Print 68 comment(s) - last by 4wardtristan.. on Dec 11 at 9:29 PM

NASA will try in the Martian Spring to contact Phoenix

NASA missions on Mars have been used to conduct a wide variety of scientific experiments. Much of the scientific scrutiny from NASA and other space agencies centers on Mars.

NASA launched Mars Phoenix lander in August of 2007 and sent it speeding towards Mars. In May of 2008, the Phoenix touched down and began its mission on the red planet. One of the tasks that Phoenix was sent to Mars to accomplish was to find out if water ice was present in the Martian soil.

Phoenix did find evidence that ice was in the Martian soil and after its three-month mission ended, NASA decided to keep Phoenix working. In November of 2008, NASA officially closed the mission Phoenix was conducting when it lost communications with the lander after it lost power and could no longer sustain itself.

NASA had expected Phoenix to lose power during the harsh Martian winter, though it continued to try to get the rover to respond to commands sent from satellites orbiting Mars to no avail. This week NASA reported that controllers have stopped trying to use the pair of probes orbiting Mars to communicate with Phoenix.

NASA says that Phoenix last communicated with the Mars Odyssey orbiter on November 2. Controllers tried on November 29 to raise Phoenix one final time. The advancing Martian winter is depriving the lander of the solar energy it needs to maintain working power levels.

NASA says that there is a remote chance that Phoenix could survive the -150 degree Martian winter and will try in the Martian springtime to re-establish contact with the lander.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: NASA is wrong
By Belard on 12/5/2008 11:00:39 PM , Rating: 2
Or perhaps in such countries where there are no jobs (including in he USA) that are starving - STOP HAVING BABIES! Jesus!!!

In the wild, when the habitat can no longer support the amount of life, the natural thing is to NOT create more resource eating machines.

So... that woman that is starving and has 5 starving kids? Perhaps if she had NO children, she'd have food in her stomach. Its a fact, the earth only has SO MUCH space to feed humans. DUH!

RE: NASA is wrong
By Ringold on 12/6/2008 3:06:27 AM , Rating: 1
Malthus was wrong.

The 'Population Bomb' theory was wrong.

Welcome to 2008, where shrinking and aging populations promise to be the largest fiscal threat to ever face western civilization within 20 years. It's also sad to think that, one day, France, Berlin and Rome will be populated almost entirely by people who don't share at all the ancient cities original culture, because all those who did chose to not have kids.

Over population is only an issue in the poorest regions of the world; when they start to gain wealth, birth rates plummet. Even starvation isn't a resource depletion issue, it's a distribution, government, and financial issue.

So lets not pretend fewer babies will fix anything. If anything, the West needs more of them. At least be honest with the anti-human agenda; environmental whacko's want fewer humans simply because humans are vile infidels corrupting the sacred biosphere, crushing beautiful cockroachs and poisoning innocent rats where ever we build our cities.

RE: NASA is wrong
By Belard on 12/6/2008 9:32:56 AM , Rating: 2
Er... lets see, Fishermen have to go out deeper into the ocean to find FISH... because of over-fishing is deleting the oceans.

What used to be forests in the USA is mostly farms. Ever fly in a plane? Leave a major city and its farm after farm... to feed people. The amount of Fresh water needed is also becoming problematic. Desalination factories of course will be required.

One thing this planet doesn't need, is more people (And I do have a son).

RE: NASA is wrong
By Jim28 on 12/6/2008 2:57:52 PM , Rating: 1
Then you are a hypocrite. Congrats on having a son, but saying others can't have one is stupid.
If you think there are too many people on this planet then do us all a favor and do something about it. Reduce it by one. (Yourself) otherwise be quiet.
Look at popluation trends and you will understand Ringold's statements.

RE: NASA is wrong
By Belard on 12/8/2008 5:53:33 PM , Rating: 2
I adopted... and I didn't say that people shouldn't have kids. But with how things are, people need to control themselves.

And theres a difference between 2 people having 1 child and compared to a single mother who has 5 kids from 3-5 different men,.who they themselves have kids with other women.

And yes, I know there are different population trends in different parts of the world. But in general, there are more people than the Earth can support.

Worst yet, people who are more educated/intelligent have less or no children (in general). They'll look at the world and their finances and say no kids, or not until they're in their 30s.

RE: NASA is wrong
By kickoff877 on 12/6/2008 9:33:29 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, less people! How about we get the World Health Organization to engineer some sort of human-only birth control drug, dump it in all of the world's water supplies, and make people prove they are qualified to become parents (stable lifestyles, financial responsibility, no addictions or severe mental health issues); then, and only then, their government's health agencies can provide them with an antidote and they can have their children.

As a teacher I had said: "Imagine a world populated with children who were all wanted, loved and cared for by parents who truly cherished them."

Plus, I hear that they can get the birth control drug from Mars, maybe that's what the lander is looking for.

RE: NASA is wrong
By BikeDude on 12/7/2008 4:52:28 PM , Rating: 2
So... that woman that is starving and has 5 starving kids? Perhaps if she had NO children, she'd have food in her stomach.

People who live under rough conditions have more children because the child mortality is high. More kids means bigger chance of propagating one's genes. Pure evolution at play.

But logically speaking, I do agree with you. The population growth need to be controlled. We should look to progressive countries like China, where the government successfully dictate a one-child policy.

I think it has been proven that a capitalistic system won't manage to keep the world fed (farmers make more money growing flowers, tobacco or opium compared to food).

...and neither will a state subsidized system. (prime example: EU subsidized production of milk -- which generates a surplus of milk -- that then is turned to powdered milk and shipped off to third-world countries -- where local dairy farmers cannot compete with dirt cheap european milk = more poor people to feed)

We need new technology. We need new ideas. We need... so many things.

...or we should start deciding which people to kill. Because the next wave of famine is going to be nasty and there will be many desperate people crossing all sorts of borders.

My vote is on killing obese americans and europeans. Anyone weighing more than 100kg need to be terminated. That should leave more than enough food for the rest of us for quite some time.

I thank you for your kind attention.

"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs
Related Articles
RIP Phoenix Mars Lander
November 11, 2008, 3:53 PM
Mars Phoenix Lander Touches Down
May 26, 2008, 12:46 PM

Most Popular ArticlesSmartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
UN Meeting to Tackle Antimicrobial Resistance
September 21, 2016, 9:52 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Update: Problem-Free Galaxy Note7s CPSC Approved
September 22, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki