well no.  NASA is necessary for many many good reasons... including sustainability ( again, the same overall goal - different process. )

Let the two groups of researchers do their jobs without trivializing their great work.


http://www.worldfoodprize.org/about/Borlaug.htm

[Quintaros]

Let the two groups of researchers do their jobs without trivializing their great work.

I wasn't trying to trivialize their work.  Your attempt at allegory seemed to mire your point.  You're much more compelling when you play it straight.

[evenwolf]

Not directed at you Quint.   Your comments have been well thought out IMO.   You've clearly pondered what's going on rather than generalize it as stupid.    That post was directed at the people who like to imagine the Phoenix Rover as an RC race car doing wheelies on Mars.

"Mission Control:   Did you fucking see me GRIND the rim of that crater! Next up: Wake boarding on the methane oceans of Titan!"



P.P.S:   I <3 Titan.  Possible future Earth?

[evenwolf]

I think I've actually been to the place in the first picture. Isn't it near Flagstaff, Arizona?



I see what you're saying, guys. It's a huge accomplishment to succesfully send something to a different planet. I just find the pictures totally unremarkable. Does NASA have some kind of rule against color cameras in space? I realize that special hi-res equipment like that used for the original landing photos probably uses grayscale for technological reasons, but I mean, those two last pictures evenwolf posted - they actually have a camera on Mars, and we can't even get to see a trace of red?

You can clearly see the lack of erosion on the Martian crater.   You picked a great image to compare the Martian one too.    Moon and Martian craters teach us about meteorites & Earth.    That particular Flagstaff crater must be relatively young since we can still see it.    Most other craters have been recycled by erosion and tectonic movement. That's why studying these *unaltered* craters on Mars is so valuable.  It can't be done on Earth.

But the lack of color and quality of the picture?  You're absolutely right.   The idea wasn't to look cool.   

NASA guy: "They're black and white pictures meant primarily to tell whether our deployments successfully occurred. "

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/blogs/20080525.html

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9951860-7.html

------------------------------------------------
"The spacecraft's speed relative to Mars increased from 6,300 miles per hour at 8:30 a.m. Pacific Time to 8,500 mph at 12:30 p.m., headed for a speed higher than 12,000 mph before reaching the top of the Martian atmosphere."

Shockley joked in his blog about the spacecraft's energy efficiency. "At a time when gas prices are soaring," he wrote, "Phoenix is getting good fuel economy at about 2 million miles per gallon."

"In entering the thin Martian atmosphere and heading to the surface, Phoenix faced these tribulations: "aeroshell braking" via friction with the atmosphere that would heat it to thousands of degrees, a parachute opening that would give the lander a hard jerk to slow it further, and pulsing retrorockets tasked with making a soft touchdown."

-------------------------------------------------

12,000mph to 0 mph?  And you guys scoff at this?  You don't realize how much smaller the Martian atmosphere is.   Its not parachuting to Earth.  Its going  ALOT faster and the dangers are much more severe.  AND IT WAS COMPLETELY AUTOMATED.    The NASA team didn't even know it was a success until 15 minutes later when they got the delayed signal it was a success.

So the picture is beautiful.  Just like Darth said.   And I'm sorry many of you can't see the true beauty in it.