Success! Mars Lander sends pics home
posted at 9:01 am on May 26, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Scientists at the University of Arizona erupted in celebration last night, and for good reason. They successfully coaxed their Mars Phoenix Lander onto the surface after a tricky landing sequence, and within hours the vehicle began sending pictures back to Earth. The most interesting aspect of the new pictures was how close they came to expectations in the polar region:
NASA’s Mars Phoenix Lander began sending photos of the planet’s surface on the first day of its three-month mission “to taste and sniff the northern polar site’s soil and ice,” the space agency said.
The first pictures, which the lander began taking shortly after touching down near Mars’ north pole — the end of a 422 million-mile trek — showed a pattern of brown polygons as far as the camera could see.
“It’s surprisingly close to what we expected and that’s what surprises me most,” said Peter Smith, the mission’s principal investigator. “I expected a bigger surprise.”
The polygonal pattern resembles frozen ground on Earth in arctic regions. It demonstrates that the same physical forces at home apply on Mars, which may sound unsurprising, but it’s at least momentous to see that theory confirmed for the first time.
Here’s another picture from the UA website, which has not yet been colorized. It’s a shot of the horizon:
This gives a good look at the polygonal patterns that scientists expected to see. I’m curious to see what that vertical white spot is in the lower part of the upper right quadrant just below the horizon, though. It looks like a singular rock formation. I’ll bet that gets the attention of the project managers as well.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2]
It’s a Chabad House! (Lubavitcher Chasidim) Heck they have one in Poland; can this be any stranger?
smellthecoffee on May 26, 2008 at 1:25 PM
We were watching National Geographic yesterday and were hoping for pics today. Hooray!
So, Ed Bell was wrong about those polygons being pyramids and ‘alien-made landmarks’ for the Martians to worship and land their crafts by?
Christine on May 26, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Ed, minor quibble-
NASA landed Phoenix; the U of A had nothing to do with the landing. They are responsible for the science/experiments, but it was NASA/JPL/Lockheed that deserve kudos for the lander and successful touchdown yesterday.
Best use of my tax dollars evuh, (aside from the Mil, God bless them). I’m with Limerick on this, we watched it happen yesterday and it was fantastic.
We also can thank the space programme for Velcro, accelerated computer development, cordless tools… the list is lengthy, never mind the contributions to pure science and military technology.
linlithgow on May 26, 2008 at 1:26 PM
And Buddapundit…what part of the spinoffs is something you would be willing to scrap, or in the best case, wait for some rich fella to fund the research for?
Limerick on May 26, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Let’s not forget what advancements in technology the military has given us as spin-offs.
Anyway, it’s great that Phoenix landed without a hitch. It’s success pays tribute to the idea there are still some aspects of government that are competent.
It’s a testament to the continual drive for knowledge and understanding about the universe.
Weebork on May 26, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Fact: Earmarks FY08 18.3 billion
……NASA Budget 17.1 billion
removal of the earmarks alone would pay for NASA.
Limerick on May 26, 2008 at 1:35 PM
That lander better not have an eeevil internal combustion engine spewing eeevil carbon dioxide.
———-
You left out the most important scientific achievement of all: freeze-dried ice cream.
misterpeasea on May 26, 2008 at 1:37 PM
linlithgow,Velcro isn’t a space spin-off,it had already been invented in 1941.
Frantic Freddie on May 26, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Just to drive the point home: $18,300,000,000.
Kralizec on May 26, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Another reason to vote for the biggest anti-earmark crusader: McCain.
jgapinoy on May 26, 2008 at 1:41 PM
Success! Let’s hope they remember the difference between standard and metric conversions. /snark
Job well done!
Kini on May 26, 2008 at 1:47 PM
NASA expenditures in the overall budget…FY04-07
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Federal_spendings.png
Limerick on May 26, 2008 at 1:48 PM
LOL…Yep, Polar Explorer never had a chance! (Phoenix had so many double and triple checks on that during the planning stages).
Limerick on May 26, 2008 at 1:50 PM
No signs of civilization, not an empty beer can in sight.
Maxx on May 26, 2008 at 1:53 PM
As long as we’re wandering off-topic: earmarks will be a tiny drop in the very large ocean of welfare for former illegal alien criminals and carbon taxes.
misterpeasea on May 26, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Now, if only they could find signs of intelligent life in the Democrat Party…
These robotic probes - there’s one orbiting Saturn, too - have been NASA’s most brilliant successes, exceeding the payoffs of even the manned missions, in my opinion. Spectacular!
Halley on May 26, 2008 at 1:56 PM
When do we start drillin it for oil?
Maxx on May 26, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Disclaimer:
This is a photo of one of the Shuttle missions ground staff.
The blue haired fella in the lower right front row is my son. He gave up his job to push tanks in the desert. Still does…..minus the blue hair. He also was a member of the Deep Space One mission (first Ion engine). This is one of the undereducated Americans that the left says is stuck in Iraq.
http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s87/Limerick_share/Rocketboy.jpg
Now you know one of the reasons why I’m a NASA nut.
Limerick on May 26, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Amen brother, and Ditto!
Kini on May 26, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Beat me to it. Nice catch.
austinnelly on May 26, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Ok when do we send the humans? I can think of several that would be perfect for a mars vacation.
unseen on May 26, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Tony737 on May 26, 2008 at 9:34 AM
Mars is already having global warming. So is Jupiter, Of course the crazied moonbats here on earth thing that Mars global warming, jupiter’s global warming and Earth’s global warming are all do to different causes. I wonder what is constant in the three systems. what could be so big as to effect an entire solar system? Hmmm it escapes my limited knowledge base at the moment. Maybe if I think upon it while I’m out cutting the grass in the beatuiflu SUNshine it might come to me. ….
unseen on May 26, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Don’t forget about Tang!
trs on May 26, 2008 at 2:53 PM
That would actually be a better question for you to answer. What would you be willing to say “no” to and if you come up with something, couldn’t all of your arguments be turned against you?
As for me, I’m opposed to any space spending that doesn’t have a primary military purpose.
Buddahpundit on May 26, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Ditto. Well said, albo. Is there anything else more important that we should be spending our tax dollars on, aside from defense? Not to my way of thinking.
And yes, private enterprise will come and eventually take over. One day there will be commercial travel and freight between Earth and her colonies on Mars and elsewhere. Already there are several companies vying to be the first with real space tourism.
All we need is a good, low-cost way of getting to low Earth orbit, and we’re good to go. Of course, if someone would discover gold on the Moon, that would get the government out of it quickly. Nothing like a gold rush!
Oh, and BTW, from the graph link that Limerick posted, looks as though if we eliminated the Dept. of Education (as Ronald Reagan wanted to do) we could have lots more for NASA.
MrLynn on May 26, 2008 at 3:00 PM
They don’t budget enough in my opinion.
Kini on May 26, 2008 at 3:16 PM
$17 billion and all I got was this picture of a bunch of rocks?
I say trash NASA and start building detention facilities for liberals with BDS.
faraway on May 26, 2008 at 3:29 PM
The NASA budget is 1% of CPI. Of that 1/3 is for aeronautic and other science expenditures. Space exploration, including the ISS, Shuttle, and unmanned exploration vehicles and support cost the taxpayer $0.0066 of every dollar generated.
Limerick on May 26, 2008 at 3:36 PM
“what do you need a gun in space for?”
sound familiar?
Kaptain Amerika on May 26, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Reminds me, I really need to water the backyard. Someone wake me up when we get pics of the little green men comeing to strip the lander.
Buzzy on May 26, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Great, now we infected mars with the Global Warming Virus.
right2bright on May 26, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Frantic Freddie on May 26, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Computers were invented before the space programme started, but the space programme accelerated their development.
You’re right that Velcro was discovered earlier than the 60’s but it wasn’t widely used until NASA improved it and began in earnest to use it. It then gained in popularity and is widely used today and has further been improved. Perhaps ‘thanking’ NASA isn’t good as it could imply invention.
The space programme is the natural gestater of technology. There is no room for error, and space exploration requires incredible precision in order to succeed. Ideas on drawing boards or those not seen as practical initially are adapted and used in creative ways. Space exploration is all about problem solving, which means the people involved are all for creative solutions, especially if it means adapting existing technology and improving it, which cuts down on time and R&D costs.
I am a small government person, but the one area (other than the military) I do not want to cut is NASA (in fact I think it should be reviewed for efficiency and then when ‘clean’, given more money). There is too much overlap with military technology, and with China focusing on their own space programme, we need to stay ahead of them. Whoever owns the skies - and then the stars - will stay ascendant, and NASA is one way to keep us on the right path.
For an earlier poster who said ‘the shuttle won’ over more moon missions, my husband was in late grammar/early high then and said he remembers seeing a woman on TV (just a normal citizen) complaining about America putting men on the moon when there were hungry children in the US. Also, he said that after the several successful missions after Apollo 13, people started taking it for granted, almost as if space travel was now ’safe’. Combine that with the Vietnam war and the idiotic 60’s attitude, and he says pressure was on to cut NASA/moon mission fundings.
It’s a shame things are taking so long to develop; we went to the moon in 10 years, and managed to do so with very simple computers (relative to today) and it’s taking us a long time to get back to the moon, never mind Mars. Every time I see a show on going back to Mars it disgusts me, because more often than not there’s some yahoo saying it has to be ‘international’, which means we do most of the work and fund a good part of it and have to share tech; no thanks.
I know countries like Canada have helped us (with the shuttle arm perhaps most notably), but I’m not excited about sharing our advances in telemetry and communications with the Chi-coms and
SovietsRussians. The Chinese benefitted far too much already when they got tech from us (thank you President Clinton).Freeze dried ice cream alone should convince you of the programme’s worth. ;-) (Thanks for the reminder Misterpeasea!)
linlithgow on May 26, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Ed,
I hate to be a party=pooped, but that was not the first pic sent back. This was:
http://www.wtv-zone.com/growlady/MiscNSigns/MarvinTheMartian-MarsRover.jpg
Texas Nick 77 on May 26, 2008 at 4:18 PM
I am a small government person, but the one area (other than the military) I do not want to cut is NASA (in fact I think it should be reviewed for efficiency and then when ‘clean’, given more money). There is too much overlap with military technology, and with China focusing on their own space programme, we need to stay ahead of them. Whoever owns the skies - and then the stars - will stay ascendant, and NASA is one way to keep us on the right path. . .
linlithgow on May 26, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Exactly right. Our military is now heavily dependent upon satellites for reconnaissance, tracking, targeting, communications, etc., and would be terribly vulnerable if an enemy could disable them. Therefore we must protect our satellites, and develop the means to destroy an enemy’s. Basic military principle: control the high ground.
The high ground will continue to expand beyond LEO, certainly to the Moon. Why do you think the Chinese are talking about manned missions there?
Not to diminish the enormous contribution to science and to our future space-faring civilization, but it is a given that we must control access to space for our own safety.
Another imperative that the liberals cannot, or will not, understand.
MrLynn on May 26, 2008 at 5:01 PM
Oops; meant to format linlithgow’s words as a quote. Can we edit our posts yet?
MrLynn on May 26, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Here’s a great photo taken by the orbiter of Phoenix floating down: Link
Slow loading but stick with it.
SteveMG on May 26, 2008 at 5:45 PM
It’s a Starbucks.
hadsil on May 26, 2008 at 6:29 PM
Too bad we no longer have Weekly World News to explain Bigfoot’s footprint in the upper right corner.
viking01 on May 26, 2008 at 7:21 PM
If men are from mars, then where the bloody hell are they.
Reaps on May 26, 2008 at 7:24 PM
The flag pole is a par 5. The late, great Alan Shepherd made a quick detour en route to the Pearly Gates.
viking01 on May 26, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Rats. Make that Alan Shepard.
(pesky spell-checker is now off).
viking01 on May 26, 2008 at 7:37 PM
People are pointing out the beneficial discoveries, including militarily beneficial, made by NASA as a by-product of it achieving its missions. That’s great. But what if instead of spending however much money to see if Mars could have possibly ever had microscopic life forms, we spend half that in development of an anti-nuclear missile shield? It’s sort of analogous to building a stadium in order to discover a better way to design seats, versus spending a fraction of the money and concentrating on the seats. You’d probably have a better seat in the latter, and you’d still have ancillary discoveries.
And I’m not sure it’s the government’s job to explore the universe, particularly if it has to take money at gunpoint in order to fulfill that mission. Why can’t private individuals, businesses, and non-profits do it? Because it would take too much money? That’s the same excuse the left gives for why the government and force is necessary to solve every big problem. And their assertion that it’s the job of government to provide housing or whatever to citizens seems as well-founded as the assertion it is the government’s job to explore the universe.
Also, the fact it’s a small part of the federal budget doesn’t mean it should be funded. All it takes is a hundred 1%-of-budget programs before your budget has doubled. I understand the pride and coolness associated with the space program, but it could still happen without the government funding it through taxes.
scotta on May 26, 2008 at 9:24 PM
To an extent the development of technology to place an observation probe at a specific location millions of miles away can be and already is directly applied to a missile shield system. The major elements are there: target acquisition, identification, approach, intercept, and activation of payload. Similarly the Hubble Telescope is helping to revise our understanding of physics, properties of light, matter, anti-matter and the probability that we have now observed matter exceed the speed of light. Learning new limits and possibilities of matter on a grander, cosmic scale is useful to microelectronics, communications and defense.
No doubt waste and excess can be reduced in any bureaucracy. The Pathfinder missions and Spirit / Opportunity rovers (still working and roving near the Martian equator) proved reduced budgets need not reduce the overall results. Yet the space program has provided considerable value through technological progress. Much of that gained through private companies bearing much of the risk through their investors investing. Like me.
viking01 on May 26, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Frantic Freddie on May 26, 2008 at 1:39 PM
no….T’Pol’s grandmother gave it to us!!!
jerrytbg on May 26, 2008 at 10:18 PM
Let’s throw out all the arguments about return on investment. The NASA budget breaks down to $55 for every man, woman, and child in the U.S.
That is 2/3rds of a tank of gas in my pickup, or a Chili’s dinner and movie with the wife.
I understand the free enterprise argument, and I’m sure the future holds more and more opportunities for free enterprise to take the lead away from government, but I’m not going to complain about the $55 bucks. It was better spent there then on the fajitas and On Golden Pond.
Limerick on May 26, 2008 at 10:54 PM
Good job on exposing Ed, I knew he was working for M.A.T. (Martian Advanced Team) all along.
Maxx on May 26, 2008 at 11:00 PM
I thought the Martian Advanced Team was in cahoots with Capricorn One.
viking01 on May 26, 2008 at 11:17 PM
Beware the nematodes!!!!
- The Cat
MirCat on May 26, 2008 at 11:20 PM
That actually seems kind of high. That’s $275 for a family of five. What if there was a box on tax returns where you could voluntarily contribute to non-militaristic space exploration? You and like-minded people (probably including me) could contribute, maybe a lot more than $55 a head, and people that don’t want to wouldn’t be forced to.
scotta on May 26, 2008 at 11:21 PM
If they find any life forms, Obama wants to meet with them, without preconditions.
profitsbeard on May 26, 2008 at 11:22 PM
Won’t it freek a lot of people out when they find some.
- The Cat
P.S. Oil is a mineral type deposit like any other. Gold veins found in rocks doesn’t mean there used to be golden worms. . .
MirCat on May 26, 2008 at 11:27 PM
I think that’s a very reasonable idea, and I’d choose to support NASA that way, if given the voluntary choice to do it.
I’d much rather choose to whom I give and invest my money, than have that choice forced upon me.
techno_barbarian on May 26, 2008 at 11:35 PM
Whoa. Not sure I can swallow that particular theory. Oil is not a mineral type deposit. Minerals are inorganic. Oil is organic.
Unless you’re talking about abiogenesis?
misterpeasea on May 26, 2008 at 11:57 PM
And if they find life? What a great time to be alive.
ronsfi on May 27, 2008 at 12:10 AM
How soon we forget that NASA’s delay in getting into space, because of the absurd desire to have a purely “civilian rocket”, allowed the Soviets to beat America into space. Then the ridiculous civilian “Vanguard” failed on the launch pad, further humiliating the U.S. Finally, we turned to the great Von Braun and his Saturn military rocket to get us into space. Today, NASA refuses to stick to their primary concern and instead indulges in quasi-religious, leftist mysticism regarding so-called global warming. This comes, despite the fact that their hundreds of expensive ocean going monitors have conclusively shown that two thirds of the world’s surface, the oceans, is absolutely not increasing in temperature (the latest word from the global warming crazies is that OK, OK, this may be true but by 2015, or whatever, things will change. Why, of course, by that time the Martians will have landed!). Furthermore, their satellites conclusively show that any warming on land in recent years is absolutely negligible! Never the less, the top NASA officials continue to engage in global warning fantasies! The top NASA officials are nothing but appointed political hacks and charlatans! The Agency should be eliminated and the entire function turned over to the Pentagon, which controls 90% of the activity in any case! In addition, the NASA crazies are now interfering in the most successsful and brilliant weather forecasting operation in the world, The National Hurricane Center in Miami. Let’s get rid of these NASA bozos!
John Adams on May 27, 2008 at 12:16 AM
Whoa, there’s a name for it.
- The Cat
MirCat on May 27, 2008 at 12:29 AM
That’s nothing, let’s keep things in perspective.
George W. Bush has added over $10,000 in federal debt for every man, woman, and child in the country.
What, did you think it was a free war? Did you think those tax rebates and tax cuts for the richest simply fell from the sky? As Warren Buffet recently said, there are always consequences.
Of course, we are paying interest annually on that debt as well. That $55 is, relatively speaking, pocket change.
bayam on May 27, 2008 at 12:32 AM
bayam, it’s all pocket change. You needed Warren Buffet to tell you that “there are always consequences”? I learned that as a youngen.
You made me laugh at your idiotic tax statement. Warren Buffet could enlighten you on that, if he were not blinded by idiology, as you are. Rest assured that he knows better.
Entelechy on May 27, 2008 at 12:45 AM
Alas, idealogy. Idiocy still had a hold of my mind.
Entelechy on May 27, 2008 at 12:47 AM
Sorry to throw cold water on the discussion but I know a bona-fide astronaut who still works at NASA. This stuff is essentially “static” from their perspective. JPL and unmanned probes are not the priorities of the organization. IMO, they should be.
highhopes on May 27, 2008 at 12:49 AM
Warren Buffet’s views on our federal tax policies are clear enough. You certainly don’t speak for him.
Are you contesting the amount of federal debt growth under Bush? A great genius like you might take the time to educate the smaller minds of the world.
bayam on May 27, 2008 at 12:50 AM
Von Braun was active in our missile program then our space program since the close of WW II in Europe. He was there for both the failures and the triumphs.
There’s another factor which caused many delays which we often take for granted. The Soviet Union was focused on mostly on pure symbolism. We were then and are now focused on achievement. The Soviet’s priority for safety and survival was far less central than our own. Their people were expendable and where the hydrazine ended up was low priority. Laika was sent into space orbit. Rest in peace Laika. Mother Russia’s too cheap to bring you back to Earth too. That’s central to why the Soviet Union finally collapsed. The focus was on image and intimidation (the ICBM aspect) rather than the science.
viking01 on May 27, 2008 at 12:55 AM
I say Bravo for space exploration and scientific advancement in general. I’m sure there were naysayers who complained about studying moldy bread. All the money spent on the space program IS spent on Earth.
I wonder if the object in the photo is related to the Phoenix.
deewhybee on May 27, 2008 at 1:14 AM
byam, people like Warren Buffet don’t pay any taxes, to notice.
Tax increases adversely affect the economy. We can easily handle our debt. If we sneaze, the rest of the world still catches pneumonia. You’re imagining elephants where there are ants. I listed all the details too often to bother this late, tonight. Things are good. You just want them to appear bad so that your socialists will win. Just.look.around. People never had it this good. Don’t bother listing the gas price. It’s still nothing and Soros just said that it’s a fluke. I hope your other god has it right.
Entelechy on May 27, 2008 at 1:52 AM
On topic, no cost w/b too high for space exploration. I’m sad that we’re not further along, having had to waste so much on futile social experimentation programs, and wars, because ‘hunanity’ is so dumb.
Entelechy on May 27, 2008 at 1:53 AM
Sorry bayam, I misspelled your screen name - was an error.
Entelechy on May 27, 2008 at 1:54 AM
Alas, humanity is so dumb - time for the sandman.
Entelechy on May 27, 2008 at 1:56 AM
.
It’s the north pole of Mars, silly
Think_b4_speaking on May 27, 2008 at 9:23 AM
490 million in American tax money for pictures of rocks. I could send NASA some from my drive way for half the price.
So what exactly is this Mars expedition supposed to tell us anyway? That global warming destroyed evolved life on Mars?
Phooey.
abcurtis on May 27, 2008 at 9:54 AM
I won’t take that as an insult. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, the great titans of capitalism, are often called socialists when they call for a different tax policy or higher taxes on the wealthy. Neither of them is very political. By the way, Buffet does pay taxes and has never tried to hide his wealth in offshore tax shelters. (Many on the right prefer to listen to the Walton family and other trust fund families as the true representatives of capitalism.)
I’d suggest that you pick up this week’s copy of Barrons to better understand how many on Wall Street read today’s situation. You say “People never had it so good.” You and the editors of Barrons are in total disagreement.
This country is undergoing an unprecedented fall in the American standard of living, resulting from both the falling dollar and soaring commodity prices. Barrons notes with sadness that the government is sitting on its laurels while our way of life is undergoing historic change. And as many on Wall Street point out, flooding the world with dollars through never-ending deficit spending only pushes the dollar lower and makes a serious rebound in our currency less likely.
Warren Buffet said that tax cuts didn’t simply ‘fall from the sky’. Economists like Alan Greenspan and many of our greatest capitalists will tell you that it’s better to raise taxes than run massive deficits- economic growth is neither real or sustainable when it’s achieved through huge deficit spending- by the government pumping dollars into the economy that aren’t raised in taxes but instead put on the national credit card.
Most Americans know that things aren’t so great. McCain might be the best solution if he has the guts to say what he believes- we can’t continue deficit spending indefinitely; our situation may require some tax hikes on everyone. We have an obligation to protect the next generation from a suffocating debt load. Nor should we ask our kids to live in a world where the dollar has lost 75% of it’s purchasing power.
bayam on May 27, 2008 at 5:16 PM
Mars Humpbot vid!
RushBaby on May 27, 2008 at 7:14 PM
Sorry, but as much as I am pro-alien, your wasting your time on MARS. Its the 1970’s all over again. We’ve dug in the dirt, we’ve driven all over the ground, and yes while we haven’t looked under each and every rock, we’re going to be lucky if we as much as find the fossilized remains of seaweed. The civilian space program (the one we’re allowed to see) is going to keep dangling that carrot. They’ll continue going about the local planets and moons looking for a piece of some cellular life, but the good stuff is kept under wraps and has been for a long time. [There, I said it.] Mainstream science is just now getting into the happenings right after the big bang occured and is realizing perhaps other universes may very well have formed and that interdimensional travel should be looked at. The possibility of other universes existing is not a laughing stock any longer. Things like ufo’s still are unfortnately. Some serious research has been done into that on the non-govt civilian level, and has revealed some things worth looking into and even by gov’t scientists off the clock as it were. You can laugh, but you keep watching those MARS photo’s for the cellular life they’ll let us , at best, look at under a microscope and poke with a pin. I hope they do find something after all the probes and expense for civilian science sake, but personally from what I have learned and seen first hand, there’s much more going on they are not telling us.
johnnyU on May 27, 2008 at 9:14 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]