PDA

View Full Version : New probe/lander to be sent to Mars in 2003 - Not a NASA probe!


Mr. Anderson
Dec 7, 2002, 02:23 PM
Its great to see that someone else is going to Mars besides the Russians and US

New Beagle to boldly go to Mars to seek life (http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/12/06/mars.beagle.reut/index.html)

I'm just wondering if it will grab the audience that Pathfinder did?

D

vniow
Dec 7, 2002, 02:26 PM
Ha, England, wow.

That certainly came out of nowhere.

dricci
Dec 7, 2002, 02:34 PM
The saucer-shaped Beagle 2 probe, a British-led project, will blast off from Kazakhstan's Baikonur launch site in June 2003 and parachute onto Mars seven months later.

It only takes Seven Months to get to mars? I thought it took 2+ years...

If it's possible to get there in 7 months, then it doesn't seem like sending humans there is that far off...

Mr. Anderson
Dec 7, 2002, 03:11 PM
It all depends on when you go - if Mars on the other side of the solar system its going to take much longer than if its on our side. I'll try and post a pic of where the planets will be in June 03. Usually the 2+ years is for a round trip.

D

Wes
Dec 7, 2002, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by edvniow
Ha, England, wow.

That certainly came out of nowhere.

You taking the mickey mate?

Just kidding...

We've been piggy-backing on the American's wayyyy too long. This is good news. Newton will be happy in his grave. His principles, used going to Mars.

EDIT: Didn't NASA lose a satellite last time they tried to go to Mars?

EDIT 2: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/23/mars.orbiter.03/

Yup they did, 327.6 Mil down the drain.

Mr. Anderson
Dec 7, 2002, 04:10 PM
Yep, like I thought, Mars and Earth are close in June 2003 - here's the pics

D

Megaquad
Dec 7, 2002, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by W-_-W


You taking the mickey mate?

Just kidding...

We've been piggy-backing on the American's wayyyy too long. This is good news. Newton will be happy in his grave. His principles, used going to Mars.

EDIT: Didn't NASA lose a satellite last time they tried to go to Mars?

EDIT 2: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/23/mars.orbiter.03/

Yup they did, 327.6 Mil down the drain.
hey stop it, we all know aliens living on mars shot down their probe!:D

Wes
Dec 7, 2002, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by Megaquad

hey stop it, we all know aliens living on mars shot down their probe!:D

ftp://ftp.seds.org/pub/images/planets/mars/marspyra.gif

One side to the argument

ftp://ftp.seds.org/pub/images/planets/mars/view_sw.gif

and the other.

Sadly it looks like Img tags don't work with ftp ;-( .

Over Achiever
Dec 7, 2002, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by W-_-W
Sadly it looks like Img tags don't work with ftp ;-( .

FYI, it seems that IMG tags don't work in the Current Events forum...dunno why tho'. ;)

Good for the British! At least they won't have problems with the metric system :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

vniow
Dec 7, 2002, 05:36 PM
The [IMG] tags are turned off by default in vBulletin.

It's a bit annoying, maybe someone should PM arn about it.

It's turned off in every new section created, you have to go and do it manually.

I know that the Old Skool forum doesn't have them turned on either.

cubist
Dec 7, 2002, 06:01 PM
It's really good!

Mr. Anderson
Dec 8, 2002, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by cubist
It's really good!

That image was from Starry Night Pro - a very cool astronomy program I have - the new version for OSX is coming out soon and I'm really looking forward to it. If you ever want to know where the planets/satellites/stars are going to be its a great ap.

And as for the face of mars, that's an old image taken at low res, NASA has released new imagery that shows its not really a face.

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/martianterrain/face_E03-00824_proc.html

and a better link

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/extended_may2001/face/index.html

D

BenderBot1138
Dec 8, 2002, 02:13 AM
Let's face facts... here's what's going to happen... the folks who are making this Mars Probe are going design the whole Probe around an Apple Jaguar Operation System and Apple Computer Hardware.

Then, the Probe is going to crash on Mars, and the secretive Martian Government's Military are going to recover the remains, coverup the crash, and reverse-engineer the Probe's Operating System and Computer Hardware (probably a portable-like platform like an Apple Powerbook's Motherboard).

Slowly, the Martian Goverment will seed the reverse engineered Terrestrial Apple technologies to Martian Industry. A whole Computer industry will spring up within just a few years where previously Martians used pencils and slide-rulers to make calculations.

Common Martian folk - hardworking Martians who put in long hours just to feed and cloth their Martian Children - will begin to suspect the Martian Goverment has recovered some Extramartian Terrestrial Technologies.

Pretty soon all Martians will own computers based on reverse engineered parts from the crashed Terrestrial Space Craft. A network of these reverse engineered computers will develop and Martians will go "online" and visit "online" computer places to read what other Martians think and contribute their own opinions. Someof these "online" Martian computer places will even be devoted to discussing what kinds of new and upgraded technologies Martian Computer Companies will release to the Martian Public...

And all because we Earthlings had to send a probe to their home... now I ask you, shouldn't we just pick up a phone and call them? ;)

:cool:
______________________
Twinkle Twinkle...: Did you know that without knowing where the planets are, you can tell whether or not the point of light you are looking up at is a planet or star? It's true... if it twinkles, it's a star, if it doesn't then you're looking at a planet (or something in our solar system). Can you guess the only exception to this rule?

Mr. Anderson
Dec 8, 2002, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by BenderBot1138

Twinkle Twinkle...: Did you know that without knowing where the planets are, you can tell whether or not the point of light you are looking up at is a planet or star? It's true... if it twinkles, it's a star, if it doesn't then you're looking at a planet (or something in our solar system). Can you guess the only exception to this rule?

What in the hell are you talking about here? That's such a load of crap - the twinkling of the stars is an atmospheric effect - and the only reason its not as obvious on the planets is that they are much brighter. Try looking at Uranus and see if it twinkles. ;)

D

BenderBot1138
Dec 8, 2002, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by dukestreet


What in the hell are you talking about here? That's such a load of crap - the twinkling of the stars is an atmospheric effect - and the only reason its not as obvious on the planets is that they are much brighter. Try looking at Uranus and see if it twinkles. ;)

D

lol... that's a riot! No ... Really... I kid you not. The reason stars twinkle doesn't have to do with atmospheric effects. Photons absorbed by atoms in the atmosphere do not reach the human eye, and atmospheric temperature gradients (the most common explanation) do not explain the effect either.

You suggested that Uranus twinkles, but it does not. If you went outside and thought you saw Uranus twinkling, then you actually were looking at a far away celestial object (outside our solar system). The angular profiles of even very small objects in our solar system is far too great to result in a twinkle effect seen only in stars. Planets, and certainly one with the angular profile of Uranus, could never generate a twinkle effect.

The exception to the rule (since it is not Uranus), in case you were wondering, is the Sun. Good old Sol, is the only star viewed from our planet that does not twinkle when seen with the naked eye. All planets within our Solar system do not twinkle.

This effect was first noticed by Galleleo over 500 years ago, and refuted here by dukestreet ;) No word yet from Galleleo whether he plans to recant.

:cool:

Mr. Anderson
Dec 8, 2002, 03:00 PM
Give me proof for this and I'll take it under advisement. I found a little bit on it in a fast search complete with graphics for the written word challenged.

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/stars/twinkle.shtml

Given that some of the planets have larger angular profiles than the stars, Galileo only saw Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn and some moons from the gas giants. He never saw Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. On a very clear night and at the closest position to Earth, Uranus can be seen by the naked eye. I'd bet that if you saw it, you'd say it twinkles.

On Sept. 1st, 2003, Uranus will be in the night sky, just ahead of Mars, at its approximate closest approach to the Earth in the near future, at magnitude 5.71 (according to Starry Night Pro) I'll try and remember to look for it on a nice night some time within that period.

D

robodweeb
Dec 9, 2002, 12:50 AM
Originally posted by W-_-W

EDIT: Didn't NASA lose a satellite last time they tried to go to Mars?

EDIT 2: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/23/mars.orbiter.03/

Yup they did, 327.6 Mil down the drain.

Yeah, but every penny was spent in the US and helped to drive our economy. If it hadn't been spent on this, it would've bought a few more toilet seats for the Pentagon. It's lamentable that we missed some opportunities for science return on investment, but space exploration is - and should be - a risky business. If NASA's not taking risks, then it's not doing its job.

And, lest anyone dismiss me as a NASA apologist, NASA lost other Mars missions in the 1990s ... Mars Observer and Mars Polar Lander, for example. I think there was another, but I don't recall which one ...

robodweeb
Dec 9, 2002, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by BenderBot1138


lol... that's a riot! No ... Really... I kid you not. The reason stars twinkle doesn't have to do with atmospheric effects.

You're joking, right? No one can be that silly. That it's true that planets don't seem to twinkle in the same way that stars do is simple geometry and inverse square law. Stars are further away, so fewer photons make it all the way into the angle subtended by our eyes. Refraction effects in the atmosphere transiently disturb their paths from our eyes and they seem to twinkle. Planets are closer, so significantly more photons reach our eyes and the impact of those same atmospheric effects on what we perceive is swamped by all the other photons ... so we don't notice the twinkling as much (though planets *do* twinkle with enough turbulence and enough refractants suspended in the atmosphere).

Whether we notice it or not, atmospheric effects are a direct cause of twinkling ...

BenderBot1138
Dec 9, 2002, 02:40 AM
Originally posted by robodweeb


You're joking, right? No one can be that silly. That it's true that planets don't seem to twinkle in the same way that stars do is simple geometry and inverse square law. Stars are further away, so fewer photons make it all the way into the angle subtended by our eyes. Refraction effects in the atmosphere transiently disturb their paths from our eyes and they seem to twinkle. Planets are closer, so significantly more photons reach our eyes and the impact of those same atmospheric effects on what we perceive is swamped by all the other photons ... so we don't notice the twinkling as much (though planets *do* twinkle with enough turbulence and enough refractants suspended in the atmosphere).

Whether we notice it or not, atmospheric effects are a direct cause of twinkling ...

Ahhh I stand corrected, Galileo refuted by dukestreet AND robodweeb ;) Dukestreet also mentioned that Galileo never saw Uranus. :D my bad...

Not originally posted by Pink Floyd
There is no Dark Side of the Moon... matter of fact it's all dark!

But can you tell me why when the moon is up during daylight hours, the lit surface of the moon does not line up with the sun?

:cool:

Mr. Anderson
Dec 9, 2002, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by BenderBot1138
But can you tell me why when the moon is up during daylight hours, the lit surface of the moon does not line up with the sun?

Its all geometry, it does, but we are far enough away from the moon that the angles don't always look exactly right. It would be impossible for it not to be so.

If you want me to give you a demo, I can spin up Starry Night Pro and make an animation.

Another good phenomena is the one where the moon looks bigger on the horizon than it does when its above your head. Its actually is exactly the same, but the brain interprets it incorrectly. Its called a Ponzo perspective illusion click here for a demo (http://www.sandlotscience.com/Distortions/Ponzo_java.htm)

Some incorrect ideas on the effect include distortion in the atmosphere, etc. which is only to blame for the elongated effect you might see when the sun or moon is right on the horizon.

D

BenderBot1138
Dec 10, 2002, 06:26 AM
Originally posted by dukestreet


Its all geometry, it does, but we are far enough away from the moon that the angles don't always look exactly right. It would be impossible for it not to be so.
...
If you want me to give you a demo, I can spin up Starry Night Pro and make an animation.
...
:D

That demo would be great! I know the theory but this would be a good chance to see just what this Starry Night thing is all about.

Speaking of sending probes to other worlds... does anyone know if the any of the moons of Jupiter are larger than any planets? I've heard Rumors that there are two planets smaller than one of the moons of Jupiter. No word on whether the folks on that moon of Jupiter have heard the good word about MacRumors yet...

Also, does anyone know whether's there's any truth to whether that Starry Night program was used to film stellar shots within Star Trek - The Wrath of Kahn?

:cool:

Mr. Anderson
Dec 10, 2002, 07:47 AM
Ganymede (http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/features/planets/jupiter/ganymede.html) , a moon of Jupiter.

The largest moon in the solar system - bigger than Pluto and Mercury.

I don't think Starry Night Pro was around when Wrath of Kahn was filmed, its been quite some time and desktop software in the 80s wasn't exactly in the state its in today.

D