PDA

View Full Version : New NASA Rover!


Rev7
05-26-2008, 02:00 PM
CNN story (http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/05/26/mars.lander/index.html?iref=topnews)

NASA story (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/news/phoenix-20080525c.html)

"PASADENA, Calif. -- A NASA spacecraft today sent pictures showing itself in good condition after making the first successful landing in a polar region of Mars.

The images from NASA's Mars Phoenix Lander also provided a glimpse of the flat valley floor expected to have water-rich permafrost within reach of the lander's robotic arm. The landing ends a 422-million-mile journey from Earth and begins a three-month mission that will use instruments to taste and sniff the northern polar site's soil and ice.

"We see the lack of rocks that we expected, we see the polygons that we saw from space, we don't see ice on the surface, but we think we will see it beneath the surface. It looks great to me," said Peter Smith of the University of Arizona, Tucson, principal investigator for the Phoenix mission........"Only five of our planet's 11 previous attempts to land on the Red Planet have succeeded. In exploring the universe, we accept some risk in exchange for the potential of great scientific rewards," said Ed Weiler, NASA associate administrator for the Science Mission Directorate, Washington.

Phoenix carries science instruments to assess whether ice just below the surface ever thaws and whether some chemical ingredients of life are preserved in the icy soil. These are key questions in evaluating whether the environment has ever been favorable for microbial life. Phoenix will also study other aspects of the soil and atmosphere with instrument capabilities never before used on Mars. Canada supplied the lander's weather station."

*

Comments?

I was watching this on television yesterday (5.25.08) and was intrigued by this. Just knowing that something that is from Earth has sucessfully made it to another planet, just is well, amazing. A lot of the people on this mission have worked a really long time to make this happen.

Fredi
05-26-2008, 02:05 PM
It will investigate if there was life too ... It's interesting indeed ... I hope some day soon they send someone up there.

*Don*
05-26-2008, 02:13 PM
^^^^
That'll be the day.
Realistically speaking, I think that person is probably in kindergarten or perhaps not even born yet.

Da_Man_2423
05-26-2008, 03:49 PM
It's actually just a lander, not a rover. It won't be doing any actual moving around the planet.

Pho3nix
05-26-2008, 03:52 PM
I like It's name. :)

Arcesious
05-26-2008, 04:06 PM
I like the whole space exploration thing going on, but I have to say that all that money could go to better use... Fix world now, explore space later.

Totenkopf
05-26-2008, 04:14 PM
If we wait till we fix the world, we'll never get anywhere.

Rev7
05-26-2008, 05:35 PM
^
I guess that that depends on how you look at it.

I like It's name. :)
Might I ask why? :xp:

Q
05-26-2008, 05:36 PM
My confidence in "Need Another Seven Astronauts" is less than zero. IMO they're corner-cutting, incompetent, arrogantly self-assured morons who seem to see nothing wrong with gambling with the astronauts' lives on a daily basis. It's nothing short of a miracle that more astronauts haven't paid the ultimate price for their willful stupidity.

Achilles
05-26-2008, 06:10 PM
Comments?

I was watching this on television yesterday (5.25.08) and was intrigued by this. Just knowing that something that is from Earth has sucessfully made it to another planet, just is well, amazing. A lot of the people on this mission have worked a really long time to make this happen.Yeah, pretty cool, huh?

Have you been following the progress of Spirit and Opportunity at all? If you thought the Phoenix lander was cool, the rovers might actually blow your socks off.

Roving Mars documentary on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCdwH_5K-nc) (the other three parts are also available)

It's actually just a lander, not a rover. It won't be doing any actual moving around the planet. Yep :)

I like the whole space exploration thing going on, but I have to say that all that money could go to better use... Fix world now, explore space later. Ehhh...yes and no. The world will never be "fixed". If we wait for that to happen space exploration will never happen. In the mean time, space exploration does forward our technology (which has a positive impact for all mankind) and help to answer other important questions that need to be answered. My 2 cents.

Corinthian
05-26-2008, 06:11 PM
Right, that explains why we've never lost an American in space.

Q
05-26-2008, 06:44 PM
Well, on a positive note at least the unmanned program doesn't kill people.

Achilles
05-27-2008, 01:25 AM
Just came across this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UqJR_4iFn0). Thought others here might enjoy it as well.

EDIT: Let's try this (http://mfile.akamai.com/20356/mov/etouchsyst2.download.akamai.com/18355/qt.nasa-global/ccvideos/jpl/phx20080525-480cc.mov) this one then.

Rev7
05-27-2008, 07:32 PM
^
That video has been removed. ;)
Yeah, pretty cool, huh?

Have you been following the progress of Spirit and Opportunity at all? If you thought the Phoenix lander was cool, the rovers might actually blow your socks off.

Roving Mars documentary on YouTube (the other three parts are also available)
Yes, I have been following the Spirit and Opportunity. I was more describing my unique feeling of knowing that something from our planet was in the process of landing on another planet. It was a unique feeling for me. The Sojourner was pretty awesome too. :D

Achilles
05-27-2008, 07:36 PM
Yes, I have been following the Spirit and Opportunity. I was more describing my unique feeling of knowing that something from our planet was in the process of landing on another planet. It was a unique feeling for me. The Sojourner was pretty awesome too. :DAh. Like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuYMOWyawe8)? That's cool.

Rev7
05-27-2008, 07:45 PM
Yes. That kinda captures what I felt. In a way. That snapshot is mind-blowing to me. When you get curious, you explore, and through exploratation, you learn. Knowledge is a gift.

mimartin
05-28-2008, 12:43 AM
My confidence in "Need Another Seven Astronauts" is less than zero. IMO they're corner-cutting, incompetent, arrogantly self-assured morons who seem to see nothing wrong with gambling with the astronauts' lives on a daily basis. It's nothing short of a miracle that more astronauts haven't paid the ultimate price for their willful stupidity.
I live less than 45 miles from Johnson Space Center. I graduated from the University of Houston Clear Lake campus that is adjoined to Johnson Space Center except for a road separating the two properties. My best friend for the past 30 year is a computer engineer assigned to shuttle operations that works for a general contractor whose offices are on Johnson Space Center property. I have numerous other friends and acquaintances that either work for NASA itself or general contractors for the space agency. I can say without doubt that their number one concern is human life. I was in the vehicle with my friend on February 1 ,2003 when news of Columbia disappearance first hit the radio. I know how at least one of the “incompetent, arrogantly self-assured morons" reacted. A grown man that I had known most of my life broke down like a little child. I was wondering whom to blame, he was concerned about the astronauts and their families. Yes, he was feeling guilt that some mistake he could have made in the computer system could have been the cause. I remember him saying, “what if the system would not take a command.” I was around during his father’s death and I do not remember him taking it as hard as he did when we finally got the news that Columbia had disintegrated during re-entry.

You can say that NASA administrators cut corners, but you are very wrong about the vast majority of the people that work within the space agency. I will also say that a vast amount of the blame for Columbia disaster can be placed on politicians. They are the ones that approved the missions, yet cut the funding. They were the ones that cut funding to the shuttle program and forced NASA to continue flying the first space worthy shuttle. Columbia was design before 1975, the year they started construction on her.

I love what NASA is doing with its unmanned program, but personally, nothing captures the imagination more than the manned missions do. Is it dangerous? Yes, but with any great achievement there is great risk.

Q
05-28-2008, 11:12 AM
First off, I would like to apologize to those offended by the unnecessary, emotionally-charged heavy-handedness and generalization of my previous post.

I will not, however, retract the core of what I stated there. Both the Challenger disaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_Disaster) and the Columbia disaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Disaster) 17 years later had the exact same cause: stupidity born of complacency in NASA's decision-making process. NASA was aware of the defective O-rings in the solid rocket boosters that destroyed Challenger and of the defective foam insulation on the external tank that destroyed Columbia and in both cases NASA did absolutely nothing to fix the problem until it was too late.

Once is understandable. Twice is unforgiveable. There was and perhaps still is something fundamentally wrong with NASA's decision-making process that obviously was not corrected the first time around. Has it been fixed this time? Who knows? Hopefully it won't cost another seven lives to find out.

The Source
05-28-2008, 11:41 AM
CNN story (http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/05/26/mars.lander/index.html?iref=topnews)

NASA story (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/news/phoenix-20080525c.html)

"PASADENA, Calif. -- A NASA spacecraft today sent pictures showing itself in good condition after making the first successful landing in a polar region of Mars.

The images from NASA's Mars Phoenix Lander also provided a glimpse of the flat valley floor expected to have water-rich permafrost within reach of the lander's robotic arm. The landing ends a 422-million-mile journey from Earth and begins a three-month mission that will use instruments to taste and sniff the northern polar site's soil and ice.

"We see the lack of rocks that we expected, we see the polygons that we saw from space, we don't see ice on the surface, but we think we will see it beneath the surface. It looks great to me," said Peter Smith of the University of Arizona, Tucson, principal investigator for the Phoenix mission........"Only five of our planet's 11 previous attempts to land on the Red Planet have succeeded. In exploring the universe, we accept some risk in exchange for the potential of great scientific rewards," said Ed Weiler, NASA associate administrator for the Science Mission Directorate, Washington.

Phoenix carries science instruments to assess whether ice just below the surface ever thaws and whether some chemical ingredients of life are preserved in the icy soil. These are key questions in evaluating whether the environment has ever been favorable for microbial life. Phoenix will also study other aspects of the soil and atmosphere with instrument capabilities never before used on Mars. Canada supplied the lander's weather station."

*

Comments?

I was watching this on television yesterday (5.25.08) and was intrigued by this. Just knowing that something that is from Earth has sucessfully made it to another planet, just is well, amazing. A lot of the people on this mission have worked a really long time to make this happen.
After watching NASA's slow progress over the years, I am tired of their lack of vision and perspective on the solar system. If all we have is a few small rovers and orbitals racing around the solar system, we should invest in other companies in which are motivated to do more. I think these mini-projects are a waste of time and money. To be all honest, I do not think we are making enough progress in space. We need a massive push for space exploration, which we can all benifit from in both short and long term. These little probs are useless. We need to take larger steps into the unknown. It is our human destiny. One company cannot and will not determine our fate.

Achilles
05-28-2008, 01:53 PM
Once is understandable. Twice is unforgiveable.If it was the exact same thing, I would agree. This is akin to saying that once you have been involved in a car accident, you're never allowed to have one ever again.

There was and perhaps still is something fundamentally wrong with NASA's decision-making process that obviously was not corrected the first time around. Has it been fixed this time? Who knows? Hopefully it won't cost another seven lives to find out.The foam came loose while the craft was launching. What decision where they supposed to make? Foam dislodging during launch was a common occurrence and up until the disaster, had never been considered a danger before.

mimartin
05-28-2008, 03:59 PM
First off, I would like to apologize to those offended by the unnecessary, emotionally-charged heavy-handedness and generalization of my previous post. No need to apologize on my account. If that is how you feel you are more than entitled to your opinion. I just did not like the way you appeared to lump all NASA employees into a single group. I also would like to apologize if my remarks were offensive in anyway.
I will not, however, retract the core of what I stated there. Both the Challenger disaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_Disaster) and the Columbia disaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Disaster) 17 years later had the exact same cause: stupidity born of complacency in NASA's decision-making process. NASA was aware of the defective O-rings in the solid rocket boosters that destroyed Challenger and of the defective foam insulation on the external tank that destroyed Columbia and in both cases NASA did absolutely nothing to fix the problem until it was too late. I’m going to stay away from the O-rings because there is evidence that your assumption in that area could be correct. Again NASA was under political pressure to launch despite the temperature. The foam was a concern, but not as much of a concern as ice falling from the external fuel tank and striking the shuttle. One of the reasons for the foam is to prevent ice build up on the tank itself.

Once is understandable. Twice is unforgiveable. There was and perhaps still is something fundamentally wrong with NASA's decision-making process that obviously was not corrected the first time around. Has it been fixed this time? Who knows? Hopefully it won't cost another seven lives to find out.I’m sure if the U.S. continues manned space flight there will be more deaths. After all space flight is a dangerous proportion and the only way to completely protect against loss of life is to end the program all together. I will say NASA has a backup plan for everything including their backup plan and safety is their number one concern. That said NASA does take calculated risks which are necessary in space exploration. I have no problem with those risks if and only if the astronauts are fully aware of the risk they are taking.
After watching NASA's slow progress over the years, I am tired of their lack of vision and perspective on the solar system. Is the lack of progress due to NASA’s lack of vision or their lack of funding? I believe that are getting the biggest bang for their buck with the unmanned exploration of Mars and still meeting the US responsibility with the shuttle program and the International Space Station. I wish NASA was back on the moon making preparations for a manned trip to Mars, but with their budget that is not feasible. At their current pace I may never realize my dream of becoming a “Republican Space Ranger.” Of course I guess I first have to become a Republican.

Gurges-Ahter
05-28-2008, 05:00 PM
Is the lack of progress due to NASA’s lack of vision or their lack of funding? I believe that are getting the biggest bang for their buck with the unmanned exploration of Mars and still meeting the US responsibility with the shuttle program and the International Space Station. I wish NASA was back on the moon making preparations for a manned trip to Mars, but with their budget that is not feasible. At their current pace I may never realize my dream of becoming a “Republican Space Ranger.” Of course I guess I first have to become a Republican.I think their budget is big enough; however, progress is almost always stifled when it's publicly funded rather than privatized. NASA could do with some competition in the private market, I think.

That is a Republican view, however. :D

ET Warrior
05-28-2008, 05:06 PM
I think their budget is big enough;Do you know how much their budget is? Do you know the costs of aerospace related technologies? Or are you just assuming that it's probably enough, and if they can't make do with what they've got they're a bunch of whiners?

Rev7
05-28-2008, 05:10 PM
Link (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/feb/HQ_08034_FY2009_budget.html)

I know that this is still a lot of money, but it is spread out into different fields.

Achilles
05-28-2008, 05:18 PM
I think their budget is big enough; Meh, it has steadily increased since the late 80's however lately it's barely keeping ahead of inflation. $17 billion sounds like a lot until you consider that 1) this has to fund not only R&D, but maintenance, and operations 2) it's a pittance when compared to other expenditures (like the war in Iraq - $475 billion) and 3) just because that budget is approved doesn't mean that is what they get (need more money? Call NASA and tell them to cancel that order on that superfoam that won't fall off during launch. We'll use that money to support prayer in public school or investigate Bill Clinton's sex life instead, etc).

however, progress is almost always stifled when it's publicly funded rather than privatized. NASA could do with some competition in the private market, I think. This is the trade-off:

Publicly funded space exploration resulting in government-controlled technology and a lot of oversight or

Privately funded space exploration resulting in privately-owned (and patented) technology and very little oversight (not to mention the same-profit driven thinking that that has given us JetBlue, etc).

Not that I'm advocating socialism, but I do think there are some things that really just don't belong in the private sector. Maybe some day in the future someone will help me change my mind on this.

That is a Republican view, however. :DBut are you a Republican Space Ranger? That's what I thought :xp:

Gurges-Ahter
05-28-2008, 05:50 PM
This is the trade-off:

Publicly funded space exploration resulting in government-controlled technology and a lot of oversight or

Privately funded space exploration resulting in privately-owned (and patented) technology and very little oversight (not to mention the same-profit driven thinking that that has given us JetBlue, etc).

Not that I'm advocating socialism, but I do think there are some things that really just don't belong in the private sector. Maybe some day in the future someone will help me change my mind on this.

That's a good point, and I agree that some things just don't belong in the private sector. However, I do think that Space Exploration has a good chance of thriving in the private sector since it's so technology driven. I think it's heading that way anyway, with the now available commercial flights into space (although it costs a pretty penny!)

But are you a Republican Space Ranger? That's what I thought :xp: Is that from GTA?

PoiuyWired
05-28-2008, 06:23 PM
Hmmm... new pictures. Too bad this time around there is no Tusken Raider lookalikes in it.

Perhaps maybe a Bantha?

Achilles
05-29-2008, 12:15 AM
That's a good point, and I agree that some things just don't belong in the private sector. However, I do think that Space Exploration has a good chance of thriving in the private sector since it's so technology driven. I think it's heading that way anyway, with the now available commercial flights into space (although it costs a pretty penny!) The same way that dung beetle thrive on...nevermind, you get the picture. :xp:

Just because something can happen doesn't mean that it should.

Is that from GTA?Yep :)

Pho3nix
05-29-2008, 06:21 AM
Might I ask why? :xp:
I thought it was pretty self-explanatory. ;)

Jae Onasi
05-29-2008, 06:57 AM
If profit can be found in space, someone (or some corporation) in the business community will be there eventually. I don't think that can be stopped. What business does when it gets there is another issue entirely.

mimartin
05-29-2008, 12:52 PM
I think their budget is big enough; however, progress is almost always stifled when it's publicly funded rather than privatized. NASA could do with some competition in the private market, I think.Indeed, the NASA budget may big enough if you have no concern for the astronauts flying the antiquated space shuttles or you are not wanting the grand missions The Source seems to be advocating. It isn’t nearly large enough if we are really trying to following the President's vision (http://http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040114-3.html)of returning to the moon and eventually having a manned mission to Mars.

I love how Bush set all the benchmarks for his plan to “explore space and extend a human presence across our solar system” long after his term in office is over. Just like our current spending let the future generation foot the bill while taking credit for the vision and the tax cuts.

I’m sure privatization of the space program would do wonders for safety and preventing corner cutting. If privatization of space exploration happens, I see an exclusion coming to homeowner’s policies worldwide for falling space craft.

Gurges-Ahter
05-29-2008, 01:32 PM
I think all of the Space Exploration should be privatized and NASA should focus solely on creating and developing the lightsaber.

Ray Jones
05-29-2008, 04:06 PM
At the end of the day no one can stop anyone else to build a space ship and send it up to the stars.

Also, there will be no question who will go, and it's not if interest anyway, because even if only a couple of us leave the planet to settle down somewhere else, all mankind leaves with them.

mimartin
05-29-2008, 04:36 PM
At the end of the day no one can stop anyone else to build a space ship and send it up to the stars. I would agree with this statement when applied to nations. No nation can stop another nation from building a space ship. However when applied to individual nation citizens I do believe that the country itself can stop it citizen from attempting to launching a vehicle into space. At least in the U.S. with our paranoia over terrorism I’m pretty sure the government would have something to say about a citizen attempting a launch.
Also, there will be no question who will go, and it's not if interest anyway, because even if only a couple of us leave the planet to settle down somewhere else, all mankind leaves with them.This is why I hope another country or worldwide corporation start a productive space program. That might put a spark in the U.S. commitment as NASA seems to react better when it has some competition. Overall I agree with you sentiment, as I don’t care what color flag these astronauts carry as they would represent all of mankind.

Ray Jones
05-30-2008, 10:38 AM
I was talking about *later* times, actually.

A future full of glory and space adventures of yet unknown nature. ;)

Q
06-03-2008, 03:49 AM
Once is understandable. Twice is unforgiveable.If it was the exact same thing, I would agree. This is akin to saying that once you have been involved in a car accident, you're never allowed to have one ever again.It might not have been the same technical flaw, but it was the same failure to recognize that a previously observed and documented flaw posed a risk to the vehicle and the crew, much the same as in 1986. It's the complacency that I was referring to as being identical, not the accidents themselves.

The foam came loose while the craft was launching. What decision where they supposed to make?How about an actual attempt at damage assessment, instead of just assuming that nothing could be done and letting the crew plunge to their deaths while hoping for the best? Did you read the articles in the links I provided? Sure, it's Wikipedia, but I'm sure I could find a better source if you wish.
In a risk-management scenario similar to the Challenger disaster, NASA management failed to recognize the relevance of engineering concerns for safety. Two examples of this were failure to honor engineer requests for imaging to inspect possible damage, and failure to respond to engineer requests about status of astronaut inspection of the left wing. Engineering made three separate requests for Department of Defense (DOD) imaging of the shuttle in orbit to more precisely determine damage. While the images were not guaranteed to show the damage, the capability existed for imaging of sufficient resolution to provide meaningful examination. In fact, the CAIB recommended subsequent shuttle flights be imaged while in orbit using ground-based or space-based Department of Defense assets.[5] NASA management did not honor the requests and in some cases intervened to stop the DOD from assisting.In a way, this is even more contemptuous than their handling of the Challenger incident, because they actually had a chance to rescue the crew and instead did nothing.
Normally a rescue mission is not possible, due to the time required to prepare a shuttle for launch, and the limited consumables (power, water, air) of an orbiting shuttle. However, Atlantis was well along in processing for a March 1 launch, and Columbia carried an unusually large quantity of consumables due to an Extended Duration Orbiter (EDO) package. The CAIB determined that this would have allowed Columbia to stay in orbit until flight day 30 (February 15). NASA investigators determined that Atlantis processing could have been expedited with no skipped safety checks for a February 10 launch. Hence if nothing went wrong there was a five-day overlap for a possible rescue.

Foam dislodging during launch was a common occurrence and up until the disaster, had never been considered a danger before.
Bipod Ramp insulation had been observed falling off, in whole or in part, on many previous flights- STS-7 (1983), STS-27 (1988), STS-32 (1990), STS-50 (1992), plus subsequent flights (STS-52 and -62) showing partial losses. In addition, Protuberance Air Load (PAL) foam has also shed pieces, plus spot losses from large-area foams. At least one previous strike caused no serious damage. NASA management came to refer to this phenomenon as "foam shedding." As with the O-ring erosions that ultimately doomed the Challenger, NASA management became accustomed to these phenomena when no serious consequences resulted from these earlier episodes. This phenomenon was termed "normalization of deviance" by sociologist Diane Vaughan in her book on the Challenger launch decision process. The foam-shedding had caused no significant damage before, but it had indeed caused damage on previous occasions. Should that not have been a big red flag to engineers that here was a potential problem? ;)

Don't get me wrong: NASA's handled a life-threatening crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13) before, and has done so brilliantly. Unfortunately the skill with which they handled Apollo 13 seems to have become the exception rather than the rule.

The Source
06-03-2008, 06:15 PM
I think all of the Space Exploration should be privatized and NASA should focus solely on creating and developing the lightsaber.

Mars Aliens "We come in peace."

Invaders From Earth ***Snap, Hiss.***
"Yeah, but we don't" :wan:

Rev7
06-04-2008, 07:23 PM
I thought it was pretty self-explanatory. ;)
Emphasis on the ":xp:"

Achilles
06-06-2008, 02:53 AM
Qliveur,

I apologize for the delayed response but I needed some time to process what you said in post #36. I just wanted to follow up and let you know that I found your arguments very well thought-out and persuasive. As such, you've convinced me that you are the one that is right here and I appreciate the effort that you put into your side of the debate. Thank you and take care.

Q
06-08-2008, 12:05 PM
:drop2:

:xp:
But seriously: thank you. :)

This is a subject about which I (obviously) feel very strongly because I was one of NASA's biggest fans while growing up. When Challenger disintegrated, I studied the incident through every source available at the time and discovered that the SRB O-ring problem was known to and ignored by NASA prior to that disaster, and my confidence in the organization was shattered. When I found out that the Columbia fatalities were caused by the same brand of inept decision-making I was infuriated, and that fury really hasn't subsided over the years. Hence my rant. ;)

In spite of all of the gross human error involved, the fatalities might have been averted had the STS been designed from the outset with a real, workable crew escape system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_abort_modes#Ejection_escape_systems) that could be used during launch, in orbit, or during re-entry. There were and are arguments for and against such a system, of course, but it was not beyond the technology of the period and the 14 lives that could have been saved by such a system would have more than justified the extra cost involved, IMHO.

BTW: I don't believe that NASA's resorting to designs that harken back to 1960's tech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_%28spacecraft%29) is really the answer, either, but at least it has an escape system! :p

Ray Jones
06-09-2008, 08:47 AM
First man in space, Joe Kittinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Kittinger), and the crew around him were working on some rescue system for space travelling vehicles before NASA was brought to life and took over. Unfortunately, from all the knowledge they took from their "predecessor", they discarded all the work on possible rescue systems.

I love how he shows us that you basically don't need anything but a parachute to return from space to earth:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Kittinger-jump.jpg/472px-Kittinger-jump.jpg

"On August 16, 1960 he made the final jump from the Excelsior III at 102,800 feet (31,330 m). Towing a small drogue chute for stabilization, he fell for 14 minutes and 36 seconds reaching a maximum speed of 614 mph (988 km/h or 274 m/s) before opening his parachute at 18,000 feet (5,500 m)."

Q
06-09-2008, 09:10 AM
I remember reading about this when I was a kid. I think that it's very cool that the first trips to the edge of space were made in hydrogen or helium balloons, of all things.

Rev7
06-09-2008, 08:16 PM
I have seen documentaries of that on the History channel. I thought that it was simply amazing that you could fall that fast, and that high up. Amazing if you ask me...

I wonder if he was scared being that high up in a air ballon....I think that I might be....

M@RS
06-09-2008, 08:33 PM
I would have jumped without the parachute, simply because of a fear of heights :( I hate it...The problem is that I fell of a two story building and broke my arm, I haven't recovered since :lol:

Rev7
06-09-2008, 10:53 PM
Ouch! I expect that it hurt a lot...? :xp:

M@RS
06-09-2008, 10:57 PM
Hehe, yeah I missed a slumber party because of that, and to top it all off my arm is crooked even after 3 years, the principal was hilarious for the rest of the year he told kids to stay off of the stair case rails and everything, I miss that school (sigh) it was fun there...

tk102
06-10-2008, 12:59 AM
First man in space, Joe Kittinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Kittinger)...
There's a freaking hero. His whole wiki bio is amazing.

Thanks for the post Ray.

Q
06-10-2008, 04:52 AM
Of course. He hails from the golden age of the test pilots. There were a lot of heroes like him, quite a few of whom are now unknown because the hazards of their chosen occupation proved to be quite fatal.

Rev7
06-20-2008, 11:07 PM
Update! (http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/20/phoenix-straight-up-on-the-rocks/)

Achilles
06-20-2008, 11:49 PM
Cool stuff, Rev7. Thanks for the update!

Arcesious
06-21-2008, 01:34 AM
So there is water on mars... Or are the martians just teasing us? :p lol, jk.

Achilles
06-21-2008, 07:37 PM
Another link (http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/mars-phoenix-tw.html)

Aside: I love how these guys operate. Here's the message they had coded the lander to return if the test was positive:
"Are you ready to celebrate? Well, get ready: We have ICE!!!!! Yes, ICE, *WATER ICE* on Mars! w00t!!! Best day ever!!" :bounce1:

Arcesious
06-21-2008, 08:25 PM
Haha... Good to see our fellow scientists are a lot like us... I'd do almost the same thing in thier position with makign that message...

Rev7
06-21-2008, 10:17 PM
Another link (http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/mars-phoenix-tw.html)

Aside: I love how these guys operate. Here's the message they had coded the lander to return if the test was positive:
:bounce1:
Hmm, interesting. Regardless, I think that it is cooool. :D Thanks for the link Achilles. :)