Redstate

And they were an incredible success. The Phoenix lander is an entirely different type of spacecraft and I was worried about its EDL even more than the twin rovers, because each of them "landed" in what was basically a big soccer ball that bounced around on the surface until it found a good place to open up like a flower and pop out the rover.

This one came down in good old-fashioned "Lunar Lander" Style and that had me a little worried. Ticking of the meters in the final 20 seconds of descent, the thing is traveling so fast right up until the landing thrusters fire in the last few seconds that if anything goes wrong, it'll wind up making a nice, expensive crater. It's screaming along 1,000 meters, 900, 800, 700 almost as fast as the guy can read it off, and then it suddenly SLOWS WAAAAAAAY DOWN as it gets close to the surface.

Whew.

NASA is getting this "landing different kinds of spacecraft on Mars from 400 million miles away" thing down pretty well, I think.

http://www.frontiernet.net/~imaging/lunar_lander_game.html

Ahh the fun n/t

at the Atari site.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Because the previous missions with spacecraft of the Phoenix's design have ended in failure. It's named "Phoenix" for a good reason, and I admit to quite a bit of worry that the EDL would not go as planned. In this go-around they seem to have licked the problems, at least insofar as getting to the surface intact is concerned.

I found a site once with moving 3-D images from maritan orbit and stills from surface landers. These required red/green glasses (I just happened to have a pair in my desk). I don't know if there are stereo pairs available from the rovers,

I've always been fascinated by 3D imagery, and looking at the surface of another planet in 3D is almost too cool to bear.
________________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)

... also had some excellent live and ongoing coverage, and a decent web spread to boot.

absentee
Also Find Me Here.

and have been watching the NASA TV channel on Dish since then.

I had NASA TV online as I was watching CNN and noticed about a 44 second delay for the streaming video, which isn't bad at all for a government web server.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Enjoy..

In my hometown (Huntsville) it is of course available on basic cable. Always great to watch during most any space-related event - no artificial hype from some cable-news guy; just level commentary from the folks that really know what they're talking about.

I remember drinking beer and watching and waiting as Shoemaker-Levy 9 was fixing to pound Jupiter at 60km/second. The initial photos of that event were incredible.

I don't have NASA TV on my cable system either. I have a DSL connection to the internet, and I watch NASA TV over the internet from the NASA web site. If you go to the NASA TV link on the web site, and then select "other viewing options" you can select Windows Media Player and watch it full screen. That is how I was watching the Phoenix coverage.

Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("My name is 'Wubbies' - it is not plural nor possessive. Welcome to my World.")

n/t

This is a wonderful accomplishment but its not quite as you describe it.

1976, since Mars Polar Lander was lost and the other landings since then used the airbag method. Phoenix is about 900 pounds so airbags were not an option.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

If you take out orbiters and the weird landers it gets worse.

that also went badly.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

in space. Or the mysterious martians that were killing spaceprobes.

When did they stop? ;) When did they ever stop asking "Why are we spending all this money on space exploration when there are so many needs in education and healthcare here on Earth?"

C'mon, Joliphant, it never stops, as some of the responses in this thread already show.

Defend Liberty -- Join the NRA | Live in Massachusetts? Join GOAL.

Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("My name is 'Wubbies' - it is not plural nor possessive. Welcome to my World.")

Yeah it helps when they don't mix up metric and imperial measurements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter#The_metric_mixup
For all your legal, free live concert download needs!
http://www.archive.org/browse.php?collection=etree&field=%2Fmetadata%2Fc...

That crashed because someone used a period instead of a comma in the navigation program.

supposedly went wrong because of a syntax error from a ground controller and the other, also because of computer problems, as far as anyone could tell. There was a stir in the UFO community about one of the last photos taken by Phobos 2.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Joli, if you mean the abysmal success rate of actual mission success, yes, that aspect is pretty bad.

However, looking at the overall planning and math that NASA puts into any space mission the ability to even come close is short of miraculous. Especially considering some of the less advanced maneuvering missions (space only) that span mission times in the decades.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/timeline/index.html
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/voyager_agu.html

_____________________________

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle

be done by the private sector. This is an example of something that is either done by the government or it is not done at all.

There are long term benefits to space exploration. Our economic and military advantages rely on technology, and space exploration does help develop new technologies.

None of this answers the fundamental question that you asked however.

Whenever I think of the $700 billion, 980 million dollars spent by Health and Human Services in fiscal year 2008, I ask myself:

"Boy, wouldn't everything be much, much better if they took NASA's budget too?"

As you can see, HHS spent more than 700 billion dollars last year. And they didn't even land anything on Mars.

But the politics of the issue are tricky because lefties will use it to show that conservatives support Big Government.

I do think that NASA needs to get out of the routine "putting things into orbit" business and focus more on activities like landing things on Mars.

And next year, HHS will spend more than $700 billion dollars, and you can believe as surely as the Earth is round and the sun rises in the East that nothing will get any better, according to the New York Times.

of Napoleon when he sold Louisiana and of Alexander II when he sold Alaska; each of these men considered their respective lands to be money losers but each proved invaluable to the new owners.

These interplanetary probes are cheap compared to the Space Shuttle program and numerous other appropriations unrelated to NASA, but the knowledge gained will be of lasting benefit long into the future.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

As long as China feels compelled to make a show out of duplicating our old feats and blowing up satellites, it is money well spent. Let's give them something else to shoot for and throw money at.

IMO,it wasn't just prohibitive spending in the arms race that caused the Soviet system to collapse,it wast also their vain attempt to match our exploits in space. Good luck with that moon thing, China. Betcha can't go ten times,and I hope you can handle catastrophic failures better than the Soviets...loss of face in space is a whole new ballgame.

"ma deuce says no truce"

to add another statement about the militarization of space in that joint declaration with Medvedev about missile defense. China remains the only nation to have tested weapons in orbit (our recent shootdown of a bad satellite happened as it was well on its way down) and they caused serious problems for every spacefaring nation.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Your suggestion that "China remains the only nation to have tested weapons in orbit" is technically correct. But if you replace "orbit" with "space" then it is completely wrong. Both the United States and the USSR detonated nuclear weapons in space.

However, I do believe that NASA's time and effort might be well spent on improving satellite technology and limited space-faring expeditions around the Earth.

I take the exact opposite view.

The Space Shuttle and International Space Station (ISS) have NOT been worth the cost. (Not just in dollars, but in human lives; two seven-person crews were lost when those two shuttles disintegrated.) The cost of Shuttle launches never became competitive with privately launched expendable boosters, without massive Government subsidy. The science from the ISS has not been world-class; the grandiose hopes they originally had for materials science and so on never came to pass.

Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and geosynchronous orbit have been ready to transition to the private sector for quite a while. There is really no need for NASA to deal with it anymore. The private sector can launch into LEO quite profitably without the Shuttle. And the private sector, particularly telecom, is what is driving advances in satellite launches.

If LEO is all you care about, you might as well shut down NASA. It's superfluous.

totally agree

_____________________________

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle

The frontier of space exploration will require the US government.

IBM is not going to put the first person on Mars, but they might build the first colony on the moon. There is no economic incentive for pure exploration, and the costs are substantial while the benefits are long term and ephemeral. Apollo XI would never occur without the federal government. Private space efforts now are far more modest than even the Mercury program was in its day.

So, we can shut down the US space program for a while and wait for a country like Russia or China to catch up. Upon which, there will be an uproar, and we will then spend billions of dollars in an emergency fashion to catch up and hopefully surpass our new rival.

Probably makes sense to keep a consistent pursuit.

Bottom Line: The private sector is better at figuring out how to do something in a cost efficient manner (for example, current projects designed to place something in orbit at a cheaper price). However, the private sector is unlikely to fund initial exploration that pushes the envelope.

The Outer Space Treaty, signed by the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. and other nations in 1967, severely limited the profit motive in deep space colonization and exploitation.

It stipulates that "Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means." The effect of the Outer Space Treaty is to restrict control of private property rights, in the same way that the Law of the Sea prevents anyone owning a part of the sea.

Prior to that, visionaries and science-fiction writers had imagined private entrepreneurs mining the asteroids, or setting up private tourist ventures on the various planets and moons. But the Outer Space Treaty prohibits that. It stipulates that all those celestial bodies are the "common trust of mankind" and hence no one individual can own any of that property. That's the kind of treaty you get from a liberal administration like Lyndon Johnson.

Think how different the history of the New World would have been, if the Europeans had signed a treaty claiming that North America is a common trust for all of mankind, and that no individual Europeans had a right to own any part of it. It probably would have remained in the hands of the Indians.

BTW, the Moon Treaty of 1979, negotiated by Jimmy Carter, went even further. It would have turned over the jurisdiction of ALL celestial bodies (and even their orbits!) to the United Nations. I kid you not. Fortunately, that treaty has never been ratified by the U.S. Senate. Let's hope Barack Obama doesn't remember it.

but I think that was a larger appropriation than this year's NASA budget.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Until Democrats in Congress went on their pork bing, the deficit was coming down, and except for the bump of the sub prime markets, our economy was still growing - during "war time".

The money you speak about can be found in pork projects alone. However, the space program is pioneering new science and technology that will benefit us all, and fuel a new round of entrepreneurial technology to create even more jobs and improve the quality of everyone's life.

Your mentality of cutting the space program is a liberal "zero sum" economic mentality that killed our space program and stalled our economy during the mid to late 70's.

Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("My name is 'Wubbies' - it is not plural nor possessive. Welcome to my World.")

Everyone wants to cut spending, but as soon as a program is suggested everyone leaps to its defense. Every project is good for someone. I am excited about what can be found on Mars, and especially under the ice of Europa or within the atmosphere of Titan. If I can ever afford it, I'll be among the first in line to buy a ticket to Mars.

However, as an American conservative, I realize that the role of government is limited. The government exists to defend our freedoms, ensure private property rights, and the rights of individuals to pursue their dreams. The government was not intended to be a giant church granting aid to everyone who ever fell on hard times, and it was not intended to become the primary provider for the arts and sciences.

I agree that pork projects should be the first to go. I am also betting almost all I own on the long term health of the economy. Cutting pork is a good start, but if we are to win this war, pay down the debt, and cut taxes, we have to do more. Pork barrel spending (and NASA for that matter) are trivial compared to what we spend on entitlements or on debt financing. McCain will cut the pork, but it is not too soon to start thinking about the larger budget issues.

The Federal government has made commitments to universal pensions and healthcare for everyone over 65, and we have to keep those commitments to those even remotely close to retirement. However, it is not too soon to start thinking about long term solutions for everyone else. I propose the young be able to opt out of social security altogether. At some point, we should be offering optional buyouts to those nearer retirement. There are hard choices ahead of us. We need to think about those choices now while they are still choices.

If we keep trying to have it all as the Democrats propose, we will end up raising taxes and crushing our economy.

~ Rachel

...Velcro, Tang, and WD-40 - the last of which is the single greatest substance ever concocted by man, with the possible exception of bourbon.

What's strange about it is that the Phoenix was spec'd to be equipped with a high-resolution descent camera to take pictures of the trip to the surface, but it was nixed from the mission because of the potential of a problem with the interface card. Apparently NASA was worried that in some extreme circumstance the data from the camera would swamp the "vital engineering data" (read: the bytes that prevent the lander from crashing) on the system, so they shelved the descent camera. You can read about the camera and the decision not to use it during this mission here. If anything, this underlines just how critical the success of this mission was to NASA's Mars exploration program -- they were taking no chances, and that's why there were no descent images.

Tests of the assembled lander found that an interface card would have a small possibility of triggering loss of some vital engineering data if it were to receive imaging data during a critical phase of final descent. That possibility, though small, was judged to be an unacceptable risk, and the potential problem with the interface card was identified too late for changing hardware. The card has circuitry that routes data from various parts of the payload.

Which suggests that it is a variation on an ethernet device and they didn't want *any* lost packets during descent to be caused by the camera bursting image data.

Defend Liberty -- Join the NRA | Live in Massachusetts? Join GOAL.

I went back to school to finish my degree in programing, and I currently work as a network administrator, so I understand the specifics of what you are highlighting.

I did not realize they had nixed a descent camera for those reasons. I know the Mars Rovers run on a special version of Linux, and I assume that Phoenix does too. So, the binary data packet traffic in the system is not much different than what I deal with everyday. In fact, I had a data storm hit my network two weeks ago that made for a fun day. Thankfully, it was an easy isolation and elimination procedure to find and fix.

I know that after the last two powered descent landings that failed, a lot of people had their jobs on the line. Failure was literally not an option.

The two orbiters we have in place around Mars that are serving as data relay satellites is a bonus we have not had until now either.

The big one I am anxious for is the next rover lander. I can't recall the name of it, but it is suppose to be a big one that can do a lot of cool stuff. I think it is suppose to be launched within the next year.

Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("My name is 'Wubbies' - it is not plural nor possessive. Welcome to my World.")

so maybe it can go farther than its predecessors. I don't think Sojourner went more than 100 meters from Spirit.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

That Mars Science Lab rover now under development, has a range of several miles. Journeys of a few miles will be possible.

to store those photos until after landing, anyway, since ionized gases surrounding the craft during initial descent causes variations in transmission quality.

Maybe in the future we'll have enough assets in orbit to see another probe's descent, even if at a distance. It's another one of those things we understand enough to work with but have not actually seen.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

We're fighting the Martians on the Red Planet, so we don't have to fight them here at home.