Nasa selects InSight Mars mission after Curiosity rover

Nasa selects InSight Mars mission after Curiosity rover

www.bbc.co.uk

Just two weeks after landing its Curiosity rover on Mars, the US space agency has announced it will send another robot to the planet in 2016.

The InSight spacecraft will be a static lander that will carry instruments to investigate Mars' deep interior.

Scientists say this will give them a clearer idea of how the rocky planets formed - the Earth included.

(visit the link for the full news article)

WHOA! OK, what's happening here?

It seems NASA have gone all Mars crazy!?

I can't figure out why they would want to concentrate on the red planet so much, is it because it's a closest neighbor or is something really worth finding there that bad they need to send so many rovers and probes to?

However it pans out I hope it is all worth it. I love the fantastic photos, but would love more info please!!

www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

gotta funnel money somehow.
Gotta resupply the Aries Base on Mars.

My guess is, its the best, reasonable destination. Perhaps we could goto titan, but the time would be forever, and its hit or miss.. Nasa m.o. Seems to be.. Send satelites, and detail the surface, and try and get a beat on weather activity.. Then send rovers. And its gonna take MORE money and MoRE time to get to any other, worth while destination.

reply to post by Myendica


True.

I don't have anything against this at all. Just wonder why they can't have one "do all" rover?

Hey Nasa, if you're reading this topic. can i recommend to you use camera technology similar to a Nikon D3 or a Nikon D7000? Instead of those mobile phone 2 mb cameras on next missions?. Im sure the images can be used for future real estate sales, how about it?

reply to post by CaptainBeno

Bigger. Heavier. More complex.
Sort of the same reason it will be a while before people go.

reply to post by Phage


Got ya!

Just one thing though whilst your around: Why is it they need to know about Mars's interior and why is it they have to find out if it's a solid or Liquid? I would have thought that was obvious by the amount of volcanic activity present on the surface of Mars..................or am I missing something here.

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
reply to post by Myendica

 

True.

I don't have anything against this at all. Just wonder why they can't have one "do all" rover?

true. But people wouldnt go for a 3 trillion dollr mission to mars. Though.. We should consider a more sophisticated, faster transmittable system, that allows for more hands on integration.. Then.. The money is worth it.. We need to send the information faster. We cant have delay.. So.. We should work out that kink before deploying more.

reply to post by Phage


Sorry, another one:

If we could send an Apollo rocket loaded with people and lander etc to the Moon, why can't we do the same to Mars without the people? I.e. giant rover!?

Surely it would be cheaper option?

I find it interesting and exciting, no matter how small a step it is to explore space.
It's knowledge of our solarsystem and the planets within, plus preparation for a manned trip.

You can't just send a XX man crew of to some distant planet without proper knowledge of the place they are going, the cost is to high both in money and in human life if failed, and we need to be sure the technology we develope can succed.

We sit here behind our computer, and want everything to be done in a hurry, cause we know we gonna die soon, and complain about the cost

Relax and enjoy what you get, and maybe you will be alive to see the first man on Mars, and remember you are not going there, but maybe your children are, or your children's children.

reply to post by CaptainBeno

I would have thought that was obvious by the amount of volcanic activity present on the surface of Mars

Volcanic activity has nothing to do with what is going on with the planet's core. There isn't much evidence of any volcanic activity on Mars since a couple of billion years ago.

Surely it would be cheaper option?

I'm not sure I get your point. Cheaper than what? NASA is scratching for every penny right now. Insight Mars is a bargain basement job.

reply to post by CaptainBeno


Ok, Some of you people here are just so dense, and even with some of your intellects, some of you are just stupid and missing the big picture.

How many Space Agencies would love to have the Title of Being the First to put People on Mars? All of them. USA, Russia, Euro Union, Japan, China

How many currently have plans to do so? All of them.

Its a race that has yet to start but its all developing.

Now as many people, myself included, claim they can, pick things out of Mars photos that look manmade, no one yet has any proof of any current life there. We know that Mars used to have Oceans and Rivers, if so there is strong possibility that there was life in those waters. Where would the Water be now? Underground, as proven in Mars photos that show springs forming for no reason. So to send a lander to probe deep underground would have another mission to look inside the planet for life.

But what is a Side Alternative Prize on going to Mars? To be back on the Moon. Why? Because of a substance they have discovered from Moon Rocks brought back. Its Helium3. Its from the sun, and is estimated to deliver enough NON-RADIOACTIVE Nuclear Energy that would completely redo our current nuclear reactors worldwide, and even maybe replace fossil fuel as we use it in abundance today. Except it burns up in our Atmosphere, yet on the Moon there is no Atmosphere and they estimate the Moon is covered by it. There is a Surface Mining Company in Arkansas who have the plans on blueprints to put surface excavators on the Moon scooping up this new Element and transport it back to Earth. Whoever gets to the Moon first and begins excavating will own the business. Along with the Moon being a better platform to get people to Mars than straight lift off from the surface of the Earth.

reply to post by davolobos


Yep, you are right. I didn't know that. Thanks.

Embarrassed he didn't know that.

CB

reply to post by davolobos

Its from the sun, and is estimated to deliver enough NON-RADIOACTIVE Nuclear Energy that would completely redo our current nuclear reactors worldwide, and even maybe replace fossil fuel as we use it in abundance today.

Not quite complete free of radioactive products but a lot less than other methods. It wouldn't exactly "redo" our current reactors. We would need completely new types of reactors (fusion), something we don't have and aren't very close to having.

Except it burns up in our Atmosphere, yet on the Moon there is no Atmosphere and they estimate the Moon is covered by it.

No. It doesn't burn. We don't see much of it on Earth because the magnetosphere keeps it away. The Moon may be "covered" by it but that doesn't mean it's easy to get. It's thought to exist in concentrations of about 15 parts per billion. It's not just a matter of "scooping it up".

Whoever gets to the Moon first and begins excavating will own the business.

Not until there are fusion reactors which can use it and there probably won't be for quite a while. Helium 3 is not a good reason to go to the Moon, not for a while anyway.

Riding the current success and attention of the Curiosity rover is a good time to mention the next trip.

After a couple of years of rock analysis and no sign of life the thrill will surely be gone for the masses.

Originally posted by interupt42
Riding the current success and attention of the Curiosity rover is a good time to mention the next trip.

After a couple of years of rock analysis and no sign of life the thrill will surely be gone for the masses.

It's not really primarily to look for "signs of life" (although this certainly is a part of it). Understanding "the rocks" and what elements there are on Mars can have BIG implications - for example, if once in a future we would like to terraform mars.

Example...we know that on Mars there is plenty of CO2 frozen in ice, but also in the soil. Hypothetically, we could use this CO2 to warm up the Mars atmosphere etc..etc... Or, let's think about a "Mars colony" sometime in the future, it's good to know what resources there are. If we know there are certain minerals, water (??), CO2 etc...this could all be taken to make a plan about a future Mars colony which can be built from the available resources. So....it's really more than just "looking at rocks" since the findings there (although maybe not exciting for the average person) can be significant in many ways.

Edit:

And why is Mars so interesting? Because compared to other planets (Venus etc.) it's much more Earth-like and potentially habitable - and not even THAT far away. I mean it's obvious that we should have an interest there.