Beta
×

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!

Mars Rover Opportunity Finds Life-Friendly Niche

samzenpus posted about 7 months ago | from the marvin's-room dept.

Mars 55

astroengine writes "Gale Crater, the region being explored by NASA's Curiosity rover, isn't the only place on Mars where ancient microbes may have thrived. New evidence from NASA's senior robotic Mars scout, Opportunity, shows life-friendly water once mixed with telltale, clay-bearing rocks that now lie on the broken rim of Endeavour Crater, an ancient 14-mile wide basin on the other side of the planet from Gale. 'If I were to go Mars early in time and wanted to do a well, I'd do it there,' planetary scientist Ray Arvidson, with Washington University in St. Louis, told Discovery News. 'It's like drinking water. This would have been a niche for whatever life at the time existed.'"

cancel ×

55 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

But (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46052461)

but did the Mars Rover ever throw a kitten into a turbine?

So, when are we going to send tunnel-bots? (2)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | about 7 months ago | (#46052473)

We get it already -- there was water there, and apparently there still is water under the surface. If Mars One actually goes through, I hope they take lots of shovels, and do lots of digging.

Re:So, when are we going to send tunnel-bots? (4, Interesting)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 7 months ago | (#46052615)

Funny thing is though, the total surface area of Mars is only a little over 3 times the land area of Asia.

Mars is quite small, so excavating at maybe under 40 sites on the entire planet should be statistically a good search.

Re:So, when are we going to send tunnel-bots? (4, Informative)

icebike (68054) | about 7 months ago | (#46053227)

Right. the LAND area of Mars and Earth are close.

Land area of Earth 148 million km.
Surface area of Mars 144.8 million km

So our sample to date is pretty miserable.
However, our samples to date agree with out space based observations. Both on earth and on mars. We don't have to turn over every rock.

We need rovers that can get to some more risky locations. http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap03... [nasa.gov]

Re:So, when are we going to send tunnel-bots? (1)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 7 months ago | (#46053287)

Good point!

Re:So, when are we going to send tunnel-bots? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46054827)

The apod picture probably shows channels dug by pieces of frozen CO2, not a liquid.

Re:So, when are we going to send tunnel-bots? (1)

icebike (68054) | about 7 months ago | (#46060353)

There are lots of these to investigate: http://www.msss.com/mars_image... [msss.com]

Re:So, when are we going to send tunnel-bots? (2)

dargaud (518470) | about 7 months ago | (#46055085)

We need rovers that can get to some more risky locations

Indeed. Why don't they land a rover at the bottom of the very deepest canyon ? Higher air pressure, more humidity... They should start mass producing those rovers. Making 10 of them is probably hardly more expensive than just making one anyway.

Re:So, when are we going to send tunnel-bots? (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | about 7 months ago | (#46056563)

Why don't they land a rover at the bottom of the very deepest canyon ? Higher air pressure, more humidity...

Orders of magnitude more difficult to reach, far more difficult terrain to rover, far narrower communications windows.... The targeting teams have a very difficult job indeed, they have to reach places that are both scientifically interesting, *and* that the vehicles have a reasonable chance of surviving a landing at, *and* offers terrain the rovers can operate over, *and* which doesn't impose excessive operational constraints... etc... etc...
 

They should start mass producing those rovers. Making 10 of them is probably hardly more expensive than just making one anyway.

Mass production makes thing cheap because it uses assembly lines. You can't build these rovers or even their on assembly lines. You can't really reduce the tens of thousands of hours of hand assembly, testing, checkout, and verification. Mass production is a magic spell you can invoke by saying the magic words.

Re:So, when are we going to send tunnel-bots? (1)

icebike (68054) | about 7 months ago | (#46060081)

Orders of magnitude more difficult to reach, far more difficult terrain to rover, far narrower communications windows...

Orders of magnitude more difficult to reach? I doubt that.
Some of these canyons are very wide, with large flat bottoms, but you don't even have to go for the worst canyons
just the most interesting ones. http://www.msss.com/mars_image... [msss.com]
The radar directed skycrane mechanism used for Curiosity, with a little more fuel could probably drop in much tighter quarters that they've been willing to try so far.

We've got enough orbiters that the communications windows are also less of a problem.
I think the rovers need bigger diameter wheels. It would reduce wheel wear [ddmcdn.com] and wheel loading, and allow traversing much more cluttered ground, and perhaps steeper slopes.

Re:So, when are we going to send tunnel-bots? (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | about 7 months ago | (#46063551)

Orders of magnitude more difficult to reach? I doubt that.

Of course you doubt it, you're clueless idiot.

We've got enough orbiters that the communications windows are also less of a problem.

Moron. The problem isn't the number of birds, it's having the view of the sky cut off by canyon walls.

I think the rovers need bigger diameter wheels. It would reduce wheel wear and wheel loading, and allow traversing much more cluttered ground, and perhaps steeper slopes.

No shit sherlock. What other genius insights do you have that the guys at JPL don't know? Poor them, all they can do is build the biggest wheel that can fit in the available space - while morons like you just wave their magical wands and magic larger wheels into place.

Re:So, when are we going to send tunnel-bots? (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | about 7 months ago | (#46058319)

Making 10 of them is probably hardly more expensive than just making one anyway.

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/mi... [nasa.gov]

$1.8 billion for development and investigations. This would probably not increase significantly.

$0.7 billion for launch and operations. This will.

So, one rover is $2.5 billion; ten rovers at once are a minimum of $8.8 billion.

Basically even if they're using a bunch of identical rovers, each additional rover is probably gonna add nearly a billion in costs. Getting stuff all the way to Mars is *expensive*!

Should we ever get some kind of space elevator or something that should change the numbers significantly though...

Re:So, when are we going to send tunnel-bots? (1)

icebike (68054) | about 7 months ago | (#46060239)

On the other hand, lets say we send another Curiosity, with minimal changes.
Building 10 of these in parallel.
That 1.8 billion drops dramatically, because its already developed. We build in better wheels (they are taking a beating), but leave the rest pretty much the same, resisting the urge to redesign everything from scratch all over again.

Now that 1.8B drops to just the cost in time and personnel to build, test, and package, I'm guessing maybe .2B ea, but lets go with .5B.
Same .7B to launch and operate for each vehicle.
So the whole fleet of these, plus launch and operations cost 15B, or about the same as One Gerald R Ford [rt.com]

Idea (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46052631)

Here is idea for studying the subsurface that is affordable enough that we could actually live long enough to see it; we know the position (orbit, velocity, etc) of Mars with great precision. Why not build a cheap, simple impactor and send it to Mars. Aim it a few hundred meters away from a rover and blow a crater in the surface, recording the impact for spectral analysis and throwing debris around the crater for close inspection. A carefully guided projectile should have a CEP of only tens of meters; risk to a rover would be negligible.

So simple you can take the engineering for granted and so fast we could have it done in only slightly more time than the flight.

Re: Idea (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46053081)

What would Piccard say!?

Re: Idea (1)

the_Bionic_lemming (446569) | about 7 months ago | (#46053655)

Make it so?

Re:Idea (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | about 7 months ago | (#46054145)

Why not build a cheap, simple impactor and send it to Mars.

Well, two reasons really. First, the words "cheap and simple" and "Mars" do not occur together in any rational world. Not if you intend to have more than a snowballs chance anyway. Second off, our current CEP for Mars landers is measured in kilometers, not hundreds of meters and certainly not in tens of meters. (And fixing that will do nothing but further ensure that it will be neither cheap nor simple.)

Re:Idea (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46054315)

"cheap and simple" and "Mars" do not occur together

Mars mission costs are mostly sunk into the lander/package (i.e. rover.) Launchers aren't that expensive. The idea offered here is just a small inertial warhead with a simple guidance package. No tethers, retro-rockets, balloons, lander telemetry, solar collectors, autonomous navigation, etc., etc. All that complexity and cost is gone.

The cost would be low and the mission profile simple; blow out a crater near a rover.

current CEP for Mars landers is measured in kilometers

We have reconnaissance orbiters around Mars now. The CEP could be reduced several orders of magnitude by using the orbiters for precise guidance.

Part of the reason for high CEP with lander missions is the deceleration profile. This is not a lander. It's a high velocity projectile following a ballistic trajectory all the way to impact.

Re:Idea (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | about 7 months ago | (#46056393)

"cheap and simple" and "Mars" do not occur together

Mars mission costs are mostly sunk into the lander/package (i.e. rover.) Launchers aren't that expensive. The idea offered here is just a small inertial warhead with a simple guidance package. No tethers, retro-rockets, balloons, lander telemetry, solar collectors, autonomous navigation, etc., etc. All that complexity and cost is gone.

The guidance package required is neither simple nor cheap. Since you've gotten rid of the lander (which nowadays provides most of the cruise services) you have to provide support for the guidance system during the cruise phase - solar arrays, batteries, thermal control, communications, attitude control, command and control systems, telemetry, etc... etc... All that cost and complexity added back in.
 

We have reconnaissance orbiters around Mars now. The CEP could be reduced several orders of magnitude by using the orbiters for precise guidance.

When you have an actual idea on how to do that rather than the vague handwaving and smoke blowing that characterizes your proposal, get back to me.
 

Part of the reason for high CEP with lander missions is the deceleration profile. This is not a lander. It's a high velocity projectile following a ballistic trajectory all the way to impact.

If you have atmosphere, you're going to have a deceleration profile rather than a purely ballistic trajectory - and Mars has an atmosphere. An atmosphere that is both dynamic and poorly understood.

Re:Idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46079513)

At 3km/s from Mars transfer orbit the impactor will spend a negligible amount of time in the atmosphere. The hard bit is achieving 10m CEP without braking for an orbital pass.

Re:Idea (1)

LongearedBat (1665481) | about 7 months ago | (#46056587)

It's one thing to send rovers to scout Mars. But if we send bunker blasting missiles to Mars, then we'll only have ourselves to blame when Mars attacks.

The Phoenix probe found ice just under soil (2)

peter303 (12292) | about 7 months ago | (#46057311)

Phoneix landed in late Martian summer when it was too warm for ice to exist at the surface. But its shovel just cleared off a couple centimeters of soil and hit ice. That ice promptly evaporated too.

Phoenix died during the winter when it was thought probably at least a meter of snow-ice accumulated on top of it and crushed it. Or its batteries were drained beyond recovery during the winter.

I know it's irrational (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 7 months ago | (#46052545)

But I feel ripped off the Mars doesn't have surface water now.

Re:I know it's irrational (2)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | about 7 months ago | (#46052715)

If its any consolation, there has been evidence suggesting that mud presently exists on Mars [blogspot.com] .

Re:I know it's irrational (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46053171)

not deserving of troll moderation.

Re:I know it's irrational (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46056115)

Known troll posting non-troll post is gonna trigger troll mod sometimes.

Disappointed (-1, Flamebait)

The Cat (19816) | about 7 months ago | (#46052557)

It has to be said. We all know the atheists are crowded around their web browsers, breathlessly waiting for the announcement confirming life on another planet because they believe that will be the final triumph of science over God.

It won't be.

God is extra-terrestrial life by definition. There is life on other planets/in other dimensions, and that life is possibly many many orders of magnitude more intelligent than us. That life may choose to communicate with us less primitively than with uttered sound or magnetic storage or ink on a page. That life may have answers to questions that we don't.

Meanwhile, our narcissistic belief that our discovery of the metaphorical light switch and how it works entitles us to stand before the universe and claim "knowledge" is probably looked upon by extra-terrestrial intelligence as the equivalent of a toddler parading around the house wearing a salad bowl as a hat.

Every great discovery in man's history has only made the universe bigger, not smaller, nor easier to understand. We have made a lot of progress, but we also must have the humility to recognize that scarcely 500 years ago, the overwhelming majority of the population was completely illiterate, and that science was the purview of a vanishingly small number of people.

In cosmic terms, we only very recently learned how to wipe our ass and we are just now starting to grapple with the problem of feeding ourselves.

We must have the humility to understand the limits of our intellect, and that without wisdom and the human soul, the world is nothing but a very complex spreadsheet.

Re:Disappointed (5, Insightful)

Jhon (241832) | about 7 months ago | (#46052595)

"We must have the humility to understand the limits of our intellect"

Um... no. We must have the blind ambition to push beyond some perceived limits of our intellect. Humility for our achievements -- but aggressive in our progress. I for one would like to see my great^x grand children living on another rock circling another fireball one day.

Re:Disappointed (1)

grep -v '.*' * (780312) | about 7 months ago | (#46053127)

I for one would like to see my great^x grand children living on another rock circling another fireball one day.

On yet another rock? Screw that, they aren't big enough, they're dirty, and just too darn cold. How about living on that great big fireball instead? Lots more room, and we solve the global warming process as well!

Re:Disappointed (1)

bazorg (911295) | about 7 months ago | (#46054553)

Living on that great star? Some important steps have already been taken to achieve that goal!

http://waterfordwhispersnews.c... [waterfordw...rsnews.com]

[North Korea lands first man on the sun]

Re:Disappointed (1)

Jhon (241832) | about 7 months ago | (#46055937)

They just needed to land at night when it's not so hot.

Impressive. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46052663)

You used an awful lot of words to say not very much.

Understanding the limits of our intellect is exactly the reason for pushing our boundaries to explore. Intellect can be extended and the only way to do so is through exercise. The alternative you (seem) to be proposing is the equivalent of sitting around picking at one's belly fluff in the hope of divine inspiration. In case it's not immediately obvious: that isn't what got us where we are today.

Re:Impressive. (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 7 months ago | (#46053305)

On the contrary, that is what has gotten us where we are today. We would be so much further ahead if it wasn't for the lint pickers...

Re:Disappointed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46053143)

Ah, bringing back the classics! There is something we don't fully understand therefore god. Good job.

Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn’t understand [and now we do understand] [...]. If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on - so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem -Neil deGrasse Tyson [wikiquote.org]

Re:Disappointed (1)

The Cat (19816) | about 7 months ago | (#46053337)

Does it mean, if you don't understand something, and physicists don't understand it, that means it doesn't exist?

Isn't that ultimately the equivalent of a toddler putting a blanket over their head and presuming they are invisible?

Works both ways. By the way, the God of the gaps thing is really worn out. We get it. It's 2014. Nobody is seriously suggesting everything outside our understanding = God anymore.

Re:Disappointed (1)

Your.Master (1088569) | about 7 months ago | (#46054317)

Does it mean, if you don't understand something, and physicists don't understand it, that means it doesn't exist?

No, it doesn't. You're being really bizarre here. What Neil deGrasse Tyson was arguing is that if you don't understand something, and physicists don't understand something, then it says nothing about whether or not God did it. That's really, really obvious.

Note that Neil deGrasse Tyson explicitly does NOT identify as an atheist.

Nobody is seriously suggesting everything outside our understanding = God anymore.

Umm...you just did. Your initial post started with a strawman about atheists, a proclamation that this isn't science's "final triumph over God". Then it goes on about how we don't know anything and need to be humble about our knowledge.

From that, we infer that you do believe in God and are specifically arguing God exists on the basis of our puny knowledgelessness.

How is that not a god of the gaps argument? Or else, how is that not the argument you made?

And then just now, you've made up this story where physicists pretend things don't exist when they don't understand it, the implication being that if they recognized they exist, then they would believe in God. Which is exactly a god of the gaps argument because that's the argument you were mimicking and trying to reverse in the first place.

Re:Disappointed (1)

The Cat (19816) | about 7 months ago | (#46054405)

From that, we infer that you do believe in God and are specifically arguing God exists on the basis of our puny knowledgelessness.

Your inference is illogical in one direction and irrational in the other. I am not arguing that God exists. I am arguing that man's unrestrained ego is limiting his potential.

You've become so obsessed with framing arguments with those who disagree with you in terms favoring atheism that you are now apparently simply incapable of taking statements made by others at face value.

It's always been amusing to me how emotional atheists get about proving God doesn't exist, and how every discussion either starts there or is swerved in that direction even from the passenger seat. One wonders how their feelings got hurt enough to engender such obsession.

And then just now, you've made up this story where physicists pretend things don't exist when they don't understand it, the implication being that if they recognized they exist, then they would believe in God.

QED

Recognition and belief are two different things. If you weren't taking such Olympian leaps of illogic you would note my argument is far more concerned with man than God.

Re:Disappointed (1)

Your.Master (1088569) | about 7 months ago | (#46054295)

breathlessly waiting for the announcement confirming life on another planet because they believe that will be the final triumph of science over God.

...huh?

I think you overestimate how important god is to atheists.

God is extra-terrestrial life by definition

I'm not familiar with any definition of life that includes an omnipotent omnipresent timeless entity.

There is life on other planets/in other dimensions, and that life is possibly many many orders of magnitude more intelligent than us.

Umm, maybe. You seem to be talking about extraterrestrial life beyond just your notion of god here. How do you know?

Meanwhile, our narcissistic belief that our discovery of the metaphorical light switch [...]

I have no idea what the metaphorical light switch is.

entitles us to stand before the universe and claim "knowledge"

This is poetic, and I understand you're warning against hubris, but this it doesn't actually have meaning. What is overweaning pride here? How much pride in advancement is too prideful?

Every great discovery in man's history has only made the universe bigger, not smaller, nor easier to understand.

Well, no. At least depending on what you mean by "easier to understand" and "great discovery". For instance, heliocentric theory makes the universe easier to understand. It's not actually more "correct" than geocentric theory with its epicycles (certainly not less correct, though!) -- we can choose a geocentric frame of reference today and still calculate everything we calculate today with great precision. But heliocentrism was a great advance that made the universe easier to understand.

We have made a lot of progress, but we also must have the humility to recognize that scarcely 500 years ago, the overwhelming majority of the population was completely illiterate, and that science was the purview of a vanishingly small number of people.

Shouldn't that be a source of pride rather than humility? It means we're getting better, and when you say "scarcely" 500 years ago, it sounds like we're getting better quickly.

A toddler who learns to wipe his own ass has every right to be proud of his accomplishment, and it is, indeed, an accomplishment. The 10 year old who gets an A+ on his math test isn't scorned because his engineer dad can solve the same problems correctly while drunk and having not slept for 3 days.

We must have the humility to understand the limits of our intellect

I think it's arrogant to assume we have a strong understanding of the limits of our intellect, given all the things you said in this very post. I also don't understand why we must have this humility. What are the limits of human intellect? How can we know until we test them?

without wisdom and the human soul, the world is nothing but a very complex spreadsheet.

Again this is poetic but not meaningful. What are you trying to say here?

Also I thought you were talking about god but he pretty much disappeared from your post after the first sentence of the third paragraph. Did you just change topics part way through, or is this a god of the gaps argument?

Re:Disappointed (1)

bazorg (911295) | about 7 months ago | (#46057013)

breathlessly waiting for the announcement confirming life on another planet because they believe that will be the final triumph of science over God.

nah. the gods won't care and the scientists are probably going to tire quickly of any conversation of science vs gods.

What will be interesting is the impact of that kind of discovery on day to day religious life. Things like "God shaped man in his image and likeness" (Gen. 2.7) will look out of place if weird looking aliens are found. More so if the aliens hold a similar belief about alien-shaped gods.

life (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46052705)

I hope they never find intelligent life. The U.S. will be sure to start sending them money.

Re:life (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about 7 months ago | (#46054757)

Then they'll invade when it turns out they have oil.

Milk run (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about 7 months ago | (#46052711)

They're all making it sound Mars One will be a milk run.
Donuts, water, milk.
Garçon -- check please!

Not a bad run, so far.. (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 7 months ago | (#46052993)

Re:Not a bad run, so far.. (5, Insightful)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 7 months ago | (#46053247)

We're looking at real time pictures from fscking Mars!

Each time a fail of any magnitude occurs, it is incessantly toasted by ambitiously administering the brogans to the deceased equine.

Yet two rovers designed to last 90 days on another freaking planet operate 24x and 40x+ design specifications without overtaking the Bieber arrest in internet interest.

We need a new PR guy.

Re:Not a bad run, so far.. (5, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | about 7 months ago | (#46053315)

No, we simply need to strap Bieber to the next mars rover. This would solve 2 problems.

Re:Not a bad run, so far.. (4, Insightful)

Irate Engineer (2814313) | about 7 months ago | (#46053527)

Wish my mod points hadn't expired.

I don't think it is so much bad PR from JPL - they do pretty well with their limited PR budget, but more that these explorations rapidly exhaust the short attention spans of most of the public. Sojourner landed in 1997, Spirit & Opportunity in 2004 (with Opportunity still operational today) and Curiosity in 2012. Kids have grown up for over 10 years with pictures from rovers on Mars. There are teenagers and young adults today who can't remember a time when we didn't have a rover on Mars. It's old news.

And the missions themselves - launch day (big fiery fast moving things!) is pretty cool, but then you have a long, quiet coast phase. Then maybe you have a complicated and dramatic re-entry / touchdown that gets attention up (Pathfinder, the MER rovers, and the Curiosity skycrane ftw). But after that, it's a long slow roll across something that looks like the Arizona desert. The science is immensely interesting, but there isn't much gee whiz factor for the average person. And some of those average people are the ones that decide what gets aired on the news, so if they don't care to see it, few others will.

I actually don't think that many people give a damn about Bieber's shenanigans, but somebody in the media thinks that is the noise that will attract the eyeballs to their ads.

Re:Not a bad run, so far.. (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 7 months ago | (#46054713)

Doesn't even have to be "gee whiz", just humanising it makes an enormous difference. Look at what Chris Hadfield did for manned space exploration; he's been in and out of the news for about a year now despite retiring. When someone involved in a project is popular, get them in front of the camera again. JPL should've given that amazing hair guy a big grant after Curiosity landed, when he was super popular, so he could go and make some Youtube videos.

Re:Not a bad run, so far.. (1)

LeeRyman (1942792) | about 7 months ago | (#46057127)

I will start having faith in the human race when we start recognising the efforts of scientists, engineers, health professionals, volunteers and educators at the same level as sportspersons, politicians, pop-singers and actors. Seriously, what do most celebrities contribute to the betterment of the species?

Sorry, I'm in a cynical mode at the moment.

Re:Not a bad run, so far.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46059647)

Nah, you have a good point.
That said, note that most scientists and teachers are paid by our taxes while sports people and stars are mostly paid by whoever wants to use their fame or admires them or their work. So we already give science and knowledge a very priviledged type of recognition.
So you see, we are a rather nice species ;-)
Now, let's share the joys of science with others and let's not be to cynical or smug as it's a big turn off.

14-mile wide? (2)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about 7 months ago | (#46053717)

14-mile wide basin on the other side of the plane

Sorry but Martians used the metric system.

Re:14-mile wide? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46055449)

14-mile wide basin on the other side of the plane

Sorry but Martians used the metric system.

Worse than that, they used the "Martian Metric" system, which is based on the size of THEIR planet instead of Earth.

Life? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46053917)

I admit I am fascinated about the Mars rovers but for craps sake could they stop with every headline about them discovering life?

Blaaah blah blah Life. OOH! let me click. awh another 3 sentences about nothing.

blah blah blah Life. Ohh! let me click. Awh another 3 sentences about water. Opps! nothing there.

Just land the next mars rover next to the outcrop of whatever the face on Mars was all about. I bet you we will find more life or water there.

Meanwhile... (1)

m.alessandrini (1587467) | about 7 months ago | (#46054239)

Where the hell is the chinese lunar rover? Anyone ever heard of it anymore?

Re:Meanwhile... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46055301)

Last I heard it was on the moon.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>