digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

See the original image at jpl.nasa.gov

Spacecraft at Mars Prepare to Welcome New Kid on the Block

jpl.nasa.gov — Three Mars spacecraft are adjusting their orbits to be over the right place at the right time to listen to NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander as it enters the Martian atmosphere on May 25.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • DrDigg, on 02/29/2008, -1/+17Just get on the floor and do the New Kids dance

    -oh I hate myself right now
    • m0zzie, on 02/29/2008, -0/+5i think you'll find everyone else does too :)
    • MrZaiko, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1I hate myself for similar reasons, I actually know some of their names...
      • DrDigg, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1I have a picture of my wife going to one of their concerts when she was a kid. She even brought a poster. Donnie FTW.
    • SuperWinner, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Its like we're invading Mars! I wonder if they have any oil...
  • NStuart88, on 02/29/2008, -2/+4Just for using a New Kids on the Block reference and getting on the front page amazes me.
    • daRoach, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1I'm pretty sure it wasn't a New Kids on the Block reference. The phrase has been around for decades.
  • plizard, on 02/29/2008, -0/+16as long as they have the right stuff and can stay hangin tough
    • strictnein, on 02/29/2008, -0/+6Hopefully they'll take it step by step.
  • shadowspawn, on 02/29/2008, -0/+13But the women are on Venus. Leave it up to engineers to create something flawless, yet completely go the wrong route.
    • BoneheadFarker, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2Mars is the God of War. NASA is obviously being backed by the military.
  • MrZaiko, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1Prepares to welcome Jordan Knight?

    I HATE YOU DISNEY CHANNEL, for trying to Gaynize my childhood
  • lukeduke, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1To change from the gay new Kids....I wonder if the sasquatch on Mars will be there to greet the new spaceship
  • FasterGun, on 02/29/2008, -0/+4My Digg RSS feed only reads 'Spacecraft at Mars Prepare to Welcome New Ki...' so I was really excited to read about Mars welcoming their new kitten.
  • NSMike, on 02/29/2008, -0/+4I love this kind of stuff. I wish they could get the rovers up there to photograph the landing. I didn't realize it took less than a year to get to Mars, never paid attention to that particular detail. Although if this is successful, I'm not sure why we need the moon base... It's obvious that we're capable of launching from earth.
    • Houndstooth, on 02/29/2008, -0/+4It takes a lot of fuel to leave earth's gravity as well as pushing through it's atmosphere which leads to weight and size. On a moon base you can build a craft that requires little in the way of aerodynamics, and will not need as much force to take off, or something to that effect.
      • donjuan571, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2We dont and will not need rocket propulsion anymore in about 5-8 years. There are already systems in development, certain types of ion drives and magnetic drives as well that are way more efficient than this. The cost of sending all the rockets to build the moonbase, and then the cost of the fuel to send the fuel to the moonbase would GREATLY outway the cost of a few extra boosters to send to mars. Plus we could ship fuel containers NOW into marsian orbit and they will be waiting for us years from now when we get there, so no matter what there is always fuel and resources in orbit around mars.
        • RogerStrong, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1>> in about 5-8 years. There are already systems in
          >> development, certain types of ion drives and magnetic drives

          They're a lot more than 5-8 years off. Perhaps 5-8 years before they're ready for prototype testing. (With perhaps a further 5-8 year wait for funding to do the testing.)

          >> Plus we could ship fuel containers NOW into marsian orbit and they
          >> will be waiting for us years from now when we get there

          Alas, any fuel would have boiled off long before then.
    • EVogel, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2The moon base would be a gas station of sorts, allowing the space vehicle to fuel up and receive supplies for the astronauts. During the initial part of a normal launch, almost 90% of the fuel is used to lift the fuel tanks themselves. As it gets moving, the force remains the same though the weight gets lighter and requires less force to overcome gravity. Since a great majority of the fuel is burned up during launch, having a station on the moon is required if humans are to ever travel to Mars.
      • JQP123, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2"The moon base would be a gas station of sorts, allowing the space vehicle to fuel up and receive supplies for the astronauts."

        Dumb question: how does the fuel and supplies get to the moon?

        It takes the same amount of fuel to escape earth's gravity regardless of the destination. Going to the moon should increase the overall fuel requirements of a mission to Mars because not you do you have to escape earth's gravity but also lunar gravity and recover all the speed/momentum you lost during the lunar descent.

        Very little about manned space flight at this point in time makes any sense. It's mostly about publicity, prestige and corporate welfare programs.

        • RogerStrong, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1The advantage of the moon is that it's only 4 days away, as opposed to 8 months away. It's a good place to learn and test.

          >> Very little about manned space flight at this point in time
          >> makes any sense

          Aviation *still* wouldn't make any sense, if people hadn't learned how and gone ahead and did it, back when it didn't make sense.

          There's plenty of need for manned space flight, (at least in low-earth-orbit and geosynchronous orbit) if only we had the practice and the cheaper costs that came with heaver use. But we'll never get the practice and the cheaper costs unless we actually start doing it.
        • JQP123, on 03/01/2008, -1/+1"Aviation *still* wouldn't make any sense, if people hadn't learned how and gone ahead and did it, back when it didn't make sense."

          Aviation made (and still makes) perfect sense. It was/is a faster way to move people and materials from A to B.

          Compare this with the space shuttle. You start at A, you end at A. The only difference --- your wallet is lighter by about a billion dollars. Does this make sense to you?
          • RogerStrong, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1Aviating wasn't always like that.

            It was unreliable. It was too expensive to be practical. You couldn't carry a enough weight for a useful payload.

            It was dangerous - a lot of pilots died. The very first passenger flight (apart from the pilot) didn't survive the flight.

            Long distance flight was even worse. A trans-atlantic flight was impossible because engines couldn't be built that could run the four days necessary.

            Some of the government attempts to "normalize" aviation ended in fiasco. Using the Shuttle to sum up space flight is like using the R101 fiasco to sum up aviation.

            And as you say, you started at "A", and usually ended at "A".

            This was all repeated with the jet age. Early jet fighters had engine lifetimes rated in *minutes*.

            In other words, just like past and current spacecraft.

            But like jet engines, rocket engine lifetimes have been steadily climbing. There's no reason why they can't become as reliable as jet engines.

            A fully reusable launch vehicle would drasticly cut launch prices - but we don't yet have a big enough volume of launches to pay the up-front development costs. But partially-reusable launchers - like the SpaceX Dragon - are being built.

            As we fo more, costs drop an the industry becomes more practical. Just like aviation, television, computers or any other high tech industry.
  • Railz, on 02/29/2008, -2/+2I'd like to see shooting one of the Mars Satellites out of orbit. I think whoever does it would be ruler of Earth.
  • Totz83, on 02/29/2008, -2/+1Should'a sent Chuck Norris,
    -- just to be safe.
    • legendxx, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2Why would an overused, old, no-longer funny joke help?
  • voldsomopproer, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1Allegations of lip syncing and waning popularity aside, NASA is planning on populating Mars with boy band has-been's.
    • Gr1nch, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2send lance bass, not because he's gay but because he WANTED to go to outer space.
  • alittleroy101, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2 Who's your favorite new kid? Oh yeah, call me Joey.
  • afbase, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1new kids on the block had a bunch of hits....
  • crossgrain, on 02/29/2008, -1/+5The origin of the phrase "New kid on the block" dates back to the 1940's. http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/255875.html

    A boy band takes the name, and all you whipper-snappers think they invented it. GET OFF MY LAWN! YOU WOULDN'T DO THAT IF NIXON WAS IN THE WHITEHOUSE! I KNOW WHO YOUR PARENTS ARE!

    >:-0
    • bingobongony, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1I dont think anyone thinks htat the New Kids on the block invented the phrase.

      They DID, however, make it the most popular.
      • crossgrain, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1I'll hear no more of your infernal logic, sonny! I HAD TO WALK TO SCHOOL UPHILL IN A SNOWSTORM - AND I LIKED IT!!

        >:-0
  • donjuan571, on 02/29/2008, -0/+5Its actually pretty astounding to realize that we now have a network of functioning, responding robots orbiting another planet.
    • JameGraemon, on 02/29/2008, -1/+0It's silly to do that when we haven't even figured out our own planet. And there are way too many hungry people.
      • RogerStrong, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1Why? It's not like exploring Mars does prevents feeding the hungry on earth.

        To put the costs into perspective, America's human space flight programs cost around $7 billion a year. In 2006, according to the USDA, Americans spent more than $154 billion on alcohol.

        The amount of money spent on organized sports - not your kid's hockey, but the money spent to watch millionaire vs millionaire professional teams - also dwarf's NASA's budget.

        At least we've gotten our moneys worth and more back from the space program - developments that can be used here on earth.
  • bingobongony, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1They've got the right stuff...baby...they're the reason why I sing this song....

    (It really is a perfect match, since one of their major songs was Right Stuff.)
  • techwrekfix, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1This is one of those headlines that if you only half read it it sounds like NASA found a way to send the New Kids to mars.
  • jtown, on 02/29/2008, -0/+0Cool. They'll be able to release a multi-angle DVD of the explosion. :)
  • isaactellford, on 03/17/2008, -0/+0:D they very funny... How you think a can ask them for send my dog to mars? :)
    http://www.carinsuranceaccess.com/sitemap.html
  • lolo2007, on 06/23/2008, -0/+0I love this kind of stuff. I wish they could get the rovers up there to photograph the landing. I didn't realize it took less than a year to get to Mars, never paid attention to that particular detail. Although if this is successful, I'm not sure why we need the moon base... It's obvious that we're capable of launching from earth.

    http://game.paramegsoft.com/993.html
    http://game.paramegsoft.com/992.html
    http://game.paramegsoft.com/990.html
    http://game.paramegsoft.com/986.html
  • crossers, on 07/19/2008, -0/+0which is your favorite kid a?
    http://www.shpe-sac.org
    http://www.ocflex.com/
    http://www.trgovinca.org
    http://www.chasr.org/


  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.