...Phoenix Launch...The Search for Life on Mars begins in 24 days !!!
Jonathan
The rovers and other observers have been a search
primarily for signs of water on Mars for obvious
reasons. But the rovers lacked the equipment
for tests of life. Phoenix takes the next step.
Phoenix Mar Mission Home
http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/
"The Phoenix lander is going to an area of Mars where water
is believed to exist in the form of ice just below the surface.
This water ice is probably spread fairly uniformly throughout
the northern plains so the lander should be able to uncover
ice wherever it lands."
http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/faq.php
"On the deck, miniature ovens and a mass spectrometer, built
by the University of Arizona and University of Texas-Dallas, will
provide chemical analysis of trace matter. A chemistry
lab-in-a-box, assembled by JPL, will characterize the soil
and ice chemistry. Imaging systems, designed by the University
of Arizona, University of Neuchatel (Switzerland) (providing an
atomic force microscope), Max Planck Institute (Germany) and
Malin Space Science Systems, will provide an unprecedented
view of Mars-spanning 12 powers of 10 in scale.
The Canadian Space Agency will deliver a meteorological station,
marking the first significant involvement of Canada in a mission
to Mars."
http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/mission.php
Science Objectives
Objective 2: Search for Evidence of Habitable Zone and Assess
the Biological Potential of the Ice-Soil Boundary
"Recent discoveries have shown that life can exist in the most
extreme conditions. Indeed, it is possible that bacterial spores
can lie dormant in bitterly cold, dry, and airless conditions for
millions of years and become activated once conditions become
favorable. Such dormant microbial colonies may exist in the
Martian arctic, where due to the periodic wobbling of the
planet, liquid water may exist for brief periods about
every 100,000 years making the soil environment habitable."
"Phoenix will assess the habitability of the Martian northern
environment by using sophisticated chemical experiments to
assess the soil's composition of life giving elements such as
carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and hydrogen. Identified by
chemical analysis, Phoenix will also look at reduction-oxidation
(redox) molecular pairs that may determine whether the potential
chemical energy of the soil can sustain life, as well as other
soil properties critical to determine habitability such as pH
and saltiness."
"Despite having the proper ingredients to sustain life, the Martian
soil may also contain hazards that prevent biological growth, such
as powerful oxidants that break apart organic molecules. Powerful
oxidants that can break apart organic molecules are expected
in dry environments bathed in UV light, such as the surface of Mars.
But a few inches below the surface, the soil could protect organisms
from the harmful solar radiation. Phoenix will dig deep enough into
the soil to analyze the soil environment potentially protected from
UV looking for organic signatures and potential habitability."
http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/science03.php
And two great videos at this site.
Scroll down and watch the rough cut entry, descent
and landing video. The landing looks rather risky eh?
And just below that video is a wonderful collection of
various water features on Mars, comparing valley networks
deltas, channels, oxbows etc between earth and mars.
http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/videos.php
s
Henry Spencer
Jonathan <wr...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Scroll down and watch the rough cut entry, descent
>and landing video. The landing looks rather risky eh?
And if the video isn't enough to make you nervous, consider that the
lander chassis is essentially a duplicate of that of the late lamented
Mars Polar Lander.
(There was a second lander under construction, with a different payload
but the same chassis design, meant for launch in 2001. It was grounded
after MPL was lost, and then canceled altogether. The chassis was one of
the assets made available to the competitors in the first Mars Scout
competition, which Phoenix won.)
There's a reason why the lander is called Phoenix, and it's not because
the Principal Investigator is from U of Arizona... :-)
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | he...@spsystems.net
Hop David
> There's a reason why the lander is called Phoenix, and it's not because
> the Principal Investigator is from U of Arizona... :-)
UofA has a pathological hatred for the Phoenix area, especially Tempe.
They are bitter for the many times Sparky has kicked Wilbur's butt.
Hop
Derek Lyons
>In article <kDyki.9077$ca....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
>Jonathan <wr...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>Scroll down and watch the rough cut entry, descent
>>and landing video. The landing looks rather risky eh?
<replying to Johnathan.>
Not particulary, no. Mind you, there isn't actually an 'unrisky' way
to land on another planet. (And before you bring it up, no - airbags
are risky too.)
>And if the video isn't enough to make you nervous, consider that the
>lander chassis is essentially a duplicate of that of the late lamented
>Mars Polar Lander.
Why would that make you nervous? The failure of MPL wasn't a design
error so far as we know.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
surfduke
has been search for but never imaged. Pictures might help in the
investigation of the cause of the failure. The fault tree
investigation showed it to be the early engine shut down. I would hope
that that does not happen again. This will be the first attempt at
life science since the failed Beagle mission. That too was a shame to
have lost.
Carl
John
AW&ST had a good article within the past couple of weeks about
Phoenix. Regarding the old chassis, one of the project people
discussed how the Better Quicker Cheaper mantra led to the skipping of
testing. That testing has been on Phoenix, and not surprisingly, they
found stuff that could have resulted in the vehicle having a bad day,
that they subsequently fixed. The article also discussed that they
have retargeted the vehicle once already due to imagery that said the
landing area first selected was too rough.
Find the article . . . there is an awesome picture of water being run
under high pressure being run through the landing rocket system to
find leaks. I was surprised that water was used . . . and amazed at
the efflux from the 12 engine nozzles.
Take care . . .
John
rick++
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/science/space/10shuttle.html
Pat Flannery
Derek Lyons wrote:
> Why would that make you nervous? The failure of MPL wasn't a design
> error so far as we know.
>
Yes it was; the sensors on the vehicle interpreted the vibration of
landing gear extension as touchdown, and shut down the landing rockets
while it was still quite a ways in the air.
That at least needs to be fixed.
Pat
Jonathan
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:1397g0a...@corp.supernews.com...
The timeline for this landing shows the legs being
extended at 12km, some 2 minutes before the
engines start firing. Maybe that's the fix.
http://uplink.space.com/attachments//693625-mars.jpg
This article says the MPL engines shut off at about
130 feet when the legs were extended.
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/050601_mpl_clues.html
Just after the crash Lockheed lamely tried to blame
it on Nasa, saying they sent the thing into a huge
canyon and it tumbled down the walls. What a
bunch of back-stabbers.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mpl_crash_000106.html
After reading the above article, I don't trust much that
Lockheed says. They seem like a bunch of finger
pointers that'll jump at the first cause that gets them
off the hook.
Then Lockheed had an outside firm look for any software bug
that might have caused its failure. And the contractor said
they found it in only 12 hours.
http://www.t-vec.com/clients/nasa1.php
According to Wikipedia there's a second possible cause.
"Another possible reason for failure was inadequate preheating of
catalysis beds for the pulsing rocket thrusters: hydrazine fuel
decomposes on the beds to make hot gases that throttle out
the rocket nozzles; cold catalyst beds caused misfiring
and instability in crash review tests."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Polar_Lander
And here we get some better answers.
"The panel found that NASA conducted a pre-launch test
of the landing rockets but that the sensors did not
generate the touchdown signals as was intended.
It traced the lack of signal to faulty wiring of the sensors.
After the sensors were rewired, NASA did not repeat
the testing that would have unmasked the software
problem."
"Young's panel concluded a 30 percent underfunding
of the Polar Lander mission prompted NASA to cut
back on personnel as well as the ground testing that
would have uncovered the design flaws and lack of
communications gear. "
http://www.chron.com/content/interactive/space/astronomy/marspolarlander/000329.html
Hey, this is getting better by the minute~
James Oberg of UPI accused NASA of knowing about a flaw
in advance and covering it up. Members of the review team responded
with terms like... "bunk," "complete nonsense," and "wacko," to
describe their reactions to UPI's charge.
http://marsweb.jpl.nasa.gov/msp98/news/news69.html
I think they protest too much!
So now, the accusation is that the cold temperature testing
showed a flaw, so they covered up that data. The response
isn't all that comforting.
Finding 1: MPL's braking thrusters did not fail acceptance
testing due to low temperatures.The situation described
in the UPI article could not have occurred because
no low-temperature acceptance or qualification
tests were conducted
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/old/inspections_assessments/MPL.pdf
What tests? Sheez!
I wonder which shredder those cold temperature
tests ended up in? Oh well, as long as Phoenix
makes it ok all will be forgiven.
s
> Pat
Henry Spencer
Derek Lyons <fair...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>And if the video isn't enough to make you nervous, consider that the
>>lander chassis is essentially a duplicate of that of the late lamented
>>Mars Polar Lander.
>
>Why would that make you nervous? The failure of MPL wasn't a design
>error so far as we know.
So far as we know. We *think* we know why MPL failed, but we lack
confirmation -- the touchdown-sensor problem certainly would have killed
it, but it's also possible that something else went wrong. This chassis
so far is 0 for 1 on landing attempts.
Henry Spencer
John <pel...@charter.net> wrote:
>...Regarding the old chassis, one of the project people
>discussed how the Better Quicker Cheaper mantra led to the skipping of
>testing.
Note, however, that according to people who were there:
"All customary and prudent steps were executed in the development
process... After examination of the contributing factors, there is no
evidence that [faster/better/cheaper] concepts caused the MPL failure."
A test that would have detected the touchdown-sensor problem *was done*.
It had to be interrupted in the middle due to another problem, and they
decided to pick up from where it left off, rather than starting over from
the beginning. The picking up from where it left off, alas, didn't quite
reinitialize things to the exact previous state, and so the problem was
missed.
(Ref: Euler et al, "The failures of the Mars Climate Orbiter and Mars
Polar Lander: a perspective from the people involved", Advances in the
Astronautical Sciences 107 (Guidance & Control Conference 2001).)
Similar testing mistakes have killed slower/worse/costlier megaprojects;
Galileo, one of the slowest and costliest planetary-probe projects ever,
made several such mistakes, although by good luck none was fatal. There
is no rational reason to blame the MPL loss on faster/better/cheaper
(unlike the loss of MCO, which pretty definitely *was* due to the
compressed schedule and shortage of manpower).
Henry Spencer
Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
>> Why would that make you nervous? The failure of MPL wasn't a design
>> error so far as we know.
>
>Yes it was; the sensors on the vehicle interpreted the vibration of
>landing gear extension as touchdown, and shut down the landing rockets
>while it was still quite a ways in the air.
Correction: the misinterpretation was in the control software, not in the
sensors. The software quite correctly wasn't paying attention to the
touchdown sensors at all at leg deployment time. Unfortunately, the
transient false touchdown indications set "touchdown detected" flags, and
nothing cleared those flags before the final-descent code started paying
attention to them. (During the one full-descent-sequence test, nothing
untoward happened during leg deployment... but the test had to be
interrupted before the final-descent phase started, and the procedure
used to restart the test had the unfortunate side effect of clearing
the touchdown-detected flags.)
The problem with the sensors showing transient false touchdown indications
during leg deployment actually *was known*, incidentally, just not to the
software people. They hadn't been close enough to the hardware work to
hear about the problem, and the specs they'd received for handling those
sensors didn't say anything about transient rejection or data filtering.
Derek Lyons
>The problem with the sensors showing transient false touchdown indications
>during leg deployment actually *was known*, incidentally, just not to the
>software people. They hadn't been close enough to the hardware work to
>hear about the problem, and the specs they'd received for handling those
>sensors didn't say anything about transient rejection or data filtering.
You'd think that transient rejection would be standard wouldn't you?
Basic good practice it seems.
Fred J. McCall
:he...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) wrote:
:
:>The problem with the sensors showing transient false touchdown indications
:>during leg deployment actually *was known*, incidentally, just not to the
:>software people. They hadn't been close enough to the hardware work to
:>hear about the problem, and the specs they'd received for handling those
:>sensors didn't say anything about transient rejection or data filtering.
:
:You'd think that transient rejection would be standard wouldn't you?
:Basic good practice it seems.
:
The software gets written to the specs the software team is given. You
don't write and run software you don't need, since there's always
something else that would like whatever processor time is available
and nobody gets infinite budget and schedule to do things that aren't
shown as being necessary.
This one is a failure at the system engineering level (assuming it
didn't get held at the hardware level and the system people knew about
it). It also sounds (from what Henry said earlier) like a testing
failure, since they never completed a real 'start to finish' test,
doing a 'reset' in the middle and then completing from there (which is
almost always a mistake).
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
Henry Spencer
Derek Lyons <fair...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>The problem with the sensors showing transient false touchdown indications
>>during leg deployment actually *was known*, incidentally, just not to the
>>software people. They hadn't been close enough to the hardware work to
>>hear about the problem, and the specs they'd received for handling those
>>sensors didn't say anything about transient rejection or data filtering.
>
>You'd think that transient rejection would be standard wouldn't you?
>Basic good practice it seems.
You'd think so, yes... My guess would be relatively junior people, with
their work and their supervision by more senior types focused tightly on
the actual landing algorithm. Mars Pathfinder was done by a small team
that communicated well, but my understanding is that MCO/MPL returned to
JPL's more compartmentalized traditional organization. (The bureaucrats
at JPL stayed clear of MP because they expected it to fail, but when it
was a spectacular success, everybody wanted to climb aboard MCO/MPL.)
Henry Spencer
Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>:You'd think that transient rejection would be standard wouldn't you?
>:Basic good practice it seems.
>
>The software gets written to the specs the software team is given. You
However, in reality the specs are never complete, so a good software team
is alert to the possibility that things have been missed, and they and the
hardware people pay attention to each other's work. (A contributing
factor in the MPL debacle was that one of the key hardware people had to
miss the main software review -- one of the few opportunities for
cross-department communication.)
>This one is a failure at the system engineering level...
Pretty much so, yes. In particular, misbehavior by the touchdown sensors
was never explicitly identified as a mission killer. Moreover, not only
did it not occur to the software people that they needed to do transient
rejection, but it didn't occur to the hardware people that they needed to
characterize the transients, which would have been important input for the
software guys (and should have woken them up to the missing requirement).
However, if you're trying to do things economically, systems engineering
needs to be everyone's job, not just something you leave to the Systems
Engineering Department. The classical systems-engineering process works
tolerably well -- not perfectly, but tolerably well -- but only if very
large amounts of money are thrown at it.
>...It also sounds (from what Henry said earlier) like a testing
>failure, since they never completed a real 'start to finish' test,
>doing a 'reset' in the middle and then completing from there (which is
>almost always a mistake).
This one was a judgement call -- they knew that restarting the test in the
middle wasn't ideal, but the full-descent-sequence test had taken quite a
bit of time and effort to set up, and repeating it from the start would
have been expensive (in both money and time).
Just like there is no such thing as complete requirements, there is no
such thing as complete testing. When you should stop and how thorough you
should be is *always* a judgement call, and resource limitations figure
heavily in that (even on cost-is-no-object megaprojects).
"*Everything* is released before perfection because we can't afford to
wait long enough. This is a general truth about engineering." --Les Hatton
(If resource limitations aren't explicitly figured into the decision of
when to stop testing, it doesn't mean they aren't there; it means that the
decision-makers are not being honest with people -- possibly including
themselves -- about what the criteria are.)
Fred J. McCall
:
:(If resource limitations aren't explicitly figured into the decision of
:when to stop testing, it doesn't mean they aren't there; it means that the
:decision-makers are not being honest with people -- possibly including
:themselves -- about what the criteria are.)
:
Reminds me of an answer that a friend of mine (a test engineer) gave
during a job interview once. She was asked, "How do you know when
testing is complete?"
Her answer was, "You're done when you run out of money."
[They made her an offer...]
--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
Jonathan
"Henry Spencer" <he...@spsystems.net> wrote in message
news:JKzLH...@spsystems.net...
> In article <46961e4b....@news.supernews.com>,
> Derek Lyons <fair...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>And if the video isn't enough to make you nervous, consider that the
> >>lander chassis is essentially a duplicate of that of the late lamented
> >>Mars Polar Lander.
> >
> >Why would that make you nervous? The failure of MPL wasn't a design
> >error so far as we know.
>
> So far as we know. We *think* we know why MPL failed, but we lack
> confirmation -- the touchdown-sensor problem certainly would have killed
> it, but it's also possible that something else went wrong. This chassis
> so far is 0 for 1 on landing attempts.
I'd feel better if they had imaged the crash site months ago.
If the thrusters shut off as they suspect it would've hit at
about 50 mph NASA said. So it would appear intact from
orbit I would think.
Henry Spencer
Jonathan <wr...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> We *think* we know why MPL failed, but we lack confirmation...
>
>I'd feel better if they had imaged the crash site months ago.
If they knew where it was, they'd undoubtedly have tried, once lighting
conditions permitted. Trouble is, the location of the crash site *isn't*
*known*, not to within many kilometers. (For a little while they thought
MGS had found it, but later images didn't show the same features, so it's
likely to have been a false alarm.)
Jonathan
> In article <3Fdli.9809$yD2....@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
> Jonathan <wr...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> We *think* we know why MPL failed, but we lack confirmation...
> >
> >I'd feel better if they had imaged the crash site months ago.
>
> If they knew where it was, they'd undoubtedly have tried,
Maybe it's at the bottom of Lockheed Canyon~
> once lighting
> conditions permitted. Trouble is, the location of the crash site *isn't*
> *known*, not to within many kilometers. (For a little while they thought
> MGS had found it, but later images didn't show the same features, so it's
> likely to have been a false alarm.)
Should these things have a black box so to speak?
Something very survivable that can send back a few
bits of very valuable data no matter what?
I suppose that might show a lack of confidence.
Henry Spencer
Jonathan <wr...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Should these things have a black box so to speak?
>Something very survivable that can send back a few
>bits of very valuable data no matter what?
Armoring it against a reasonable-worst-case accident would make it
excessively heavy, I fear.
What *can* reasonably be done is to put a bit of extra effort into the
radio system, so that it can send at least minimal status information
during descent. That way, if you lose the probe, you at least know just
when the problem hit, and maybe a little bit about what it was; that's
often enough to let a careful investigation reconstruct what happened.
The MPL designers in fact considered doing this, but it would have cost
extra and they thought it seemed unnecessary.
Mike Chan
> What *can* reasonably be done is to put a bit of extra effort into the
> radio system, so that it can send at least minimal status information
> during descent. That way, if you lose the probe, you at least know just
> when the problem hit, and maybe a little bit about what it was; that's
> often enough to let a careful investigation reconstruct what happened.
> The MPL designers in fact considered doing this, but it would have cost
> extra and they thought it seemed unnecessary.
Insert "and has been done on Phoenix" after "What *can* reasonably be
done". It was implicitly stated, but I'm still working on the not
using more words than the minimum part. :)
Henry Spencer
Mike Chan <ope...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> What *can* reasonably be done is to put a bit of extra effort into the
>> radio system, so that it can send at least minimal status information
>
>Insert "and has been done on Phoenix" after "What *can* reasonably be
And was done on the MERs as well.
It's an area where upper management has to be firm with the individual
projects, because it's something that does *not* contribute to the success
of a particular project. It may reassure the operations people while
they're watching the arrival, but it won't make the difference between
success and failure. So a project team that's short of resources will be
tempted not to bother; if the probe fails, knowing why it failed is a very
poor consolation prize, for them. But it's very important information for
the *next* project's team.
If the first project's team knew that *they* would be the people doing the
next project, that might make them more thoughtful. But that sort of team
continuity is Not The Way JPL Does Things. The idea that you put together
a new team for each project is deeply ingrained (and not just at JPL).
After all, people are interchangeable, right? :-( The various reports and
investigations done after the MCO/MPL fiasco made many recommendations,
but not one said "keep good teams together and give them more missions".
Steve
Henry Spencer wrote:
> Armoring it against a reasonable-worst-case accident would make it
> excessively heavy, I fear.
I'm not sure armoring _per se_ is the biggest problem.
Even a simple beacon would be need a battery, transmitter, and
antenna. These are, respectively, heavy, complex, and delicate. Add
a modulator and some sort of interface to the main processing system
if you want data; that adds more weight and complexity.
As you say, a better option is designing the main telecom system to
send back data continuously during critical mission phases. That
isn't always possible, but it's worth trying for.
Androcles
"Steve" <wil...@cfa.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:1184621686....@m3g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
:> >Should these things have a black box so to speak?
Battery: My cell phone has one. Definitely not as heavy as the case.
Transmitter. My cell phone has one. Yeah, complex, cost is a few bucks.
Antenna. My cell phone has one. Quite robust, really.
Harvard, huh?
That says it all, the place is loaded with fuckheads.
Pat Flannery
Steve wrote:
> I'm not sure armoring _per se_ is the biggest problem.
>
> Even a simple beacon would be need a battery, transmitter, and
> antenna. These are, respectively, heavy, complex, and delicate. Add
> a modulator and some sort of interface to the main processing system
> if you want data; that adds more weight and complexity.
>
> As you say, a better option is designing the main telecom system to
> send back data continuously during critical mission phases. That
> isn't always possible, but it's worth trying for.
>
This has me a bit confused:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2007/07/nasa_tries_to_s.html
They aren't going to take more than one descent photo because
transmitting them will mean the spacecraft can't deliver engineering
data as it gets ready to land.
But if something does go wrong, there is nothing NASA can do about it
because of the time delay in transmissions from and to Mars.
If this was going to be the first of a series of similar Mars landers,
then getting data on how a possible failure occurred would be worthwhile
in correcting problems on the follow-up landers. But Phoenix is pretty
much a one-off, so if it works, it works, and if it fails, then it
fails. Figuring out why it failed would be interesting, but does it
really help us to know anything worthwhile versus what could be learned
from more descent photos?
Pat
Derek Lyons
>Battery: My cell phone has one. Definitely not as heavy as the case.
>Transmitter. My cell phone has one. Yeah, complex, cost is a few bucks.
>Antenna. My cell phone has one. Quite robust, really.
>
>Harvard, huh?
>That says it all, the place is loaded with fuckheads.
Only a drug addled fool would confuse a cell phone with the type of
transmitter required for the black box under discussion.
Androcles
"Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:469d0787...@news.supernews.com...
: "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
:
: >Battery: My cell phone has one. Definitely not as heavy as the case.
: >Transmitter. My cell phone has one. Yeah, complex, cost is a few bucks.
: >Antenna. My cell phone has one. Quite robust, really.
: >
: >Harvard, huh?
: >That says it all, the place is loaded with fuckheads.
:
: Only a drug addled fool would confuse a cell phone with the type of
: transmitter required for the black box under discussion.
A simple data recorder capable of transmitting to an orbiter for 24 hours.
Only a drunken fuckwit on percosets would fail to see that was not only
technically feasible but flight recorders have been around for fuckin'
years, even if the lay public call them "black boxes".
Are you drug addled as well as an idiot who knows nothing about electronics?
Derek Lyons
>
>"Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:469d0787...@news.supernews.com...
>: "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>:
>: >Battery: My cell phone has one. Definitely not as heavy as the case.
>: >Transmitter. My cell phone has one. Yeah, complex, cost is a few bucks.
>: >Antenna. My cell phone has one. Quite robust, really.
>: >
>: >Harvard, huh?
>: >That says it all, the place is loaded with fuckheads.
>:
>: Only a drug addled fool would confuse a cell phone with the type of
>: transmitter required for the black box under discussion.
>
>A simple data recorder capable of transmitting to an orbiter for 24 hours.
Is many times more complex and heavier than a simple cellphone.
Especially once ruggedized sufficiently to withstand launch, cruise,
entry, and landing and increased in capability sufficiently to perform
the task.
>Only a drunken fuckwit on percosets would fail to see that was not only
>technically feasible but flight recorders have been around for fuckin'
>years, even if the lay public call them "black boxes".
I never said they hadn't been around for years. I said your
comparision to a cellphone was addled. Sober up and work on your
reading comprehension.
>Are you drug addled as well as an idiot who knows nothing about electronics?
No, I'm someone who actually understands space technology and the
demands placed on electronics in the space and Martian enviroments.
I'm not someone who makes airy handwaves and think that makes himself
look intelligent.
Derek Lyons
>If this was going to be the first of a series of similar Mars landers,
>then getting data on how a possible failure occurred would be worthwhile
>in correcting problems on the follow-up landers. But Phoenix is pretty
>much a one-off, so if it works, it works, and if it fails, then it
>fails.
Even if it is a one-off, valuable lessons can possibly be learned that
can be applied to future landers.
>Figuring out why it failed would be interesting, but does it
>really help us to know anything worthwhile versus what could be learned
>from more descent photos?
Photo's of the Martian surface we have by the gross lot. Engineering
info and experience for designing landers is in somewhat shorter
supply.
Pat Flannery
Derek Lyons wrote:
> Photo's of the Martian surface we have by the gross lot. Engineering
> info and experience for designing landers is in somewhat shorter
> supply.
>
The idea is apparently to determine exactly where it is right as soon as
it touches down, so the data it transmits back can be interpreted in
relation to the terrain it's on.
Maybe you can do this with just one photo; but as NASA Watch pointed
out, they were playing up the descent photos as a major scientific
aspect of the mission.
Compared to the nearly immortal rovers this probably isn't going to be
all that exciting of a mission from the photographic viewpoint.
Pat
Androcles
: "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
:
: >
: >"Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
: >news:469d0787...@news.supernews.com...
: >: "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: >:
: >: >Battery: My cell phone has one. Definitely not as heavy as the case.
: >: >Transmitter. My cell phone has one. Yeah, complex, cost is a few
bucks.
: >: >Antenna. My cell phone has one. Quite robust, really.
: >: >
: >: >Harvard, huh?
: >: >That says it all, the place is loaded with fuckheads.
: >:
: >: Only a drug addled fool would confuse a cell phone with the type of
: >: transmitter required for the black box under discussion.
: >
: >A simple data recorder capable of transmitting to an orbiter for 24
hours.
:
: Is many times more complex and heavier than a simple cellphone.
: Especially once ruggedized sufficiently to withstand launch, cruise,
: entry, and landing and increased in capability sufficiently to perform
: the task.
Nonsense to complexity, rugged as any standard flight recorder.
Just how big do you think they are?
http://iar-ira.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/photos/flr4.jpg
Impact damage doesn't count if the entire record has already
been transmitted.
:
: >Only a drunken fuckwit on percosets would fail to see that was not only
: >technically feasible but flight recorders have been around for fuckin'
: >years, even if the lay public call them "black boxes".
:
: I never said they hadn't been around for years. I said your
: comparision to a cellphone was addled. Sober up and work on your
: reading comprehension.
Why addled? It is YOU that is addled.
:
: >Are you drug addled as well as an idiot who knows nothing about
electronics?
:
: No, I'm someone who actually understands space technology and the
: demands placed on electronics in the space and Martian enviroments.
: I'm not someone who makes airy handwaves and think that makes himself
: look intelligent.
Why do it, then? You are the prat making airy handwaves that
a flight recorder "is many times more complex than a cell phone",
that's bullshit. Since you are clearly not intelligent it is difficult
for you to even look intelligent.
"Understand space technology" my arse.
Sober up and work on your flaming, you fuckin' imbecile.
Henry Spencer
Androcles <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>Battery: My cell phone has one. Definitely not as heavy as the case.
>Transmitter. My cell phone has one. Yeah, complex, cost is a few bucks.
>Antenna. My cell phone has one. Quite robust, really.
The Martian crash site doesn't have a cell tower half a mile away, so the
emergency transmitter needs to be substantially more capable.
If it was built by the small-spacecraft community, the electronics might
not be too different, aside from a heftier power amplifier, but it won't
be just like a cell phone... and the stuff in your phone is cheap only
because they're built in huge numbers. If it's built by the Old Guard
using space-rated parts, that not only adds several more digits to the
price -- I'm not kidding -- but also means that it'll mass maybe a
kilogram and draw quite a lot of power, because space-rated parts are far
behind commercial electronics in integration and miniaturization.
The antenna will have to be significantly different, and there might have
to be more than one, to allow for unknown orientation and terrain. And
being "robust" against casual knocking around is very different from
what's needed to reliably withstand a substantial impact. It's not enough
for this thing to have a fair chance of still functioning; to be worth
carrying -- bearing in mind that it's competing for mass with the science
payload, delivery of which to the Martian surface has been estimated as
costing $20M/kg -- you have to be virtually certain that it will still
work even after a severe failure. Throw your cell phone hard against a
brick wall two or three times; does it still work?
The *big* problem will be the battery. For this, you'd want to use
primary lithium batteries, which are lighter and more powerful than the
rechargeable batteries used in phones. They're not common in space stuff,
but there are enough precedents that you can probably talk even the Old
Guard into using them. But... take a look at their usable temperature
range, and compare it to the temperature range of the Martian surface.
Now do that for your second-choice battery technology, whatever it is.
And then your third. Making the electronics work reliably in those
conditions is a bit problematic, but it ought to be manageable given the
short working life; the hard part is power.
Henry Spencer
Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
>If this was going to be the first of a series of similar Mars landers,
>then getting data on how a possible failure occurred would be worthwhile
>in correcting problems on the follow-up landers. But Phoenix is pretty
They're likely to want to use much of that technology again, if it works.
Not on the next mission or two, but later.
And the political/PR impact of a failure of unknown cause -- "we sent it
off and never heard from it again" -- is *much* worse than having it break
but knowing what happened. Bearing in mind that roughly the same hardware
has done exactly that once already, it's out of the question to take a
chance on that for this one.
Androcles
: In article <JHRmi.33359$jY5....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
: Androcles <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: >Battery: My cell phone has one. Definitely not as heavy as the case.
: >Transmitter. My cell phone has one. Yeah, complex, cost is a few bucks.
: >Antenna. My cell phone has one. Quite robust, really.
:
: The Martian crash site doesn't have a cell tower half a mile away, so the
: emergency transmitter needs to be substantially more capable.
Marginally more capable, there are orbiters overhead and the unit's
function is over once it has landed. Who said anything about an emergency?
An ambulance to take it to hospital isn't going to happen, it won't even
be picked up by a wreck truck.
: If it was built by the small-spacecraft community, the electronics might
: not be too different, aside from a heftier power amplifier,
That already exists. If the lander can't communicate with the orbiter
then the whole exercise was pointless anyway.
: but it won't
: be just like a cell phone... and the stuff in your phone is cheap only
: because they're built in huge numbers.
A cell phone sends bursts of digital signals, usually converted
from analog sound, but also sends text messages.
Portable computers use the same technology to connect to the
internet. The ONLY adaptation required is a slightly beefier amplifier.
A vehicle such as Cassini can signal from Saturn using a directional
antenna with just a few watts but that would not be practical in this case.
: If it's built by the Old Guard
: using space-rated parts, that not only adds several more digits to the
: price -- I'm not kidding -- but also means that it'll mass maybe a
: kilogram and draw quite a lot of power, because space-rated parts are far
: behind commercial electronics in integration and miniaturization.
In hypothetical sentences introduced by 'if' and referring to
past time, where conditions are to be deemed 'unfulfilled',
the verb will regularly be found in the pluperfect subjunctive,
in both protasis and apodosis.
-- Donet, "Principles of Elementary Latin Syntax"
:
: The antenna will have to be significantly different, and there might have
: to be more than one, to allow for unknown orientation and terrain. And
: being "robust" against casual knocking around is very different from
: what's needed to reliably withstand a substantial impact.
It doesn't have to withstand an impact. Nobody is going looking for it,
all telemetry should have been sent prior to impact to say what went
wrong on descent and landing. After that it just doesn't matter.
What are going to do, send Spirit or Opportunity to take pictures
of wreckage?
The man said he wanted to know what happened if it went wrong,
that's all.
: It's not enough
: for this thing to have a fair chance of still functioning; to be worth
: carrying
Ah, therein lies the rub. Is it worth carrying? Just how valuable
is knowing what went wrong?
-- bearing in mind that it's competing for mass with the science
: payload, delivery of which to the Martian surface has been estimated as
: costing $20M/kg -- you have to be virtually certain that it will still
: work even after a severe failure.
"The Search for Life on Mars begins in 24 days !!!" -- waste of money even
at two bucks a lb.
Tell you what, though. I'll chip in my old cell phone, I don't use it
anymore.
: Throw your cell phone hard against a
: brick wall two or three times; does it still work?
:
Yes. Such tests are routinely carried out by the QA dept. of most
manufacturers, although I'm not too keen to have mine scratched.
The public would soon find a delicate phone to be undesirable and
the manufacturer's credibility would quickly degrade.
: The *big* problem will be the battery. For this, you'd want to use
: primary lithium batteries, which are lighter and more powerful than the
: rechargeable batteries used in phones. They're not common in space stuff,
: but there are enough precedents that you can probably talk even the Old
: Guard into using them. But... take a look at their usable temperature
: range, and compare it to the temperature range of the Martian surface.
: Now do that for your second-choice battery technology, whatever it is.
: And then your third. Making the electronics work reliably in those
: conditions is a bit problematic, but it ought to be manageable given the
: short working life; the hard part is power.
I'm not concerned about the "Old Guard", the man asked to know
what went wrong if it failed. Let the New Guard do the design.
If your *big* objection is the battery then I'd consider that to
border on the trivial, Spirit and Opportunity run MOTORS on
electrical power.
If the recorder itself fails, "quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" -- Juvenal
(the Very Old Guard)
Scott Hedrick
> No, I'm someone who actually understands space technology and the
> demands placed on electronics in the space and Martian enviroments.
> I'm not someone who makes airy handwaves and think that makes himself
> look intelligent.
Androcles needs to put his cellphone in a martini shaker, then place it in a
paint shaker for, oh, about 9 minutes. That ought to be roughly equivalent
to a launch.
Then let it sit completely idle inside the martini shaker (although
attachment to a recharger is permitted) for about 9 months. That ought to be
roughly equivalent to a Hohmann cruise to Mars.
Then activate the phone, put it back in the shaker for about two minutes (
whilst simultaneously waving a torch at the martini shaker). That ought to
be roughly equivalent to Mars entry.
Finally, loosen the paint shaker and let the martini shaker fall to the
floor. That ought to be roughly equal to a good landing on Mars.
*Then* he needs to have a cell tower on Mars pick up the signal.
Pat Flannery
Scott Hedrick wrote:
> Finally, loosen the paint shaker and let the martini shaker fall to the
> floor. That ought to be roughly equal to a good landing on Mars.
>
It could fall a lot faster than that on Mars given its thin atmosphere,
try firing it out of an air cannon into the wall at around 400 mph.
Pat
Bash
"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
> Androcles needs to put his cellphone in a martini shaker, then place it in
a
> paint shaker for, oh, about 9 minutes. That ought to be roughly equivalent
> to a launch.
>
> Then let it sit completely idle inside the martini shaker (although
> attachment to a recharger is permitted) for about 9 months. That ought to
be
> roughly equivalent to a Hohmann cruise to Mars.
>
> Then activate the phone, put it back in the shaker for about two minutes (
> whilst simultaneously waving a torch at the martini shaker). That ought to
> be roughly equivalent to Mars entry.
>
> Finally, loosen the paint shaker and let the martini shaker fall to the
> floor. That ought to be roughly equal to a good landing on Mars.
>
> *Then* he needs to have a cell tower on Mars pick up the signal.
Minor nit, but within a vacuum from the hohmann cruise onwards. ;-)
Androcles
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:23gni.83$0Q2.7...@news.sisna.com...
:
: "Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Androcles used to work on flight simulators back in the 80's.
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehn...@yahoo.com> ought to get his
head out of his arse and quit reading Superman comics.
Bash
> "Scott Hedrick" <dinehn...@yahoo.com> ought to get his
> head out of his arse and quit reading Superman comics.
>
interplanetary craft or for that matter aircraft?
Androcles
"Bash" <Bryant.A...@un.bosch.com> wrote in message
news:f7klta$9em$1...@news4.fe.internet.bosch.com...
:> Androcles used to work on flight simulators back in the 80's.
For military aircraft a PCB is just like any other such as the motherboard
in your PC, except it is fibreglass. MIL-spec devices are used and
no, I do not validate them although I once tested them functionally
for Concorde, Tornado and Lynx. Pray told.
And pray tell, do YOU have experience in validating hardware for
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:95kni.37311$w97....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> Androcles used to work on flight simulators back in the 80's.
> "Scott Hedrick" <dinehn...@yahoo.com> ought to get his
> head out of his arse and quit reading Superman comics.
>
Yeah, I owned a first edition of MS's Flight Simulator too.
It was a great program.
>
>
>
>
--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
Bash
> Yeah, I owned a first edition of MS's Flight Simulator too.
>
> It was a great program.
And pulling the topic back to a space topic, I found that a bug in some of
the early editions (circa 1990) allowed you to take the Learjet (via some
deft banking with rudder input at the edge of stalling) up to 1,000,000 ft.
:-D
Androcles
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote in message
news:camni.8817$Od7....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
: "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
: news:95kni.37311$w97....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: >
: > Androcles used to work on flight simulators back in the 80's.
: > "Scott Hedrick" <dinehn...@yahoo.com> ought to get his
: > head out of his arse and quit reading Superman comics.
: >
:
: Yeah, I owned a first edition of MS's Flight Simulator too.
:
: It was a great program.
Was it? I wouldn't know, I've never tried it.
I worked here: http://www.link-miles.co.uk/
That would be when you were still in diapers.
Androcles
: >
: > Yeah, I owned a first edition of MS's Flight Simulator too.
Not as much fun as flying a Kuwaiti 747 between the twin towers
of the WTC on a Saturday afternoon, rolling it 90 degrees so as not
to clip the wings. I couldn't do it, but one of our other engineers
managed to pull it up by giving it a boot full of rudder.
That sim was later stolen by the Iraqis during the Gulf War.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
Sorry, not everyone shares your fecal fetish.
Androcles
: "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
: news:ivmni.37324$w97....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: >
: > "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote in
: > message
: > news:camni.8817$Od7....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
: > : "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
: > : news:95kni.37311$w97....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: > : >
: > : > Androcles used to work on flight simulators back in the 80's.
: > : > "Scott Hedrick" <dinehn...@yahoo.com> ought to get his
: > : > head out of his arse and quit reading Superman comics.
: > : >
: > :
: > : Yeah, I owned a first edition of MS's Flight Simulator too.
: > :
: > : It was a great program.
: >
: > Was it? I wouldn't know, I've never tried it.
: > I worked here: http://www.link-miles.co.uk/
: >
: > That would be when you were still in diapers.
: >
: >
:
: Sorry, not everyone shares your fecal fetish.
Fuck off, I get bored by ignorant flamers.
Stick your "sorry" up your arse, little punk.
*plonk*
Derek Lyons
>Why do it, then? You are the prat making airy handwaves that
>a flight recorder "is many times more complex than a cell phone",
Just for starters... Does you your cellphone have heater circuits to
keep it warm? (No.) Does it have an input multiplexer to handle data
inputs from multiple (read: dozens) of data sources? (No.) Does it
contain the circuits for being remotely operated? (No.)
Etc... Etc...
Pat Flannery
Bash wrote:
> And pulling the topic back to a space topic, I found that a bug in some of
> the early editions (circa 1990) allowed you to take the Learjet (via some
> deft banking with rudder input at the edge of stalling) up to 1,000,000 ft.
> :-D
>
I was curious to see how high a Learjet really could go; so looked it up:
http://records.fai.org/general_aviation/aircraft.asp?id=2752
Someone familiar set two of those records.
Probably pretty tame after a X-15.
We had a computer out that our airport that let you file automated
flight plans and work out the specifics of your trip. Without filing it,
I once set up a flight plan for a "Aurora" from New York's JFK to Los
Angeles' LAX at 130,000 feet and 3,500 mph, using 30,000 pounds of fuel
per hour.
The computer thought that was fine, and gave me the flight bearing, ETA,
expected fuel burn for the flight, weather on the way, high altitude
winds, NOTAMS I needed to know about, and specifics on the two airports.
;-)
Pat
Pat Flannery
Derek Lyons wrote:
> Just for starters... Does you your cellphone have heater circuits to
> keep it warm? (No.) Does it have an input multiplexer to handle data
> inputs from multiple (read: dozens) of data sources? (No.) Does it
> contain the circuits for being remotely operated? (No.)
>
>
>
That's why a CPFM must be included with the cellphone on the Mars mission.
The monkey will keep the cellphone warm, and operate it.
It will also engage in hilarious pranks and outrageous antics with the
cellphone on the way to Mars, such as calling up the Creation Museum and
asking if Eve is there, and when they answer "yes, she is" asking if it
could ask to speak to her grandmother, Lucy.
This is the concept of the "Bonzo Black Box", that shall revolutionize
planetary exploration, and get JPL the sort of public recognition it needs.
Pat
Androcles
: "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
:
: >Why do it, then? You are the prat making airy handwaves that
: >a flight recorder "is many times more complex than a cell phone",
:
: Just for starters... Does you your cellphone have heater circuits to
: keep it warm? (No.)
A fuckin' heater makes it "many times more complex".
Just for starters, you are a dickhead. (Yes.)
Does it have an input multiplexer to handle data
: inputs from multiple (read: dozens) of data sources? (No.)
A fuckin' multiplexer makes it "many times more complex".
Just for seconds, you are a dumbfuck.(Yes.)
Does it
: contain the circuits for being remotely operated? (No.)
Of course it does, anyone in the world can call me or text me
if they know the number; then the ring tone kicks in.
That's remote operation, fuckhead.
Just for thirds, you are dumber than you look.(Yes.)
Etc,. etc.
Pat Flannery
Androcles wrote:
>
> A fuckin' heater makes it "many times more complex".
> Just for starters, you are a dickhead. (Yes.)
>
Pity that lion didn't eat you.
Pat
Landy
"Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
You get bored by ignorant flamers, Jesus, that's a laugh!
You would have to be one of the most ignorant people I have ever heard.
Ignorance by itself is forgiveable, but ignorance coupled with a know-it-all
attitide is not. You dared to plonk me in the discussion on Pliestocene sea
level
curves, when you're the one who has dreamed up a scenario for which there is
not one shred of evidence. And then acuse me of not providing evidence
when this is clearly unecessary bacause every published sea level curve for
the Pliestocene supports what I was saying. The evidence has already been
found
and published.
You are forthright in your ignorance, you misquote other contributors, take
their
comments out of context, change the thread title and the have the stupidity
to wonder
why people flame you. Christ, wake up!
And go on, just misqote and plonk again - just so everyone else can see what
an ignoramus
you really are.
cheers
Bill
Rand Simberg
<no...@nowhere.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:
>> Fuck off, I get bored by ignorant flamers.
>> Stick your "sorry" up your arse, little punk.
>> *plonk*
>
>You get bored by ignorant flamers, Jesus, that's a laugh!
>You would have to be one of the most ignorant people I have ever heard.
>Ignorance by itself is forgiveable, but ignorance coupled with a know-it-all
>attitide is not. You dared to plonk me in the discussion on Pliestocene sea
>level curves, when you're the one who has dreamed up a scenario for which there is
>not one shred of evidence. And then acuse me of not providing evidence
>when this is clearly unecessary bacause every published sea level curve for
>the Pliestocene supports what I was saying. The evidence has already been
>found
>and published.
Welcome to Usenet. And the reason it's dying.
Androcles
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:139t1gf...@corp.supernews.com...
:
:
Pisses you off being beaten, doesn't it? :-)
How nice.
Androcles
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
news:46d19299.4014013606@news.giganews.com...
: On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:00:04 +1000, in a place far, far away, "Landy"
: <no...@nowhere.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
: as to indicate that:
:
:
: >> Fuck off, I get bored by ignorant flamers.
: >> Stick your "sorry" up your arse, little punk.
: >> *plonk*
: >
: >You get bored by ignorant flamers, Jesus, that's a laugh!
: >You would have to be one of the most ignorant people I have ever heard.
: >Ignorance by itself is forgiveable, but ignorance coupled with a
know-it-all
is not. You dared to plonk me in the discussion on Pliestocene (2)
sea
: >level curves, when you're the one who has dreamed up a scenario for which
there is
: >not one shred of evidence. And then acuse (3)
me of not providing evidence
: >when this is clearly unecessary bacause (4)
every published sea level curve for
: >the Pliestocene (5)
supports what I was saying. The evidence has already been
: >found
: >and published.
:
: Welcome to Usenet. And the reason it's dying.
The prat started talking about the Holocene and now switches it to
Pleistocene (which he cannot spell). He claims "All the evidence"
but cannot produce it. That's REAL ignorance, dead from the neck up.
Landy
"Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
The sea level rise traverses the Pleistocene-Holocene boundary - we're
talking about the period 14 ka-7 ka. Whether you call it Pleistocene or
Holocene
is irrelevant. And in any case your initial claim centred around huge sea
level
rises at 11.5 ka - which is in the Pleistocene. I never mentioned the word
Holocene.
As I said - the evidence has already been produced - but of course morons
like you choose to ignore it. Instead all you can manage to notice is a
typo.
cheers
Bill
Scott Hedrick
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote in message
news:camni.8817$Od7....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> It was a great program.
I wish I'd gotten a copy of MS Space Simulator when I had the chance.
Never did find a copy of BARIS on CD. I still have the floppies, I'm going
to build a 486 based machine in order to play it again.
Gotta love that "Ignition sequence start" in Brooklyneze.
Scott Hedrick
Most people think with their grey matter. Some folks are limited to their
white matter. And Androcles is one of those who are limited to using their
fecal matter.
Scott Hedrick
And here is Androcles reading one of his own posts:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4159582500261064269&q=in_label%3Atype%3Dmovie
Pat Flannery
Scott Hedrick wrote:
>
> Most people think with their grey matter. Some folks are limited to their
> white matter. And Androcles is one of those who are limited to using their
> fecal matter.
>
He gives me paws.
Manely due to his insults and pride, I have killfiled him.
He shall not be a thorn in my side anymore. :-)
Pat
Androcles
: "Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
Another original and highly creative thinker with "NOSPAM" in
his address, I see. Do you amaze yourself with your nonwit, fuckwit?
*plonk*
Pat Flannery
Scott Hedrick wrote:
> And here is Androcles reading one of his own posts:
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4159582500261064269&q=in_label%3Atype%3Dmovie
>
And even before I clicked on that link, I knew full well what it was
going to be. :-D
Pat
Androcles
:
:
I figure it would be Hedrick eating it's own shit. Or you.
BradGuth
crystals isn't exactly a good sign of potential Mars life, or even any
sign that our best applied technology can manage to utilize that local
cache of subfrozen water to any significant local advantage.
Unless there's something/anything locally geothermal worthy, having
megatonnes worth of such subfrozen ice isn't hardly worth all that
much, especially since that Mars environment is without hardly any
salt, and for otherwise somewhat easily pulverised plus solar and
cosmic radiated to death.
As having recently shared with "siafu", in that I can only lead the
horse to water. However, if that silly horse refuses to drink, what
can I say.
There's other intelligent life existing/coexisting on Venus:
I've convinced all that use the regular laws of physics on an equal
basis of terrestrial or off-world applications, and otherwise of
having convinced anyone that has in any way honestly utilized an image
in order to deductively interpret as to whatever's natural as opposed
to what's potentially artificial looking. If you folks don't believe
in sticking with the regular laws of physics, or simply fail to
believe in pictures anymore than that horse which fails to drink, then
what can anyone possibly have to say?
That nifty Magellan radar image of what's looking so intelligent and
physically rational was obtained at 43 degrees, which makes it nearly
3D worthy to start off with, and of the composite image of having 36
radar looks per pixel is certainly a little more than truth worthy,
though obviously lacking in raw pixel details smaller than 225 meters,
however there's 75 meters per pixel as being easily extracted from
this composite made from the three original 75 meter resolution image
files. Therefore, at best I'm only interpreting as to whatever's of a
sufficiently large scale, while otherwise giving my best SWAG as to
whatever's of anything smaller that became extracted from the
PhotoShop enlargement process. How about yourself?
Oddly, or perhaps it's business as usual, whereas it seems that none
of you naysay folks have ever once contributed an equal or better
photographic image along with your subsequent interpretations as to
whatever's perfectly natural looking. You silly folks can't even give
that nifty "Fluid Arch" or any portion of the other perfectly natural
looking surroundings a fair shot in the dark of your deductively
interpreting on behalf of sharing anything of any importance. For
other than your obvious naysay formulated mindset, why is that?
- Brad Guth
BradGuth
nowhere in sight.
The recent science interpretation on behalf of Mars having subfrozen
water that's covered by a nifty blanket of fluffy CO2 crystals isn't
exactly offering us a good sign of such an environment hosting
potential life, or even any healthy sign that our best applied
technology can otherwise manage to utilize that local cache of
subfrozen water to any significant local advantage that isn't of far
more spendy trouble than it's worth.
Unless there's something/anything locally geothermal worthy, as for
having megatonnes worth of such subfrozen ice isn't hardly worth all
that much, especially since that mostly frozen to death Mars
environment is thus far without hardly any salt, and for otherwise
it's still somewhat easily pulverised by whatever's physically
incoming, plus getting summarily solar, moon and cosmic radiated to
death.
As having recently shared with "siafu" of Wikipedia, in that I can
only lead the horse to water. However, if that silly horse refuses to
drink, what can anyone or much less myself possibly say.
There's other intelligent life existing/coexisting on Venus:
I've convinced all that use the regular laws of physics on an equal
basis of terrestrial or off-world applications, and otherwise of
having convinced most anyone that has in any similar way honestly
utilized an image in order to deductively interpret as to whatever's
natural as opposed to whatever's potentially artificial looking. If
the establishment swarm of naysayism does not believe in sticking with
the regular laws of physics, or simply fails to believe in pictures
anymore so than that horse which fails to drink, then what can anyone
possibly have to say?
That nifty Magellan radar image of having recorded what's looking as
though physically intelligent and rather community infrastructure
rational was obtained at 43 degrees, which makes it nearly 3D worthy
to start off with, and of that composite image of essentially having
36 radar looks per pixel is certainly a little more than truth worthy
(though obviously lacking in raw pixel details smaller than 225
meters), however there's 75 meters per pixel as being easily extracted
from within this composite image that was made from the three original
75 meter resolution image files. Therefore, at best I'm only
deductively interpreting as to whatever's of a sufficiently large
scale, while otherwise having given my best SWAG as to whatever's of
anything smaller that became extracted via the observationology of
deductive interpretation from the subsequent PhotoShop enlargement
process, that which others as typically having been claiming as being
all-knowing and/or of such wizard status should have been capable of
doing at least one better. How about yourself?
Oddly, or perhaps it's Usenet mainstream damage-control (aka cover thy
butt) business as usual, whereas it seems that none of you naysay
folks in the supposed know of all there is to know have ever once
contributed an equal or better photographic image, along with your
subsequent interpretations as to whatever's perfectly natural
looking. You silly folks can't even give your honest opinion as to
that nifty "Fluid Arch" or that of any portion of all the other
perfectly natural looking surroundings, as offering us your best
effort of any fair shot in the dark of your deductively interpreting
expertise, on behalf of sharing much of anything of any planetology
importance. For other than each of your obvious swarm like naysay
formulated mindset, why is that?
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth
Landy
"Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
Androcles yet agin proves himself to be the moron.
Bash
> That's why a CPFM must be included with the cellphone on the Mars mission.
> The monkey will keep the cellphone warm, and operate it.
> It will also engage in hilarious pranks and outrageous antics with the
> cellphone on the way to Mars, such as calling up the Creation Museum and
> asking if Eve is there, and when they answer "yes, she is" asking if it
> could ask to speak to her grandmother, Lucy.
> Pat
Gawd help me from your imagination Pat, I can picture this scene
now....
Our intrepid monkey is almost at Mars, nearly out of oxygen, and the
cellphone battery is low after his creation museum antics. He calls
NASA for help and waits for 6 minutes.
Dial tone goes, voice circuit clicks and a female voice coos
"your call important to us, please hold...." :-D
Bash
> We had a computer out that our airport that let you file automated
> flight plans and work out the specifics of your trip. Without filing it,
> I once set up a flight plan for a "Aurora" from New York's JFK to Los
> Angeles' LAX at 130,000 feet and 3,500 mph, using 30,000 pounds of fuel
> per hour.
> The computer thought that was fine, and gave me the flight bearing, ETA,
> expected fuel burn for the flight, weather on the way, high altitude
> winds, NOTAMS I needed to know about, and specifics on the two airports.
> ;-)
>
> Pat
Interesting fact, I didn't know you know who had the height record...
Talking of which is wind data important above 100k feet, thinking
about re-entering (pulling subject a little on topic) space craft as
well???
Another flight I tried with the Lear jet was to have 200knot winds at
low, medium and high altitudes, thunderheads from 0 to 60K feet. A
proper cat 5 hurricane and then some. That plane after takeoff (only
after many failed attempts each ending in an expensive noise) was
bouncing around like a bead of sweat in an aerobic teachers chest
cleavage :-D
Pat Flannery
Bash wrote:
> ..
>
> Talking of which is wind data important above 100k feet, thinking
> about re-entering (pulling subject a little on topic) space craft as
> well???
>
I would think given the thinness of the atmosphere at that height that
winds wouldn't have all that much effect on something going at the
velocity of a reentering vehicle.
One thing you don't want to hit on the way in is a noctilucent cloud;
they computer modeled that for the Shuttle, and the cloud abraded the
belly tiles so much that it lost control due to the airflow going
completely turbulent.
This came as a real surprise to them, as they weren't expecting it to
have much effect.
Pat
Jim Kingdon
> http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2007/07/nasa_tries_to_s.html
> They aren't going to take more than one descent photo because
> transmitting them will mean the spacecraft can't deliver engineering
> data as it gets ready to land.
That looked odd to me too on first reading.
But given the large amount of photography of Mars taken from orbit
(and which can be taken after Phoenix lands), it seems like the main
value of descent photos is figuring out where the landing site is.
Which is nice (other methods are likely to be slower), but not quite a
matter of getting data we can't get any other way.