LATEST TECHNOLOGY

Drones

Monday, 13 May 2013

"[Drones are a] game-changing technology, akin to gunpowder, the steam engine, the atomic bomb -- opening up possibilities that were fiction a generation earlier but also opening up perils that were unknown a generation ago." -- Peter Singer, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution

America will never be a "no drone zone."

That must be acknowledged from the outset. There is too much money to be made on drones, for one, andtoo many special interest groups -- from the defense sector to law enforcement to the so-called "research" groups that are in it for purely "academic" reasons -- who have a vested interest in ensuring that drones are here to stay.

At one time, there was a small glimmer of hope that these aerial threats to privacy would not come home to roost, but that all ended when Barack Obama took office and made drones the cornerstone of his war efforts. By the time President Obama signed the FAA Reauthorization Act into law in 2012, there was no turning back. The FAA opened the door for drones, once confined to the battlefields over Iraq and Afghanistan, to be used domestically for a wide range of functions, both public and private, governmental and corporate. It is expected that at least 30,000 drones will occupy U.S. airspace by 2020, ushering in a $30 billion per year industry.

Those looking to the skies in search of Predator drones will be in for a surprise, however, because when the drones finally descend en masse on America, they will not be the massive aerial assault vehicles favored by the Obama administration in their overseas war efforts. Rather, the drones coming to a neighborhood near you will be small, some nano in size, capable of flying through city streets and buildings almost undetected, while hovering over cityscapes and public events for long periods of time, providing a means of 24/7 surveillance.

One type of drone sensor, the Gorgon Stare, can keep track of an area 2.5 miles across from 12 different angles. Another sensor system, ARGUS, can find an object that is only 6 inches long, from 20,000 feet up in the air. A drone equipped with this kind of technology could spy on an entire city at once. For example, police in California are about to begin using Qube drones, which are capable of hovering for 40 minutes at heights of about 400 ft. to conduct surveillance on targets as far as one kilometer away. Michael Downing, the LAPD deputy chief for counter-terrorism and special operations, envisions drones being flown over large-scale media events such as the Oscars, using them to surveil political protests, and flying them through buildings to track criminal suspects.

These micro-drones will be the face of surveillance and crowd control in the coming drone age.

Modeled after birds, insects, and other small animals, these small airborne surveillance devices can remain hidden in plain view while navigating spaces off limits to conventional aircraft. Able to take off and land anywhere, able to maneuver through city streets and hallways, and able to stop and turn on a dime, these micro-drones will still pack a lethal punch, equipped with an array of weapons and sensors, including tasers, bean-bag guns, "high-resolution video cameras, infrared sensors, license plate readers, [and] listening devices."

You can rest assured, given the pace of technology and the fervor of the drone industry (and its investors), that the sky is the limit when it comes to the many uses (and abuses) for drones in America. The following is just a small sampling of what will be descending from the skies in the near future.

Cyborg drones.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has begun to develop a Micro-Electro-Mechanical System (MEMS) for the manipulation of insects into "cyborgs." Through genetic engineering, they are aiming to control the movement of insects and utilize them for surveillance purposes.

Dragonfly drone.

First reportedly spotted in 2007 hovering over protesters at an anti-war rallyin Washington, DC, it turns out that the government's dragonfly drones are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to small aerial surveillance devices designed to mimic nature. Just a year later, the U.S. Air Force "unveiled insect-sized spies 'as tiny as bumblebees' that could not be detected and would be able to fly into buildings to 'photograph, record, and even attack insurgents and terrorists.'"

Hummingbird drone.

Shaped like a bird, the "Nano Hummingbird" drone is negligibly larger than an actual hummingbird and fits in the palm of one's hand. It flits around effortlessly, blending in with its surroundings. DARPA, the advanced research division of the Department of Defense, gets the credit for this biotic wonder.

Nano Quadrators.

Similar to the hummingbird drone, these small, four-propellered nano quadrator drones, developed by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, operate based upon the flight dynamics of insects, enabling them to operate as a swarm. Using 20 drones, researchers demonstrated how, moving compactly as a unit, the drones were able to navigate obstacles, form complex patterns, and even execute a fluid figure eight arrangement.

Black Hornet Nano drone.

Weighing in at roughly half an ounce and four inches long, comparable to a finch, the Black Hornet Nano helicopter drone was designed to capture and relay video and still images to remote users, and can fly even in windy conditions.

DASH Roachbot drone.

Developed at UC Berkeley's PolyPEDAL Lab, DASH, a 10-centimeter long, 16-gram Dynamic Autonomous Sprawled Hexapod strives to mimic a cockroach's speed and ability to remain covert and a gecko's speed and agility. Trained to perform "rapid inversion" maneuvers that include dashing up to a ledge and then swinging itself around to end up underneath the ledge and upside-down, DASH is being trained to make rapid transitions between running and climbing.

Samarai drone.

Lockheed Martin's compact "Samarai" drone, inspired by the design of a maple seed, is capable of high speeds, low battery consumption, vertical movement, and swift ground deployment.

MicroBat drone.

Additionally, CIT Group, Aerovironment, and UCLA have produced a "MicroBat" ornithopter; it was designed in part by zoologists who have attempted to make the MicroBat mimic the movement of birds and other flying animals.

Spy-butterfly drone.

In 2012, Israel unveiled its new insect-inspired drone which they dubbed the "spy-butterfly" because of its two sizable wings. Weighing in at only 20g, this drone was developed for indoor surveillance, including public places such as "train stations and airport terminals -- or office buildings." The size and muted sound of the "virtually noiseless" machines makes them unnoticeable and therefore ideal for intelligence gathering. The spy-butterfly is so realistic that, when tested, "birds and flies tended to fall behind the device arranging into a flock."

Switchblade drone.

A more sinister example is the Switchblade, a small military drone intended to act as a kamikaze weapon. Weighing in at a mere six pounds and two feet in length, it flies effortlessly through urban environments before zeroing in on its target, a person, at which point itexplodes, unceremoniously killing him or her.

Mosquito drone.

More lethal than its real-life counterpart, the mosquito drone, while an engineering marvel, is also a privacy advocate's nightmare with its potential to land on someone and use a needle-like-pincer to extract DNA from its victims or, alternatively, inject drugs or other foreign substances. As software engineer Alan Lovejoy notes:

Such a device could be controlled from a great distance and is equipped with a camera, microphone. It could land on you and then use its needle to take a DNA sample with the pain of a mosquito bite. Or it could inject a micro RFID tracking device under your skin. It could land on you and stay, so that you take it with you into your home. Or it could fly into a building through a window. There are well-funded research projects working on such devices with such capabilities.

Raven drone.

Weighing in at 4 pounds, the RQ-11 Raven drone is not as small, nor is it as agile as its smaller counterparts, but with more than 19,000 out there already, it is the most common. Useful for seeing around corners and sending footage back to its handlers, the Raven resembles a rudimentary model airplane and crumbles like Legos upon landing.

With 63 active drone sites across the nation and 56 government agencies presently authorized to use drones, including 22 law enforcement agencies and 24 universities, drones are here to stay. Indeed, the cost of drones -- underwritten by a $4 million Homeland Security program whichencourages local law enforcement to adopt drone technology as quickly as possible -- makes them an easy sell for most police departments. Moreover, while manned airplanes and helicopters can cost $600/hour to operate, a drone can be put in the sky for less than $25/hour. That doesn't even begin to cover drone use by the private sector, which is already chomping at the bit at the prospect.

No matter what the future holds, however, we must ensure that Americans have a semblance of civil liberties protections against the drones. Given the courts' leniency towards police, predicating drone use on a warrant requirement would provide little to no protection. Thus, the only hope rests with Congress and state legislatures that they would adopt legislation specifically prohibiting the federal government from using data recorded via police spy drones in criminal prosecutions, as well as preventing police agencies from utilizing drones outfitted with anti-personnel devices such as tasers and tear gas.

Either way, we'd better get ready. As Peter W. Singer, author of Wired for War, a book about military robotics, warns: "The debate over drones is like debating the merits of computers in 1979: They are here to stay, and the boom has barely begun. We are at the Wright Brothers Flier stage of this. There's no stopping this technology. Anybody who thinks they can put this genie back in the box -- that's silliness."

Transatomic

Transatomic,an MIT spinoff, is developing a nuclear reactor that it estimates will cut the overall cost of a nuclear power plant in half. It’s an updated molten-salt reactor, a type that’s highly resistant to meltdowns. Molten-salt reactors were demonstrated in the 1960s at Oak Ridge National Lab, where one test reactor ran for six years, but the technology hasn’t been used commercially.

The new reactor design, which so far exists only on paper, produces 20 times as much power for its size as Oak Ridge’s technology. That means relatively small, yet powerful, reactors could be built less expensively in factories and shipped by rail instead of being built on site like conventional ones. Transatomic also modified the original molten-salt design to allow it to run on nuclear waste.

High costs, together with concerns about safety and waste disposal, have largely stalled construction of new nuclear plants in the United States and elsewhere (though construction continues in some countries, including China). Japan and Germany even shut down existing plants after the Fukushima accident two years ago (see “Japan’s Economic Troubles Spur a Return to Nuclear” and “Small Nukes Get Boost”). Several companies are trying to address the cost issue by developing small modular reactors that can be built in factories. But these are typically limited to producing 200 megawatts of power, whereas conventional reactors produce more than 1,000 megawatts.

Transatomic says it can split the difference, building a 500-megawatt power plant that achieves some of the cost savings associated with the smaller reactor designs. It estimates that it can build a plant based on such a reactor for $1.7 billion, roughly half the cost per megawatt of current plants. The company has raised $1 million in seed funding, including some from Ray Rothrock, a partner at the VC firm Venrock. Although its cofounders, Mark Massie and Leslie Dewan, are still PhD candidates at MIT, the design has attracted some top advisors, including Regis Matzie, the former CTO of the major nuclear power plant supplier Westinghouse Electric, and Richard Lester, the head of the nuclear engineering department at MIT.

The new reactor is expected to save money not only because it can be built in a factory rather than on site but also because it adds safety features—which could reduce the amount of steel and concrete needed to guard against accidents—and because it runs at atmospheric pressure rather than the high pressures required in conventional reactors.

A conventional nuclear power plant is cooled by water, which boils at a temperature far below the 2,000 °C at the core of a fuel pellet. Even after the reactor is shut down, it must be continuously cooled by pumping in water. The inability to do that is what caused the problems at Fukushima: hydrogen explosions, releases of radiation, and finally meltdown.

Using molten salt as the coolant solves some of these problems. The salt, which is mixed in with the fuel, has a boiling point significantly higher than the temperature of the fuel. The reactor has a built-in thermostat—if it starts to heat up, the salt expands, spreading out the fuel and slowing the reactions. That gives the mixture a chance to cool off. In the event of a power outage, a stopper at the bottom of the reactor melts and the fuel and salt flow into a holding tank, where the fuel spreads out enough for the reactions to stop. The salt then cools and solidifies, encapsulating the radioactive materials. “It’s walk-away safe,” says Dewan, the company’s chief science officer. “If you lose electricity, even if there are no operators on site to pull levers, it will coast to a stop.”

The new design improves on the original molten-salt reactor by changing the internal geometry and using different materials. Transatomic is keeping many of the design details to itself, but one change involves eliminating the graphite that made up 90 percent of the volume of the Oak Ridge reactor. The company has also modified conditions in the reactor to produce faster neutrons, which makes it possible to burn most of the material that is ordinarily discarded as waste. A conventional reactor produces about 20 metric tons of high-level waste a year, and that material needs to be stored for 100,000 years. The 500-megawatt Transatomic reactor will produce only four kilograms of such waste a year, along with 250 kilograms of waste that has to be stored for a few hundred years.

Bringing the new reactor to market will be challenging. Although the basic idea of a molten-salt reactor has been demonstrated, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s certification process is set up around light-water reactors. The company will need the NRC to establish new regulations, especially since the commission must sign off on the idea of using less steel and concrete if the design’s safety features are to lead to real savings.

NRC spokesman Scott Burnell says that the commission is aware of Transatomic’s concept but that designs haven’t been submitted for review yet. He says that for the next few years, the NRC will be focused on certifying more conventional designs for small modular reactors. He says the certification process for Transatomic will take at least five years once the company submits a detailed design, with additional review needed specifically for issues related to fuel and waste management.

A detailed engineering design itself may be years away. The company’s next step is raising $5 million to run five experiments to help validate the basic design. Russ Wilcox, Transatomic’s CEO and the former CEO of E Ink, estimates that it will take eight years to build a prototype reactor—at a cost of $200 million. He says that’s less time than it took investors to get a return on E Ink, which was acquired for $450 million 13 years after the first investments in the company.

Even though it could take well over a decade for investors to get a return, venture funding isn’t out of the question, Ray Rothrock says. But he says the company will face many challenges. “The technology doesn’t bother me in the least,” he says. “I have confidence in the people. I wish someone would build this thing, because I think it would work. It’s all the other factors that make it daunting.”

The company’s biggest challenge might come from China, which is investing $350 million over five years to develop molten-salt reactors of its own. It plans to build a two-megawatt test reactor by 2020.

Saturday, 11 May 2013

Dell Looking Glass Tablet with Google Android OS

The centerpiece of this slate-shaped model will allegedly be a 7-inch, WVGA (800 x 480) capacitive touchscreen.

Dell's leaked product description emphasizes playing movies and TV on the large screen, including Flash video. An option digital TV module will be available, too.

The Looking Glass will have 4 GB of built-in capacity and an SD card slot potentially adding 32 GB more storage for movies and music.

It will also include a front-facing 1.3 megapixel camera for video conferencing.

Android Inside
The Looking Glass will run Android OS 2.1 on an nVidia Tegra T20 processor.

It will come with the usual suite of apps, such as the standard highly-capable web browser and email software.

For Internet access, the tablet will supposedly include Wi-Fi (802.11b/g/n) and HSPA 3G cellular-wireless data.

Other features on the leaked spec list are Bluetooth 3.0, 2100 mAh battery, GPS, a USB-based docking port, accelerometer and compass.

Coming this FallDell's 7-inch tablet will supposedly debut in November.

Pricing remains unknown, aside from a note on the specifications list that it is going to be "affordable."

Water Fuelled Car

“Many people do not realize that when you run a car or truck on gasoline of diesel fuel, you are actually running it on hydrogen. And all we are doing is using the hydrogen from water. And under the National Bureau of Standards figures shows that when you use water, the energy release is roughly two and a half times more powerful then that of gasoline. So water is a very powerful fuel.” Stan Meyers 1992

Hydrogen Generator & Water Car History

The idea that water can be used as a fuel may seem shocking or impossible, but its actually been used this way for over 200 years. Below are some of the more notable inventors who have worked in the area of “water fuel”:

1800 – William Nicholson:

Discovered electrolysis of water after building a battery and placing the lead wires in water.

1806 – Isaac de Rivaz:

Invented the Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) and powered it with Hydrogen and Oxygen electrolyzed from water. In 1807, he continued on to build a simple automobile powered by his new engine.

1820 – Reverend William Cecil:

Built an ICE fueled by Hydrogen.

1860 – Jean Joseph Etienne Lenoir:

Built an ICE car that turned water into combustible Hydrogen fuel by electrolysis, as it went down the road.

1930 – Rudolf A. Erren:

German engineer who advanced the use of hydrogen as a transportation fuel in cars, trucks, buses, and submarines. Erren developed a new fuel injection system that allowed the hydrogen to be fed directly into the cylinder, thereby eliminating the carburetor, which was poorly suited to inject a gaseous fuel.

1932 – Henry “Dad” Garrett:

The first to develop a carburetor for the on-demand production of hydrogen and oxygen from water! His invention was patented, demonstrated in public, and described in the newspaper. Then it disappeared.

1960′s – Edward Estevel:

Developed a classic ‘water to auto engine’ system in the late 1960′s extracting the hydrogen out of water to use as fuel. This system was highly heralded, then sank among other such “high hope” hydrogen systems amid rumors of foul play.

1970 – Daniel Dingle:

Former employee of NASA, has developed a car that uses plain tap water and/or sea water for fuel. The technology utilizes a mini-reactor in the car that splits the water molecule into hydrogen & oxygen, with hydrogen being burned off as fuel. The emission released out of the exhaust is clean pure water vapor or water – absolutely no pollution.

1974 – Francisco Pacheco:

Inventor from Bolivia created the “Pacheco Bi-Polar Auto electric Hydrogen Generator” (US PAT #5,089,107) which separates hydrogen from seawater. He has built successful prototypes that have fueled a car, a motorcycle, a lawn mower, a torch, a boat, and most recently in 1990 he energized an entire home in West Milford. He made history on July 17th, 1974 when a 26 foot power boat ran for nine hours using the Pacheco Generator and seawater for fuel, putting back into the oceans its waste, only clean water.

1970′s – Archie Blue:

An inventor who wanted to find a way to provide heat or cooking fuel for a camper by converting water into hydrogen and oxygen. He ended up with a device that produced enough gas to run a motor vehicle, using a 12V air pump to force air through his electrolyzer.

1970′s – Andrija Puharich:

Dr. Andrija Puharich reportedly drove his motor home for hundreds of thousands of miles around North America in the 1970s using only water as fuel. At a mountain pass in Mexico, he collected snow for water.

1976 – Rodger Billings:

Headed a group of inventors that developed a system converting ordinary cars to run on Hydrogen. Instead of using heavy hydrogen tanks, he used metal alloys called Hydrides, to store vast amounts of hydrogen. When hot exhaust gases passed through these Hydride containers it released the gas to burn in the standard engines. Billings estimated the conversion would cost around $500 and greatly improve fuel consumption.

1976 – Sam Leslie Leach:

Developed Sam Leach’s Box. A mysterious stainless-steel case, about the size of a steamer trunk, equipped on the outside with six dials and a gas jet, which the inventor claims will do nothing less than produce combustible hydrogen from tap water – without any continous source of outside energy.

1978 – Yull Brown:

Developed a method of extracting hydrogen from water in 1978 and utilizing it as a car fuel and fuel for cutting steel and brazing.

1978 – Robert M. Zweig, M.D:

Physician who, because of his first-hand knowledge of the impact of air pollution on his patients, dedicated himself to eradicating smog and pursuing clean air alternatives to improve air quality.

1978 – Dr. Ruggero Santilli:

Physicist claims to have developed novel fuels, named MagneGas and MagneHydrogen: these names are trademarks of Hadronic Press. They are produced by plasma arc gasification of liquid waste. Santilli claims that these fuels are composed of magnecules. These hypothetical magnecules are a type of chemical species theoretically proposed by Santilli, distinguished from better-known species by containing a novel type of bond called a “magnecular bond”, which he claims consists of atoms held together by magnetic fields which arise from toroidal polarization of their electron orbitals.

1978 – Steven Horvath:

Patented a fuel supply apparatus which generates hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis of water. It has an electrolytic cell which has a circular anode surrounded by a cathode with a porous membrane between them. The anode is fluted and the cathode is slotted to provide anode and cathode areas of substantially equal surface area. A pulsed electrical current is provided between the anode and cathode for the efficient generation of Hydrogen and Oxygen.

1980 – Stan Meyer:

Developed water fuel cells, retrofitted them into automobiles and fueled the vehicles with the Hydrogen and Oxygen produced instead of gasoline. He claimed that his device required less energy to perform electrolysis than the minimum energy requirement predicted by conventional science (so-called “super electrolysis”). He developed a dune buggy which he claimed ran on just water, and would get 100 miles per gallon (of water). Meyer also claimed to have replaced the spark plugs with “injectors” to spray a fine mist of water into the engine cylinders, which he claimed were subjected to an electrical resonance. In 1996 he was sued by his investors, to whom he had sold dealerships. He died in 1998 after sipping from his drink while dining at a restaurant. An autopsy report concluded that he had died of a cerebral aneurysm, but conspiracy theorists insist that he was poisoned to suppress the technology.

1980 – Bob Boyce:

Electrolyzer builder and expert on series-cell design. A series-cell can either be a chain of separate, simple HHO Generators wired together, or a single device with several electrodes which form separate cells within the device.

1983 – Carl Cella:

“Rampage” rocker who built and installed a Hydrogen Generator and mounted it in the trunk of a 1979 Cadillac Coupe de Ville.

1983 – Herman P. Anderson:

Inventor who worked on the challenge of turning water into combustible fuel for a car. He built a round vertical drum electrolysis chamber out of a 3″ slice of 14″ OD PVC pipe, with a 13″ OD nickel-plated steel anode and cathode spaced 3″ apart. Using both 22 amp DC electrolysis and a pulsed, standing wave 70,000 volt corona discharge, de-ionized water with KOH (pH 12) was turned into deuterium and oxygen gas, mixed with air and micron-sized water vapor, and inducted into the engine.

1990 – Joe X:

Designed the “Joe Cell”, a remarkable water “Energy Cell” that only utilizes water for a “fuel” and develops substantially more power than gasoline. It was originally designed for use in cars, but it can be used with almost any engine that normally runs on gasoline such as motorcycles, outboard marine engines, lawn mowers, portable electric generators, etc. The Energy Cell alone provides all the power that the engine needs. After an Energy Cell is installed and functioning properly, the gasoline fuel lines can be completely disconnected.

1996 – Dr. Cliff Ricketts:

Professor at Middle Tennessee State University as been involved with alternative fuel research since 1978. Designed the H2 Reactor which is an electrolyzer that uses a unique process of electrolysis to create hydrogen and oxygen gases from water. After extensive technical research and development work, HyPower believes that the H2 Reactor’s electrolysis process is technologically the most efficient to date in terms of oxy-hydrogen production to an electrical input. The H2 Reactor has the potential of being approximately 2 times more efficient than the current state of the competing technology.

2000 – Patrick J. Kelly:

Authors and maintains several documents and websites dealing with alternative fuel and free energy technologies.

2003 – Michael A. Peavey:

Wrote “Fuel From Water” which advocates hydrogen fuel as the best long-term alternative to fossil fuels and as a way to stop polluting the air and subsidizing terrorists. Shows how to generate hydrogen by electrolysis, how to convert an internal combustion engine to hydrogen, and how hydrogen can be used in home appliances.

2005 – Steve Ryan:

New Zealand inventor built a motorcycle which runs on a water-based fuel. The water is converted into a fuel by a process other than electrolysis, then poured into the fuel tank and burned by the engine. The carburetor is only slightly modified.

Mission To Mars

Missions to Mars

Mars has historically been unfriendly to Earth’s attempts to visit it. More missions have been attempted to Mars than to any other place in the Solar System except the Moon, and about half of the attempts have failed. Some of these failures occurred because Mars was the first planet Earth attempted to explore, and the early exploration attempts taught us many lessons that have made subsequent missions more successful. But many failures have occurred relatively recently, proving again and again that space exploration is very, very difficult. But since 1996, Mars exploration has undergone a Renaissance, with data from four orbiters and four landed missions developing a revolutionary new view of Mars as an Earth-like world with a complex geologic history.

Active missions: Curiosity - Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter - Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity- Mars Exploration Rover Spirit - Mars Express - 2001 Mars Odyssey

Future missions: ExoMars - Maven - Mangalyaan

Past missions: Phobos-Grunt - Yinghuo-1 - Phoenix - Mars Exploration Rover Spirit - Mars Polar Lander - Nozomi - Mars Climate Orbiter - Mars Pathfinder & Sojourner - Mars 96 - Mars Global Surveyor - Mars Observer - Phobos 2 - Phobos 1 - Viking program - Mars 4, 5, 6, & 7 - Mars 2 & 3 - Mariner 9 - Kosmos 419 - Mariner 8 - Mars 1969a &b - Mariner 6 & 7 - Zond 2 - Mariner 4 -Mariner 3- Mars 1 - Korabl 11 & 13 - Korabl 4 & 5

Active Missions

Curiosity (Mars Science Laboratory) (MSL)

Roving Mars (NASA)

Launch: 26 Nov 2011

Mars arrival: 6 Aug 2012

Curiosity is the next generation of rover, building on the successes of Spirit and Opportunity. It is twice as long and three times the weight of the Mars Exploration Rovers. It landed in Gale crater.

Links: All Plantary.org Coverage - NSSDC - Wikipedia - JPL - UnmannedSpaceflight

Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter

In orbit at Mars (NASA)

Launch: August 12, 2005

Mars arrival: March 10, 2006

Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter is searching for evidence of past water on Mars, using the most powerful camera and spectrometer ever sent to Mars. Its cameras are also helping in the search for landing sites for future Mars rovers and landers.

Links: All Planetary.org Coverage - NSSDC - Wikipedia - JPL - HiRISE images - MARCI weather reports

Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity

Currently roving across Mars (NASA)

Launch: July 7, 2003

Landing: January 24, 2004

Opportunity landed in Meridiani Planum at 354.4742°E, 1.9483°S, immediately finding the hematite mineral that had been seen from space by Mars Global Surveyor. After roving more than 33 kilometers, Opportunity arrived at the 22-kilometer-diameter crater Endeavour, a target it is currently exploring.

Links: Planetary Society MER Updates - NSSDC - Wikipedia - JPL - UnmannedSpaceflight

Mars Express and Beagle 2

Currently in orbit at Mars; failed lander (ESA)

Launch: June 2, 2003

Mars arrival: December 26, 2003

Five days before its arrival Mars Express successfully pushed off the tiny, 30-kilogram Beagle 2 geochemical lander. Although it had functioned successfully throughout cruise, the lander was never heard from again. Beagle 2 may have landed too hard, the victim of an unexpectedly thin atmosphere at the time of its arrival.

Mars Express successfully entered orbit on December 26 and immediately began returning stunning, 3D, color images. Mars Express has detected surprising concentrations of methane and evidence for recent volcanism on Mars. Its radar sounder, MARSIS, was deployed late in the mission due to spacecraft safety concerns, but is functioning well.

2001 Mars Odyssey

Currently in orbit at Mars (NASA)

Launch: April 7, 2001

Mars arrival: October 24, 2001

2001 Mars Odyssey is capturing images of the Martian surface at resolutions between those of Viking and Mars Global Surveyor, and is making both daytime and nighttime observations of the surface in thermal infrared wavelengths at resolutions higher than ever before. It has detected massive deposits of water lying below Mars’ surface in near-polar regions and widespread deposits of olivine across the planet, indicating a dry past for Mars. The MARIE instrument measured the radiation environment at Mars to determine its potential impact on human explorers, and found them to be 2 to 3 times higher than expected. 2001 Mars Odyssey also serves as a communications relay for Opportunity.

Links: All Planetary.org Coverage - NSSDC - Wikipedia - JPL - THEMIS images

Future Missions

ExoMars

Future orbiter, lander, and rover (ESA)

Launch: 2016 and 2018

Links: ESA - Wikipedia

MAVEN

Future Mars orbiter (NASA)

Launch: between November 18, 2013 and December 7, 2013

Arrival: September 2014

MAVEN, which stands for Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution mission, will provide first-of-its-kind measurements and address key questions about Mars climate and habitability and improve understanding of dynamic processes in the upper Martian atmosphere and ionosphere.

Links: NSSDC - Wikipedia - NASA - Twitter

Mangalyaan

Future Mars orbiter (ISRO)

Launch: scheduled for November 27, 2013

Arrival: 2014

Details are sketchy about India's first Mars mission. The Indian Space Science Data Centre describes it as a technology development project. Newspaper articles statethat it will carry a 24-kilogram payload of instruments in an elliptical orbit (500 by 80,000 kilometers). Another article states that it will be launched on a PSLV into Earth orbit that must slowly be pumped up to prepare for a Mars escape trajectory.

Links: No ISRO web page exists. Watch nasaspaceflight.com and unmannedspaceflight.com for news updates.

Past Missions

Phobos-Soil (Phobos-Grunt)

Failed sample return mission to Phobos (Russia)

Launch: January 15, 2012

Phobos-Grunt's modified Fregat upper stage of failed to ignite after launch, and the spacecraft crashed into the southern Pacific ocean.

^ Back to top

Yinghuo-1

Future Mars orbiter (China)

Launch: January 15, 2012, piggybacked on Phobos-Grunt

Yinghuo-1 crashed with Phobos-Grunt.

Phoenix

Successful lander (NASA)

Launch: August 4, 2007

Mars arrival: May 25, 2008

Last communication: November 2, 2008

Phoenix landed near Mars' north pole to study the water ice found close to the surface there. Its arm dug trenches into the soil and delivered samples to sophisticated chemical analysis instruments.

Mars Exploration Rover Spirit

Currently roving across Mars (NASA)

Launch: June 10, 2003

Landing: January 3, 2004

Contact lost: March 22, 2010

Spirit landed on Mars within Gusev crater at 14.5718°S, 175.4785° E. The initial panorama showed a rock-strewn site similar to Pathfinder’s. Spirit had to rove several kilometers across Mars and into its extended mission before it found evidence for past water. It was hobbled by one stuck wheel for many years and finally became stuck in fluffy sand.

You can read a detailed history of Spirit's mission in our MER Updates section.

Mars Polar Lander

Failed Mars lander & 2 penetrators (NASA)

Launch: January 3, 1999

Attempted landing: December 3, 1999

When Mars Polar Lander arrived at Mars, it turned its antenna away from Earth to prepare for its entry into the Martian atmosphere. This was the last time controllers heard from the spacecraft. A review board determined the most likely cause for the loss of mission was a faulty software system that may have triggered the retrorockets to turn off early, causing the lander to crash. The spacecraft had carried The Planetary Society’s Mars Microphone to Mars, the first privately funded hardware provided to a planetary mission. Two microprobes, Amundsen and Scott, were piggy-backed on the lander and expected to separate just before the lander entered the atmosphere. However, no signal was ever received from the probes.

Nozomi ???

also known as Planet-B

Failed Mars orbiter (ISAS)

Launch: July 3, 1998

Mars flyby: December 14, 2003

Originally scheduled to arrive at Mars in October 1999, Nozomi failed to gain enough speed during an Earth flyby on December 21, 1998. The spacecraft also used much more fuel than predicted. A looping trajectory was developed, including two more Earth flybys, to return Nozomi to Mars for orbit insertion in December 2003. But on April 21, 2002, a powerful solar flare damaged Nozomi’s computer. As a result, Nozomi’s hydrazine fuel froze during the long interplanetary trek and mission controllers were unable to place it into orbit. Nozomi flew by Mars at a distance of 1,000 kilometers (600 miles), and is now in a 2-year orbit around the Sun.

^ Back to top

Mars Climate Orbiter

Failed Mars orbiter (NASA)

Launch: December 11, 1998

Mars Climate Orbiter was lost on September 23, 1999, when a mathematical conversion error placed the spacecraft too close to Mars at the time of orbital insertion. Mars Climate Orbiter carried a few re-flown instruments from Mars Observer, marking the second failures for those experiments.

Mars Pathfinder & Sojourner

Successful Mars lander & rover (NASA)

Launch: December 4, 1996

Mars arrival: July 4, 1997

Mars Pathfinder’s successful airbag-assisted landing was the first successful mission to the Martian surface since Viking, 20 years earlier. The landing site was near the mouth of Ares Vallis, at 19.33°N, 33.55°W. On July 6, 1997, the six-wheeled rover, named Sojourner in a Planetary Society-run contest, rolled off a ramp and onto the Martian surface. The lander, now named the Sagan Memorial Station for The Planetary Society's co-founder Carl Sagan, returned many images as well as weather data. The original mission was scheduled to last for 30 days, but the lander and Sojourner continued to transmit data until September 27, 1997 when contact with the lander was lost.

Mars 96

Failed Mars orbiter, lander, & 2 penetrators (Russian Space Agency)

Launch: November 16, 1996

The rocket carrying the spacecraft launched successfully, but its fourth stage ignited prematurely and sent the spacecraft crashing into the ocean. Several of the science instruments originally built for Mars 96 were later flown on ESA’s Mars Express.

Mars Global Surveyor

Highly successful orbiter (NASA)

Launch: November 7, 1996

Mars arrival: September 12, 1997

Mars Global Surveyor was the first completely successful Mars orbiter since Viking 1 shut down in 1980. The start of Mars Global Surveyor’s science mission was delayed due to a problem with one of its solar panels that caused its aerobraking period (which reduced its initial orbit from an ellipse to a low-altitude, near circular one) to last for a year and a half. Since science operations began in March 1999, Mars Global Surveyor provided scientists with a wealth of images and data, including the highest-resolution images yet achieved from orbit. Many of the Mars Observer instruments were re-flown on Mars Global Surveyor. Its mission was extended three times. Contact was lost on November 5, 2006.

^ Back to top

Mars Observer

Failed Mars orbiter (NASA)

Launch: September 25, 1992

Mars Observer was designed to study the Red Planet from orbit. On August 21, 1993, only three days away from Mars, all contact with the spacecraft was suddenly lost. Scientists were unable to determine the cause of the failure. It is possible that Mars Observer followed its onboard program and is in orbit around Mars. However, the results of failure investigations suggest that a fuel line ruptured during tank pressurization, which would have caused the spacecraft to spin uncontrollably and fail to enter orbit. Most of the science instruments that were originally built for Mars Observer were eventually “re-flown” on subsequent orbiters.

^ Back to top

Phobos 2

Mostly failed Mars orbiter & 2 Phobos landers

Launch: July 12, 1988

Mars arrival: January 29, 1989

Phobos 2 was designed to orbit Mars and land a "hopper" and a lander on the surface of Phobos. The spacecraft successfully went into orbit and began sending back preliminary data. Then, on March 27, 1989, just before the spacecraft was to move within 50 meters of Phobos and deploy the two landers, the spacecraft's onboard computer malfunctioned and the mission was lost.

Phobos 1

Failed Mars orbiter (USSR)

Launch: July 7, 1988

Phobos 1 was designed to study the Sun and interplanetary space while on its way to Mars. Once in orbit around Mars, it was going to study the Red Planet and take close-up images of its moon Phobos. However, on September 2, 1988, only two months in to the flight, controllers on the ground accidentally uploaded software containing a command that deactivated the spacecraft's attitude control thrusters. The spacecraft then turned its solar panels away from the Sun and was unable to recharge its batteries. As a result, the mission was lost.

Viking 2

Successful orbiter & lander (NASA)

Launch: September 9, 1975

Mars arrival: August 7, 1976

Mars landing: September 3, 1976

The Viking 2 lander touched down in the Utopia Planitia, on the opposite side of the planet and almost 1,500 kilometers closer to the north pole than Viking 1 at 47.27°N, 225.99°W. One of the lander's legs settled down on a rock, so the entire lander was tilted by about 8 degrees. The lander took extensive atmospheric readings and conducted experiments on soil samples that it had collected with a scoop. The Viking 2 lander quit operating on April 11, 1980, when its batteries failed, but it lasted long enough to see multiple winters come to its landing site and to see it cover with frost. The Viking 2 orbiter was shut down on July 25, 1978, after 706 orbits. The Viking 1 and 2 landers returned 1,400 images from the Martian surface. The orbiters took 50,000 images, producing a global atlas that is still used today.

Viking 1

Successful orbiter & lander (NASA)

Launch: August 20, 1975

Mars arrival: June 19, 1976

Mars landing: July 20, 1976

When Viking 1 entered orbit at Mars, it began taking pictures of the surface in search of a safe landing site for the lander. Mission planners were hoping for a July 4th landing, but the original site turned out to be too rocky. Another site was chosen and the first successful Mars landing took place on July 20, 1976, the seventh anniversary of the first Moon landing. Viking 1 landed in Chryse Planitia at 22.48°N, 49.97°W. The lander took extensive weather readings and conducted experiments on soil samples collected with a scoop. The orbiter was powered down on August 17, 1980 after 1,400 orbits. The lander survived on the surface until November 13, 1982.

Mars 4, 5, 6, and 7

Under pressure from the developing Viking mission, the USSR attempted one last time to beat the USA to a successful soft landing on Mars in 1973. Because of an unfavorable launch window, however, orbiters and landers were launched separately. All four spacecraft were hurried to completion and launched to Mars with microchips known to have serious problems. The problems mostly doomed the missions, but Mars 4, 5, and 6 all successfully performed radio occultation experiments of Mars’s atmosphere, proving the existence of an ionosphere at Mars and resulting in the measurement of a 6.7-millibar surface atmospheric pressure.

Mars 4

Failed Mars orbiter attempt (successful as a flyby) (USSR)

Launch: July 21, 1973

Mars flyby: February 10, 1974

The microchip problem caused the failure of the Mars 4 orbiter to fire its orbit insertion rockets. It flew by Mars at a distance of 2,200 kilometers (1,370 miles), taking one set of images and collecting limited data. It continued to function after the flyby, returning data from solar orbit.

Mars 5

Initially successful Mars orbiter, failed after 22 days

Launch: July 25, 1973

Mars arrival: February 12, 1974

Mars 5 entered orbit successfully, but after completing 22 orbits and returning 60 images the spacecraft malfunctioned and the mission ended.

Mars 6

Slightly successful descent craft and flyby

Launch: August 5, 1973

Mars arrival: March 12, 1974

The Mars 6 descent craft separated successfully from the main spacecraft and descended through the atmosphere, transmitting 224 seconds of data before abruptly cutting off (either when the retrorockets fired or when it slammed into the ground). Although this was the first data of its kind (from within the Martian atmosphere), most of it was garbled and unusable due to the microchip problem. Mars 6 landed at 23.90°S, 19.42°W.

Mars 7

Failed descent attempt

Launch: August 9, 1973

The Mars 7 lander separated too early, and it missed the planet by 1,300 kilometers (800 miles).

Mars 2

Successful Mars orbiter and failed descent craft (USSR)

Launch: May 19, 1971

Mars arrival: November 27, 1971

Mars 3

Somewhat successful Mars orbiter and very briefly successful descent craft (USSR)

Launch: May 28, 1971

Mars arrival: December 2, 1971

The identical Mars 2 and Mars 3 spacecraft each released descent craft 4.5 hours prior to their arrivals at Mars. But the landers had the misfortune of arriving at Mars during one of the greatest dust storms in recorded history. The Mars 2 probe descended at a steeper angle and faster rate than intended and crashed near 45°S, 313°W. However, the Mars 3 probe used aerobraking, parachutes, and retrorockets to descend successfully to a soft landing near 45°S, 158°W. It operated for 20 seconds on the surface before mysteriously failing, possibly because it was blown over by the wind. Before failing, Mars 3 may have deployed the first tiny rover onto the surface of Mars. The Mars 2 orbiter was successfully placed in an 18-hour orbit. The spacecraft completed 362 orbits. The Mars 3 orbiter, short on fuel, was unable to obtain its intended 18-hour orbit. Instead, the spacecraft ended up in an almost 13-day orbit around the planet and completed only 20 orbits. Both spacecraft were shut down on August 22, 1972. Together, Mars 2 & 3 returned 60 images of Mars, recorded temperatures ranging from -110 to 13 degrees Celsius (-166 to 55 degrees Fahrenheit), produced surface relief maps and studied the Martian gravity and magnetic fields.

Mariner 9

Successful Mars orbiter (NASA)

Launch: May 30, 1971

Mars arrival: November 14, 1971

Mariner 9 was the first spacecraft to go into orbit around another planet. However, excitement for its arrival was subdued by a dark cloud -- literally. A Martian dust storm, which had started in late September 1971, had grown to cover the entire planet. When Mariner 9 arrived in November, the only surface features visible were the summit of Olympus Mons and the three volcanoes of Tharsis Ridge. Mission scientists had to wait about a month and a half until the dust settled before they could begin the science portion of the mission. When the spacecraft ran out of fuel almost a year later (on October 27, 1972), Mariner 9 had taken a total of 7,329 images of Mars, studied the atmospheric and surface composition of the planet, the density and pressure of its atmosphere as well as the planet's gravity and topography. The spacecraft also provided scientists with the first close-up views of Phobos and Deimos, the two moons of Mars.

Kosmos 419

Failed Mars orbiter attempt (USSR)

Launch: May 10, 1971

Kosmos 419 reached Earth orbit, but its fourth stage rocket, which would have sent the spacecraft on its way to Mars, failed to ignite. The spacecraft re-entered the atmosphere and was destroyed.

Mariner 8

Failed Mars flyby attempt (NASA)

Launch: May 8, 1971

Mariner 8, a twin to the successful Mariner 9, failed to reach Earth orbit.

Mars 1969B

Failed Mars orbiter attempt (USSR)

Launch: April 2, 1969

The first stage of the rocket launching this mission to Mars failed almost immediately after liftoff.

Mars 1969A

Failed Mars orbiter attempt (USSR)

Launch: March 27, 1969

The third stage of the rocket launching this mission to Mars failed, caught fire, and exploded, causing the remaining pieces to crash land back on Earth.

Mariner 6

Successful Mars flyby (NASA)

Launch: February 24, 1969

Mars flyby: July 31, 1969

Mariner 7

Successful Mars flyby (NASA)

Launch: March 27, 1969

Mars flyby: August 5, 1969

Mariner 6 and 7 were identical spacecraft arriving at Mars five days apart. Mariner 6 flew by Mars at an altitude of 3,431 kilometers (2,131 miles) and Mariner 7 at 3,430 kilometers (2,131 miles). Mariner 6 returned 75 images, and Mariner 7 126 images. Data from the twin spacecraft helped establish the mass, radius, and shape of Mars and revealed that its southern polar ice cap was composed of carbon dioxide. The spacecraft are now in solar orbits.

Zond 2

Failed Mars flyby and descent craft attempt (USSR)

Launch: November 30, 1964

Controllers lost contact with Zond 2 after a mid-course correction maneuver while the spacecraft was on its way to Mars. The spacecraft is now in a solar orbit.

Mariner 4

Successful Mars flyby (NASA)

Launch: November 28, 1964

Mars flyby: July 14, 1965

Mariner 4 was the first spacecraft to fly by Mars and obtain close-up pictures of the Red Planet, passing within 9,844 kilometers (6,117 miles) of Mars. It then took four days to transmit the data back to Earth. Mariner 4 imaged a large, ancient crater on Mars and confirmed the existence of a thin Martian atmosphere composed largely of carbon dioxide. Once past Mars, the spacecraft continued on its way, returning data until October 1965, when the orientation of its antenna made communication with Earth impossible. However, scientists were able to re-establish contact with Mariner 4 in late 1967 and continued to receive data until December 20, 1967, when the mission was terminated. The spacecraft is now in a solar orbit.

Mariner 3

Failed Mars flyby attempt (NASA)

Launch: November 5, 1964

A shield that was designed to protect Mariner 3's instruments during launch failed to release once the spacecraft had reached Earth orbit. With its instruments covered and the extra weight of the shield dragging it down, the spacecraft was unable to obtain the necessary trajectory to send it on to Mars. The spacecraft is now in a solar orbit.

Mars 1 (Sputnik 23)