Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Latest Mars Photos Show Frosty Landscapes, Ancient Lakebeds

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the wouldn't-wanna-live-there dept.

Mars 60

Phoghat writes "A new batch of images has been released by the HiRISE camera on the Mars Reconnaissaince Orbiter and as usual they are stunning. In the first image, there is a lot going on! Numerous dust devil tracks have left criss cross marks. The second is an image of what could have been a once habitable lake. There are more, including a possible future landing site."

cancel ×

60 comments

See you at the party Richter (0)

snookerhog (1835110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34651480)

let the terraforming begin?

Re:See you at the party Richter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34651498)

If it means we can get women with three tits then I'm in!

Re:See you at the party Richter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34651528)

If it means we can get women with three tits then I'm in!

Fuck Everything, We're Doing Five!

Re:See you at the party Richter (1)

Phoghat (1288088) | more than 2 years ago | (#34659194)

Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars!

Wow (-1, Offtopic)

PmanAce (1679902) | more than 3 years ago | (#34651542)

Amazing HiRISE pictures. Now they need to release those HiRISE pictures of that 3 boobed martian chick from Total Recall.

Re:Wow (0)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 3 years ago | (#34651554)

Get your ass to Mars...

Re:Wow (2)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#34652036)

I've been wondering lately what sort of discovery would we have to make to make travel to Mars a priority at NASA. I don't mean robotic probes. I mean a full fledged manned expedition. Maybe it's the pessimist in me, but I don't see anything short of finding an artifact of an extraterrestrial culture making us want to get our ass to Mars.

(Extraterrestrial: beyond Earth, not Extrasolar. I'm not saying aliens from another galaxy, but perhaps an ancient Martian civilization.)

Re:Wow (1, Interesting)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 3 years ago | (#34652320)

Either an ancient alien artifact, or a few hundred billion barrels of crude under the sand ... either one has an equal chance of getting our asses to Mars.

Re:Wow (3, Interesting)

Nyeerrmm (940927) | more than 3 years ago | (#34652498)

I don't think theres any likely discovery that will get us moving.

Instead whats going to get us moving is getting it to the point that its cheaper. Hopefully with the albatross of the shuttle no longer around NASA's neck we'll create an infrastructure that makes it (relatively) easy to go anywhere in the solar system. Cheap transport to orbit, orbiting fuel depots and built-in-space spaceships that never enter the Earth's atmosphere -- sustainable exploration. Hopefully the administrations proposed NASA budget will get us to that point, even after congress got done with it. Only external geopolitics will up the NASA budget above $20B (in 2010 dollars) again, so if its going to happen in the mid-term future without hoping for a cold war, it has to be done this way.

Re:Wow (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34654660)

I've been wondering lately what sort of discovery would we have to make to make travel to Mars a priority at NASA.

A Chinese Mars colony.

Re:Wow (2)

citizenr (871508) | more than 3 years ago | (#34654910)

I've been wondering lately what sort of discovery would we have to make to make travel to Mars a priority at NASA. I don't mean robotic probes. I mean a full fledged manned expedition

Derelict spaceship sticking out of Mars dunes. That would send a LOT of military money directly towards securing that find.

Re:Wow (1)

Phoghat (1288088) | more than 2 years ago | (#34659208)

Derelict spaceship sticking out of Mars dunes. That would send a LOT of military money directly towards securing that find.

Yeah, like that's going to happen outside of a movie. Wait a minute, you've given me a story line!

Re:Wow (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34655890)

Congress sets NASA priorities.

And yes, if they found clearly artificial structures congress would make it their priority to fund NASA as needed.

Re:Wow (1)

ezratrumpet (937206) | more than 2 years ago | (#34657458)

Why do we think we HAVEN'T gone there already with uber secret missions?

Re:Wow (1)

KeensMustard (655606) | more than 2 years ago | (#34658988)

I've been wondering lately what sort of discovery would we have to make to make travel to Mars a priority at NASA. I don't mean robotic probes. I mean a full fledged manned expedition.

My suspicion would be some sort of mass conversion to something like Sharia Law. This would be the only way to explain the twin regressions we would have to undergo as a species for that event to take place - firstly, to regress to speaking/thinking of human space travel as manned space travel, and secondly, and more fundamentally, a regression in our technological outlook such that we imagine we lived 100 years ago - before the age of robotics. From an objective standpoint robots are so superior at space exploration comparative to humans that the only way we would send humans in place of robots would be if we felt compelled to do so by some as yet unimagined dogma.

Really, in this age, even calling it a human space mission is anachronistic - like loading your horses into a truck and saying you are travelling by horse. Sure, once upon a time we rode on the horses back - just like once upon a time our electronics were so primitive we imagined scenarios where humans would be needed in space. That doesn't mean we still need the horse to travel, much less the symbolism of bringing the horse along merely for the benefit of arousing sentiment.

Re:Wow (1, Interesting)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34651706)

Amazing, indeed. Amazingly photoshopped, with more kohl and false colours than a Soho gal. I don't know about others, but I am more impressed when pictures haven't been exaggerated, so what I'm impressed with is what I see and not the artistry and what the publishers want us to see.

As for "could have been a once habitable lake", that's a rather meaningless statement. The area behind your house could have been an ancient burial site too. Speculation with very little to go on isn't very fruitful, except causing confusion when "journalists" blow this out of proportions and rewrite it like if it were fact, and people start believing it.

Re:Wow (2, Interesting)

ferd_farkle (208662) | more than 3 years ago | (#34651902)

"“Holden crater has some of the best-exposed lake deposits and ancient megabreccia known on Mars,” said HiRISE’s principal investigator, professor Alfred McEwen of the UA’s Lunar and Planetary Laboratory. ”Both contain minerals that formed in the presence of water and mark potentially habitable environments. [...]“"

"Meaningless"? Blown out of proportion? I don't think so.

Re:Wow (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34651960)

What does "potentially" mean? It's a weasel word. Again, your back yard is "potentially" an ancient burial site.

By all means, investigate whether it was or was not, but don't publicly launch speculation to fuel interest before you either know or know that you can't know. That's the scientific equivalent of karma whoring.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34652030)

Meaningless?

when it comes from a self adsorbed internet troll looking for his 30 seconds of fame... Then yes.
When it comes from a team of scientists at a government scientific operation that knows a metric ton more about the subject than you do? Then no.

Guess what, NASA knows a whole lot more than you and not only has at least 900X more experience in it than you do along with 90,000X more education in the subject... But I bet they dont make half cocked statements based on gut either.

So I'm taking teir statement as plausible and yours as inane background noise from a bunch of nut-jobs that are delusional about their own knowledge and education.

Re:Wow (3, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34652468)

Would this be the same NASA that just recently announced discovering arsenic based life [slashdot.org] ?

The same NASA that desperately needs funding, and must fight to survive in a publish or die world?

Sorry for not taking everything NASA Mk II publishes at face value. Especially not when heavily photoshopped pictures are accompanied by weasel words like "could" and "potentially", but without a single theory.

Re:Wow (2, Informative)

mopomi (696055) | more than 3 years ago | (#34652748)

Time to feed the troll.

1) These images are not photoshopped (at least not the ones on uahirise.org). If you knew anything about remote sensing, CCD sensors, image processing, or science, you'd know that.
    http://www.uahirise.org/pdf/color-products.pdf [uahirise.org]

2) Press releases do absolutely nothing for scientists except get their work out to the public. In a "publish or die" world, press releases are absolutely worthless. In a "publish or die" world, peer-reviewed work is publishing.

3) All scientists in a given field (and often across fields) compete with each other for funding, so making claims that are easily refutable (by real scientists, not worthless internet trolls like yourself) means you won't get funding in the future because a) your work is peer reviewed by your competitors, and b) your grant proposals are peer-reviewed by your competitors. If you're a shit scientist, your competitors will point it out to the funding and publishing agencies and your papers won't be published anymore and you won't get any more funding.

4) Do a little research yourself before making such asinine claims about "weasel words" and "without a single theory." Scientists use words like "may" and "could" and "potentially" when they have good reason to believe it's possible, but also good reason NOT to state something with certainty.
      Here, I'll do it for you.
    scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Holden+crater+lake+deposits&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=801&as_sdtp=on
    scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Holden+crater+megabreccia&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=801&as_sdtp=on

   

Re:Wow (3, Informative)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34653202)

1) These images are not photoshopped (at least not the ones on uahirise.org). If you knew anything about remote sensing, CCD sensors, image processing, or science, you'd know that.
        http://www.uahirise.org/pdf/color-products.pdf [uahirise.org] [uahirise.org]

Have you actually read that PDF?

(My emphasis)

"PSP_005000_1000_RGB.NOMAP.JP2 3-color image consisting of RED, BG, and synthetic blue images. The BG image has been warped to line up with the RED.NOMAP image. The BG (blue-green) bandpass primarily accepts green light. The synthetic blue image digital numbers (DNs) consist of the BG image DN multiplied by 2 minus 30% of the RED image DN for each pixel. This is not unique data, but provides a more
appealing way
to display the color variations present in just two bandpasses, RED and BG."

"For the Extras products, each color band is individually stretched to maximize contrast, so the colors are enhanced differently for each image based on the color and brightness of each scene. Scenes with dark shadows and bright sunlit slopes or with both bright and dark materials are stretched less, so the colors are less enhanced than is the case over bland scenes."

Whether one uses Photoshop or other software to enhance images to become more pleasing or effectful, it's generally called photoshopping.

Mars may look rather dull compared to Earth, and there's not much light there. But I'd much rather see things as they are, and the IR imagery displayed separately (preferably as black/white, as is traditional as it doesn't give any false impressions that it's visible light). That would be much more impressing than artificial colour "enhancements" and contrast stretching individual colour bands to make the images appear more colourful.

In many ways, exaggerating space images that are already impressive because they are from space to make more of an impact on the public isn't much different from photoshopping people to make their eyes bluer, lips redder, teeth whiter, and wrinkles less visible.

Re:Wow (3, Insightful)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 3 years ago | (#34653632)

No shit, data are processed? Did you pathetic little troll actually do anything remotely related to science once in your life, or do you think sleeping through CS101 makes you a scientist? And what the flaming fuck is with the mods rewarding this drivel with insightful mods?

Re:Wow (1)

mopomi (696055) | more than 3 years ago | (#34653644)

1) These images are not photoshopped (at least not the ones on uahirise.org). If you knew anything about remote sensing, CCD sensors, image processing, or science, you'd know that.

        http://www.uahirise.org/pdf/color-products.pdf [uahirise.org] [uahirise.org]

Have you actually read that PDF?

(My emphasis)

"PSP_005000_1000_RGB.NOMAP.JP2 3-color image consisting of RED, BG, and synthetic blue images. The BG image has been warped to line up with the RED.NOMAP image. The BG (blue-green) bandpass primarily accepts green light. The synthetic blue image digital numbers (DNs) consist of the BG image DN multiplied by 2 minus 30% of the RED image DN for each pixel. This is not unique data, but provides a more
appealing way
to display the color variations present in just two bandpasses, RED and BG."

"For the Extras products, each color band is individually stretched to maximize contrast, so the colors are enhanced differently for each image based on the color and brightness of each scene. Scenes with dark shadows and bright sunlit slopes or with both bright and dark materials are stretched less, so the colors are less enhanced than is the case over bland scenes."

Whether one uses Photoshop or other software to enhance images to become more pleasing or effectful, it's generally called photoshopping.

Mars may look rather dull compared to Earth, and there's not much light there. But I'd much rather see things as they are, and the IR imagery displayed separately (preferably as black/white, as is traditional as it doesn't give any false impressions that it's visible light). That would be much more impressing than artificial colour "enhancements" and contrast stretching individual colour bands to make the images appear more colourful.

In many ways, exaggerating space images that are already impressive because they are from space to make more of an impact on the public isn't much different from photoshopping people to make their eyes bluer, lips redder, teeth whiter, and wrinkles less visible.

You CANNOT "see things as they are" with the HiRISE images.

1) Does your monitor display Infrared?
2) Does your monitor display "red" with the same bandpass that the HiRISE detectors are sensitive to?
3) Does your monitor display the bluegreen that HiRISE is sensitive to?
4) Are your eyes sensitive, in the same way as the HiRISE detectors, to the same bandpasses as the HiRISE detectors?

No.

5) It simply isn't "traditional" to show IR or other non-visible wavelength data as a separate grayscale image. Take a look at Hubble images.
6) The difference between photoshopping and processing these images is: a) there's documentation on exactly how it's done, and why, b) the "original--whatever that means" images are available to anyone who actually has an interest in the imagery rather than complaining about scientists.
7) Mars doesn't look dull compared with Earth. The bandpasses were chosen for science. The public images are just that, to excite the public. If you want to do science, then go to the original source. If you want to look at pretty pictures, then look at the pretty pictures.

What, precisely, would you like to see?

Would you like to see the raw numbers that come out of the detectors? Those won't do you much good since you clearly don't know anything about Mars science or remote sensing. Some amount of the "signal" is actually generated by the instrument. In addition, some amount of the "signal" is due to heat generated by the spacecraft, other instruments, etc. If you would like to see the raw data, go here:

http://hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu/PDS/EDR/PSP/ORB_001500_001599/PSP_001552_1410/ [arizona.edu]

Those raw data are reduced (calibrated) as soon as they hit the ground. Would you like to see those values? Would you like to see a representation of those values on your screen, in the form of an image?

Realize that the images you can view are different because your screen is an 8-bit display and the data acquired through HiRISE are 14-bit compressed to 8-bit, downlinked to Earth, uncompressed to 32-bit, processed in floating point, and recompressed to 10- or 8-bits, depending on the output format. Your screen can't display what was actually detected (raw) by the HiRISE instrument.

Instead of assuming that everyone in the world but yourself is dishonest, try doing a little---very, very, very little---digging and learning instead of trolling.

Here's the main page for the frost-covered gullies shown in the article:
http://www.uahirise.org/PSP_001552_1410 [uahirise.org]

The mosaic of the red bandpass CCDs is here (not map projected, because I'm sure you'd find something to complain about there, too):
http://hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu/PDS/EXTRAS/RDR/PSP/ORB_001500_001599/PSP_001552_1410/PSP_001552_1410_RED.NOMAP.browse.jpg [arizona.edu]

The mosaic of the blue-green, IR, and red bandpass CCDs is here:
http://hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu/PDS/EXTRAS/RDR/PSP/ORB_001500_001599/PSP_001552_1410/PSP_001552_1410_IRB.NOMAP.browse.jpg [arizona.edu]

The color mosaic, with the stretching to enhance the color differences, is here:
http://hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu/PDS/EXTRAS/RDR/PSP/ORB_001500_001599/PSP_001552_1410/PSP_001552_1410_RGB.NOMAP.browse.jpg [arizona.edu]

Realize that NONE of the images here show Mars as it would look to your eyes. None.

Also, all of those data are directly available from the front page for the image, including the raw data. So, clearly you didn't bother trying to find what you want to see, you just started bitching because you have some bone to pick with scientists.

Re:Wow (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 3 years ago | (#34656142)

It's the new hipsterism - "I only watch it in the original infrared".

Re:Wow (2)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 3 years ago | (#34653708)

The purpose of these pictures is to actually LEARN something about Mars. They are not 'my vacation on Mars' snapshots. Learning something means that the photos need to show details, even subtle ones. Details require contrast (in all photos, not just space pictures). Your choices for getting good contrast are either a) adjust the lighting, or b) adjust the image. Option A works great in a photo studio, or even outdoors with proper fill lights and reflectors. It is not an option at all in space. So that leaves option B, which is what they do.

As for color: what is the 'real' color anyway? Turn off auto white-balance on your camera (after all, you wouldn't want to photoshop the picture), and take a picture of the same white piece of paper under three conditions: sunlight, incandescent light, and florescent light. Now look at the three pictures: one is white, one is yellow, and one is blue. The paper looks white to you under all three conditions, but different to the camera. Which is correct?

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34656268)

It's actually more like making graphs. Demographic data don't look like pie slices, but the information can be conveyed well that way. Same with these NASA photos. They take the data and accurately represent them visually.

Re:Wow (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 3 years ago | (#34652512)

Seems to me it's you who is blowing the caveat "could" way out of proportion.

Re:Wow (4, Interesting)

Chris Tucker (302549) | more than 3 years ago | (#34652784)

"Amazingly photoshopped, with more kohl and false colours than a Soho gal. I don't know about others, but I am more impressed when pictures haven't been exaggerated"

The use of color to indicate variances in terrain elevation is common.

The use of false color to indicate areas of differing surface chemistry and elements is common in remote imaging.

To equate either with Photoshopped imagery is to betray a level of ignorance that one should well be embarrassed to display in public.

Re:Wow (2)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34653448)

The use of color to indicate variances in terrain elevation is common.

The use of false color to indicate areas of differing surface chemistry and elements is common in remote imaging.

Whitening teeth, reddening lips and smoothing out wrinkles of celebrity pictures is also common.

I'm interested in what Mars is like, not in how impressive pictures of Mars can appear after a session through lightroom-on-steroids.
Perhaps especially because this may affect how our money is spent. If a team studying Mars provides more impressive pictures than one studying Mercury, and increases its chances of future funding by creating a public bias, that's just plain wrong, and may lead to an arms race where the best image enhancers win.
Let's marvel over the raw data, and not the false boobs.

Re:Wow (1)

cduffy (652) | more than 3 years ago | (#34655312)

The problem is that human eyes and minds aren't well-equipped for appreciating what they see on Mars.

Just as someone who grows up in a uniracial environment might have trouble distinguishing faces of people with unfamiliar features, we don't appreciate Mars because we don't see it in an appropriate manner.

Appropriate enhancement is a tool to convey information in a useful manner, not (just) marketing.

(For a work of fiction providing a very different perspective on a similar problem, consider whether the highly figurative translations of alien behavior in Vinge's A Deepness In The Sky aided or harmed "accurate" human comprehension).

Re:Wow (1)

Chris Tucker (302549) | more than 3 years ago | (#34655770)

"I'm interested in what Mars is like, not in how impressive pictures of Mars can appear after a session through lightroom-on-steroids."

To reiterate:

"To equate either with Photoshopped imagery is to betray a level of ignorance that one should well be embarrassed to display in public."

You just cannot seem to get away from the nose in the air attitude towards the use of color to convey information, can you?

If you go to the University of Arizona site, you can see all these images in their original 256 greyscale "goodness". Oh, wait. These images have been enhanced as well. Messing with the contrast and brightness and what not. Horrors!

Sucks to be you, doesn't it.

How the very Moon itself must vex you, what with that garishly bright silvery white glare when it's full. Pray, do you stand out in the garden at night and shake your fist in impotent rage at the Moon, knowing that the Lunar surface is actually the color of old, Sun bleached asphalt? "It should be GRAY, GRAY dammit, not that false white colour! I shall write a letter to the paper about this damned outrage!"

Re:Wow (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#34656768)

You just cannot seem to get away from the nose in the air attitude towards the use of color to convey information, can you?

Oh, I have no problem with blatantly false colour used to convey information. But when the extra information is modified to blend in with the image and look "natural", I have a big issue with it.

Why? Because it (a) misleads the masses into believing it really looks that way (which can be seen from several posts here), and (b) reduces information, as you can't tell what is part of the visible spectrum and what's not.
With blatantly false colours for the non-visible parts of the EM spectrum (or a second monochrome image), neither is a problem.

Re:Wow (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34655942)

If you were truly interested in MARS, you would take the time to stop loking like a fool and understand why picture NEED to be taken that way.

This isn't smoothing out some wrinkles on an aging starlet. If you can't understand the difference at least realize you are ignorant and stop interrupting the adults at the table.

Direct links? (4, Informative)

mopomi (696055) | more than 3 years ago | (#34651560)

Why does /. never link to the original source?

http://www.uahirise.org/ [uahirise.org]

Re:Direct links? (2)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | more than 3 years ago | (#34651580)

Ask Slashdot

Re:Direct links? (1)

Tr3vin (1220548) | more than 3 years ago | (#34651612)

The editors only post what the users send in and the users only submit news articles they have read or blog posts they have made.

Re:Direct links? (1)

GIL_Dude (850471) | more than 3 years ago | (#34652016)

Not 100% true. I've had only one article on the front page so I certainly can't speak for all. However the link I provided in my submission was to Engadget. The link that was published was to some site in the UK. They also added / changed some sentences that garbled the intent so much that it became confusing. I WISH they would only publish what the user submitted (maybe correcting a typo or two).

The editors are very, very stupid (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34651642)

and lazy. You'd think the role of an "editor" would be to optimize the user-submitted content. You'd think they'd check the spelling, make sure the links worked and pointed to useful stuff, check for duplicates, READ THE FUCKING SUBMISSION, etc. But they don't. They just wipe the drool off their chins and randomly mash "ACCEPT" to a few submissions each day.

Slashdot is a comedy.

Re:The editors are very, very stupid (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34651742)

Yes, but it's our comedy.

Re:Direct links? (1, Offtopic)

Ismellpoop (1949100) | more than 3 years ago | (#34651644)

Because half the article are day or two old http://www.fark.com/ [fark.com] news.
Lately /. could just link to the Fark home page and be done with it.

Re:Direct links? (1)

salesgeek (263995) | more than 3 years ago | (#34652786)

This.

Re:Direct links? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34651704)

Who do you think submits these stories? (mostly) Other people who write them.
What do you think happens when Slashdot pisses off the other people posting these stories?
They go away and Slashdot loses hits / possible revenue from story deals / a lot of content.
Either way, all of those sound bad.

And very rarely does that gap get filled with other people. It has happened on loads of other sites where a bunch of the original fanbase have left, the site is left is a cesspit of a mess. (4chan*, YTMND, Youtube*, Digg, Reddit, some of the larger user contributed sites that fell apart due to bad decisions at the top. [*both sites still slowly dying with more and more crap, although Youtube is slightly better this year since they are beginning to get their act together... a bit])
Not all of these were because of the same problem, admittedly, but it will be the result if the story posting bunch leave from here all at once.

Re:Direct links? (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34651722)

It's an advertising thing

could have been a once habitable lake (1)

Ismellpoop (1949100) | more than 3 years ago | (#34651592)

Must have found a fishing pole by the dock.

Re:could have been a once habitable lake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34652006)

The lake was filled with frosty piss.

Roads! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34651640)

The border of the crater certainly looks like a paved road.

The Red Planet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34651708)

A planet that once was, or a planet that could have been? For sure, it's a planet that is not...

Re:The Red Planet (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34651920)

One that couldn't have been. Too tiny and too far from the sun.

Yet, with our sister planet too harsh for us, and anything farther away being even more inhospitable, it's the only rockball we have for fueling our dreams of visiting at present. So we gaiamorphise Mars, and pretend it's more Earth-like than it is.

Re:The Red Planet (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34652160)

I think the AC just wrote a poem.

Re:The Red Planet (1)

JumpDrive (1437895) | more than 3 years ago | (#34653304)

I think it was more along the first lines of a book.

The lake was filled with frosty piss, surrounded by the martian mountain terrain.
We continued to stumble searching for water despite the obnoxius uric fumes which were permeating our suits.

Re:The Red Planet (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#34658160)

Too tiny and too far from the sun.

Yet, with our sister planet too harsh for us, and anything farther away being even more inhospitable, it's the only rockball we have for fueling our dreams of visiting at present. So we gaiamorphise Mars, and pretend it's more Earth-like than it is.

Its easy. Just move all that carbon dioxide from Venus to Mars. Problem solved.

Re:The Red Planet (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#34659676)

Its easy. Just move all that carbon dioxide from Venus to Mars. Problem solved.

Dangerous -- you might introduce venerean diseases.

Anyhow, the gravity of Mars may be too low to hold an atmosphere for long. And the tiny amount of sunlight that hits Mars may still not be enough to keep it warm either.

Area presented to the sun:
Earth: 127800000 km^2
Mars: 36250000 km^2

If factoring in that the sunlight being about 40% as strong at the distance Mars is from the sun compared to Earth, Mars gets less than a ninth of the energy from the sun that Earth does.

But then again, with a name like Michael Smith, you have probably grokked this a long time ago.

Re:The Red Planet (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#34662454)

Its easy. Just move all that carbon dioxide from Venus to Mars. Problem solved.

Dangerous -- you might introduce venerean diseases.

Originating on Titan, no doubt.

Cross cross? (1)

socsoc (1116769) | more than 3 years ago | (#34651718)

Jump, Jump!

Enough free water for frost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34651782)

Or does "Frosty Landscapes" have a different meaning?

Re:Enough free water for frost? (2)

Dakman (824764) | more than 3 years ago | (#34651906)

From the article: "HiRISE scientists say the frost is likely water frost instead of of CO2 frost because temperatures at this latitude probably do not get cold enough for carbon dioxide to condense."

False Colors? (1)

Powerbear (1227122) | more than 3 years ago | (#34652636)

NASA has a habit of making things looks a lot more dramatic than they look in real life

War is more lucrative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34654176)

Gee, just think of the space program we could have if we weren't spending $700 million a DAY on wars. Of course that's a silly idea. People who invest in wars want a sure thing and space is too risky, too speculative. So even if you could wave a wand and stop the wars, the investors wouldn't spend it on space travel most likely. But it was a thought. Back to reality.

Other Mars Media - Movies (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 2 years ago | (#34657064)

Space.com has some fairly-new cool time-lapse movies of a Martian sunset and eclipse:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars-rover-opportunity-sunset-movie-101223.html [space.com]

There seems to be some camera or processing artifacts that cause faint ovals, however. Some small-delta smoothing algorithms could perhaps fix them up.
   

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...