That would be really good if they did that Beeker. The equipment they have on Mars already is perfectly good enough to show far more detail than we have at the moment. It is what is done after the picture is taken which makes the quality so poor.
There are too many universities who need NASA money and are so involved or "in bed" with them that it would not change how things are at the moment I fear.
We, the public are forced to look at what they allow us to see, so for what it is worth and in my very humble lay opinion, there should be some really snazzy ultra high resolution photo/video equipment on the next mission. More over, I think the public should have direct access to the raw data and maybe universities could be the custodian of the information.
OK, back to MSL but you have to participate in the discussion rather than just trotting out official press release text. Why not just give us a link to it instead?
2 questions now. In spite of all the strange things we have found and others have found, are NASA still saying that there is nothing bigger than microscopic organisms on Mars?
What is the point of sending a spacecraft to Mars looking for life when it is already obvious there is life there already?
If the science community does not believe there is life on Mars, then at least they should scientifically investigate some of the many strange unnatural features and formations found there as shown in the photographs.
Officials at the American space agency announce that one of their team has just finished assembling one of the instrument suites that will go on NASA's next Mars rover, called Curiosity.
The Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM) instrument suite has finished undergoing relevant testings, and is now on track towards being delivered to experts managing the construction of the rover, this December.
The device was assembled at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), in Greenbelt, Maryland, and will be delivered to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), in Pasadena, California.
A division of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), the JPL manages the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) mission, which needs to place Curiosity on the surface of the Red Planet by August 2012.
At this point, a launch date is tentatively set for next year. Construction, assembly and testing are now going smoothly, and mission managers are hopeful that the deadline will be met.
“We expect Curiosity will make amazing discoveries, and we are looking forward to the contributions our mobile chemistry laboratory can make to a better understanding of the history of our neighboring planet,” says Dr. Paul Mahaffy.
The GSFC expert is the principal investigator for the SAM instrument suite. The device's goal is to help determine whether the Martian environment was or is able to support microbial life.
In doing so, the automated, mobile laboratory will be joined by other instruments that will go on the MSL rover, including a high-energy laser and an advanced spectrograph, NASA officials say.
The SAM suite is made up of a mass spectrometer, a gas chromatograph, and tunable laser spectrometer, the GSFC team that built it says. All the components are now in flight configuration.
A series of vibration and thermal tests meant to assess its readiness to fly were performed last week, and its builders say that the instrument is now able to withstand the rigors of launch and landing.
“Once at Mars, SAM will examine the planet's habitability by exploring molecular and elemental chemistry relevant to life. SAM will analyze samples of Martian rock and soil to assess carbon chemistry through a search for organic compounds,” NASA says.
“The lab will also determine the chemical state of light elements other than carbon, and look for isotopic tracers of planetary change,” the press release concludes.
The MSL will be the biggest rover ever deployed to Mars. It is the size of a Mini Cooper and has a weight of nearly a ton. It will be the first mission to be deployed via the revolutionary Air Crane system.
I have a great respect for all those involved in the preparation that went into the execution of the various missions and I fully realize that the scientists wanted to examine and analyze the soil and other selected geology using the specialist equipment onboard the various craft. I am also conversant with the majority of technical details that relate to the Phoenix lander and the MER's.
From the photographic point of view, what I consider is rather a let down is the quality of the imaging returned to Earth. I understand why a degree of compression of the captured image data is necessary before it is multiplexed with all the other instrumental scientific data and that the window of opportunity is limited for uploading the data to the orbiting satellite prior to transmission back to Earth.
But honestly, would you not agree with me that in this day and age, with all the advanced and sophisticated imaging equipment and resources that are available, the quality of the imaging returned from Mars, and for that matter the Moon, should be far more respectable and superior than what we currently have had to cope with?
__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
Timewarp wrote:What was the real reason for sending the missions millions of miles just to take images of the terrain and to analyze a small number of rock samples?
This belittling comment shows a lack of understanding of the complexity and range of the measurements in the MER program.
Timewarp wrote:The missions to Mars have cost the American tax-payer millions of dollars. Let us hope the next mission proves that the great expense has all been worthwhile.
Actually, the cost of the develoment, launch and continued operations is about USD $1 billion. Which works out to less than $3 per US citizen, or about 30 cents per resident per year. I, as an American taxpayer, find this to be a hugely worthwhile trade of cost for knowledge.
"There are no minerals so precious that the economic gain of their retrieval from Mars would be justified by the expense of doing so using any conceivable technology under development."
The idea of bringing any mined precious metals or minerals back to this planet would not be cost-effective but they could be useful if a base was set up on Mars.
gbull raises some good points. What was the real reason for sending the missions millions of miles just to take images of the terrain and to analyze a small number of rock samples? And now, another mission with a larger rover called "Curiosity"is in the making which has the ability to 'search' for life. What kind of life are they expecting to find? From the images sent back by Phoenix and to two current MER's there is plenty of evidence to indicate that life existed and, still does exist.
One would have thought that during the earlier missions NASA's first priority would have been to look for signs of a life or were scientists of the opinion like everyone else that the planet would be so hostile and barren that no possible form of life, whatever size, could ever exist?
The missions to Mars have cost the American tax-payer millions of dollars. Let us hope the next mission proves that the great expense has all been worthwhile.
__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
Timewarp wrote:I also believe that ... the real reason why they are interested in returning to the planet is to eventually discover, mine and retrieve precious minerals.
There are no minerals so precious that the economic gain of their retrieval from Mars would be justified by the expense of doing so using any conceivable technology under development.
Please provide an example, citing cost figures from reputale sources, if you still think otherwise.
This idea, often touted by those with no persepctive of the costs involved, has no merit.
i'm with you on that.
besides H3 on the moon mars won't do us any good and that is the basis of my rant.
sorry! people.
why go there with that tech? to see rocks and what?
i don't know what their priorities are when they land on a new planet.
different from mine i guess! lol.
the freakin rocks are really not gonna be sooooooooo different than ours.
geee ya think?
now i hear there is O2 at ground level, kinda missed that all these years besides the methane blooms.
i get very upset, lol, makes me want to mosh puppies.
Some day mining in outer space will be as usual as mining in the deep sea, -if the species survives in liberty, the real liberty, which is synonym to independence , not the false flag propaganda liberty. The species still is under feudal dictatorship, with each -ism as part of that system, democratism included. We are still fare away from recognizing reality, still caught in dreamland, still walking blindly on the edge to insanity. I have not to be an alien to see clearly through the mist, it is enough to take an out-of-the-system point of view. OBrien each economic calculation has to deal with two parts: costs and profit. The estimated profit relativates the costs. Which profits (deposits) are waiting in the Solar system ? In Afghanistan ?
Timewarp wrote:I also believe that ... the real reason why they are interested in returning to the planet is to eventually discover, mine and retrieve precious minerals.
There are no minerals so precious that the economic gain of their retrieval from Mars would be justified by the expense of doing so using any conceivable technology under development.
Please provide an example, citing cost figures from reputale sources, if you still think otherwise.
This idea, often touted by those with no persepctive of the costs involved, has no merit.
In December 2009, I forwarded a script and question to the NASA astrobiologist David Morrison that relating to a possible reason why vast quantities of methane had been discovered in the Martian atmosphere. The script also contained a link to a video which showed evidence that life exists on the planet and furthermore the life-forms were intelligent and humanoid in appearance.
NASA kept the script and question on file for over six months without initially forwarding an acknowledgement that they had received it in the first place. The question was only found when I was searching Google for some reference information about an image that I had included in the script. I now notice that the script and question has been removed from public display.
Here is the url address where my script and question could originally be found.
I firmly believe that NASA know very well that intelligent life exists on the Moon and Mars, but are not prepared to admit the fact freely and openly to the general public. I also believe that even if they did admit there were vast intelligent civilizations on Mars the real reason why they are interested in returning to the planet is to eventually discover, mine and retrieve precious minerals.
Why else would they be so interested in spending miilions of dollars on unmanned exploratory missions to visit a planet that is over 30 million miles away?
It's not only in for the search for water, water-ice and base elements, that's for sure, although these factors have to be considered in view of a future manned mission.
__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
How can everyone STILL deny the existence of alien beings on Mars or anywhere else? They really must be going around with their eyes closed all the time. It is totally amazing how they can organise an event such as this, send a spacecraft into space in order to land a rover to Mars to look for life - when they already know there is life there. It is all pretending that it just doesn't exist. It is a very expensive farce.
The more strange anomalous things that are found in the photographs, the more likely it is that we cannot all be wrong.
I can understand how it is difficult to 'prove' UFOs but it is much much easier to 'prove' existence of alien life by referring to the same photographs that scientists use to explain planetary features and processes. What is good enough for that is good enough for this purpose.
Just one question: In spite of all the strange things we have found and others have found, are NASA still saying that there is nothing bigger than microscopic organisms on Mars?