Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Extreme Close-Up of Mars's Moon Phobos

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the you-lookin'-at-me dept.

Mars 104

coondoggie writes "The European Space Agency's Mars exploring satellite will make a number of close-up passes of the Martian moon Phobos. The Mars Express, which the agency launched in 2003, has begun a series of flybys of Phobos, the largest moon of Mars, that will ultimately set a new record for the closest pass to Phobos — skimming the surface at 50 km, or about 31 miles. This is only about 5 times the irregular moon's average radius. The data collected by the satellite could help solve some of the mysteries about the moon, beginning with that of its origin."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

extreme close up of goatse's asshole (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31162786)

it says "first post."

Not what I asked for. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31162834)

I wanted an extreme close-up of Phoebe Cates, dammit.

fuckfuck (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31163330)

You swine. You vulgar little maggot. Don't you know that you are pathetic? You worthless bag of filth. As we say in Texas, I'll bet you couldn't pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel. You are a canker. A sore that won't go away. I would rather kiss a lawyer than be seen with you.

You are a fiend and a coward, and you have bad breath. You are degenerate, noxious and depraved. I feel debased just for knowing you exist. I despise everything about you. You are a bloody nardless newbie twit protohominid chromosomally aberrant caricature of a coprophagic cloacal parasitic pond scum and I wish you would go away.

You're a putrescence mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk, a cad, a weasel. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a stench, a revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon.

You are a bleating fool, a curdled staggering mutant dwarf smeared richly with the effluvia and offal accompanying your alleged birth into this world. An insensate, blinking calf, meaningful to nobody, abandoned by the puke-drooling, giggling beasts who sired you and then killed themselves in recognition of what they had done.

I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same species as you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformation. I barf at the very thought of you. You have all the appeal of a paper cut. Lepers avoid you. You are vile, worthless, less than nothing. You are a weed, a fungus, the dregs of this earth. And did I mention you smell?

If you aren't an idiot, you made a world-class effort at simulating one. Try to edit your writing of unnecessary material before attempting to impress us with your insight. The evidence that you are a nincompoop will still be available to readers, but they will be able to access it more rapidly.

You snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick you up, drive its beak into your brain, and upon finding it rancid set you loose to fly briefly before spattering the ocean rocks with the frothy pink shame of your ignoble blood. May you choke on the queasy, convulsing nausea of your own trite, foolish beliefs.

You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid, nasty and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You're a fool, an ignoramus. Monkeys look down on you. Even sheep won't have sex with you. You are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention, and lost in a land that reality forgot.

And what meaning do you expect your delusionally self-important statements of unknowing, inexperienced opinion to have with us? What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your tiny-fisted tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous desert rat, spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the snake?

You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a disease, you puerile one-handed slack-jawed drooling meatslapper.

On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are deficient in all that lends character. You have the personality of wallpaper. You are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted. You are the source of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and sorrow wherever you go.

I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid. You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid gotten so dense that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. Your writing has to be a troll. Nothing in our universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics that we know. I'm sorry. I can't go on. This is an epiphany of stupid for me. After this, you may not hear from me again for a while. I don't have enough strength left to deride your ignorant questions and half baked comments about unimportant trivia, or any of the rest of this drivel. Duh.

The only thing worse than your logic is your manners. I have snipped away most of what you wrote, because, well... it didn't really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative flame was pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults among a load of babbling was hardly effective...maybe later in life, after you have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us "normal" people take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering. But we sometimes forget that there are "challenged" persons in this world who find these things more difficult. If I had known, that this was your case then I would have never read your post. It just wouldn't have been "right". Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you.

P.S.: You are hypocritical, greedy, violent, malevolent, vengeful, cowardly, deadly, mendacious, meretricious, loathsome, despicable, belligerent, opportunistic, barratrous, contemptible, criminal, fascistic, bigoted, racist, sexist, avaricious, tasteless, idiotic, brain-damaged, imbecilic, insane, arrogant, deceitful, demented, lame, self-righteous, byzantine, conspiratorial, satanic, fraudulent, libelous, bilious, splenetic, spastic, ignorant, clueless, illegitimate, harmful, destructive, dumb, evasive, double-talking, devious, revisionist, narrow, manipulative, paternalistic, fundamentalist, dogmatic, idolatrous, unethical, cultic, diseased, suppressive, controlling, restrictive, malignant, deceptive, dim, crazy, weird, dystopic, stifling, uncaring, plantigrade, grim, unsympathetic, jargon-spouting, censorious, secretive, aggressive, mind-numbing, arassive, poisonous, flagrant, self-destructive, abusive, socially-retarded, puerile, clueless, and generally Not Good.

I Hope This Helps...

Re:fuckfuck (1)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163652)

Sir, i herby award you one internet, as you have taken the simple task of deriding a person, and raised it well beyond an art form, nay, i say that this may be the grand masterpiece of insults, distilled from the very essence of the tears of a thousand children, who ran home crying after being called 'doodie head'.
I am humbled, to have witnessed such a performance.

Re:fuckfuck (1)

bsharp8256 (1372285) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163990)

Successful troll is successful.

Re:fuckfuck (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31163908)

Look! I came here for an argument!

Re:fuckfuck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31163958)

I know you are, but what am I?

Re:fuckfuck (1)

grayshirtninja (1242690) | more than 4 years ago | (#31164188)

It's posts like this that make me wish for a '-1 WTF' mod option.

Re:fuckfuck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31166936)

This is too long. Could somebody post a summary?

Re:Not what I asked for. (3, Funny)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163940)

Here you go! [pgbeautygr...cience.com]

A little plain (4, Funny)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 4 years ago | (#31162846)

It looks rather plain- for some reason I thought it would look a little scary or something. Not sure why.

Re:A little plain (3, Funny)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 4 years ago | (#31162864)

Re:A little plain (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163148)

Or, if you were an early mac gamer and weren't into Doom, it's because it's the wrong moon. The UESC Marathon [wikia.com] was made out of -demios-, not Phobos.

Re:A little plain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31163550)

Oh! That would explain the disappearance. ;)

Re:A little plain (4, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 4 years ago | (#31162866)

I think the leather goddesses [wikipedia.org] are camera shy.

Re:A little plain (2, Funny)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 4 years ago | (#31162886)

I was going to make a similar comment. But alas, like said Goddesses, it is never to be.

Re:A little plain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31163362)

Don't belittle my faith.

Re:A little plain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31162952)

I get it, but I reckon the photo in the article looks freaking awesome. Whatever that silvery effect is, we need more of it. Looks like a terminator getting its skin stripped away.

Also, 50km altitude? I bet they crash into it.

Re:A little plain (1)

Walt Dismal (534799) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167436)

You can't fool me! They got Stanley Kubrick to spray-paint a potato silver and photograph it against a black background. We never went to Mars, it's all Industrial Light and Magic sworn to secrecy. Damn you, George Lucas!

WTF - looks like Goatse (0, Offtopic)

spineboy (22918) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163160)

Eww - no base on that moon for me - looks like you'd be living on a GOATSE world

Typical (-1, Troll)

chickenarise (1597941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31162876)

Right, like we really need to explore some dumbass rock.
Outer space is useless as far as I'm concerned.
Little knowledge can be gained by such endeavors.
Like we really need to burn more public funds via the gravity well that is the Earth.
Especially now that we have to deal with all this economic crisis bullshit.
Dumbasses. The people who made this ship are fucking dumbasses.

So, are we just gonna lie down and let these fucking scientists spend all our tax dollars like this?
Or are we gonna go kill us some politicians?

How much money are we gonna let these scientists waste?
A billion dollars?
RIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGHT...
Don't fucking tell me this shit, it's all bullshit.

Re:Typical (1)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163078)

Bubba... is that you?

Re:Typical (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31163156)

You are ignorant. Many of the technologies that we have now owe their existence to space technology. We know more than ever about our own planet's environment, its ecosystem, weather and lifeforms thanks to the exploration of other planets. It is likely that you would not even have a computer, nor access to a global network to post your message on if not for technology developed for space exploration. There is also the simple drive for knowledge, but obviously knowing things isn't your modus operandi.

What REALLY needs to be cut is military and weapons funding. The invasion of Iraq alone costs around ten billion tax dollars per year for a pointless and unscrupulous occupation.

Re:Typical (2, Insightful)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163412)

I don't agree with the people who hate any spending that has to do with space, but there has to be a balance somewhere. I see the benefit of the Apollo missions and they were worth the cost, but space missions are expensive compared to a lot of earth-based science. This mission seems worth the cost, as it will help us plan future missions, but just as people shouldn't reject spending as soon as they see "space", we shouldn't automatically accept it either. Science will never get as much funding as we would like, so we need to be sure we spend what we've got wisely.

Re:Typical (1)

izomiac (815208) | more than 4 years ago | (#31165222)

So what you're saying is that we should keep space exploration because while it's primary goal is of limited usefulness, the technology developed in achieving it is quite useful? But on the other hand, neither the military's primary goal (i.e. keeping civilians alive) nor the technology developed (e.g. rockets, nuclear physics, computers, the internet) are worth what we spend on it? How's that consistent?

(You may have a point about Iraq, but that's getting into specifics and would require being completely off-topic to logically support or refute, thus making it a fairly cheap shot.)

Re:Typical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31165376)

No, what I am saying is we should keep space exploration for all of the reasons stated. I think the simple knowledge of what we learn in space is useful enough on its own, the far reaching benefits are just that, benefits.

Military research is primarily aimed at "better" ways to kill or spy on people. It is undeniable that some good has come from military technology itself, but the cost in both money and lives was far greater.

Re:Typical (2, Interesting)

Tim C (15259) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166220)

Many of the technologies that we have now owe their existence to space technology...

What REALLY needs to be cut is military and weapons funding.

While I agree with you, you should bear in mind that many advances in medicine, surgery and our understanding of anatomy owe their existence to war. A lot of knowledge was gained on how the visual cortex works by performing tests on soldiers with localised gun shot wounds to the head, for example.

Does that make up for the money and human cost? I don't know; I doubt it personally, but I have no hard figures. I'm just pointing out that your same argument for space technology can be made for military spending too.

Re:Typical (2, Interesting)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167570)

To complete the circle, many of the technologies behind the original space race likely wouldn't have been funded if they didn't have nuclear weapons applications. Big-ticket science has, historically, hitched a ride on military expendature. Whether that's desirable is a whole other question, but there you go.

Re:Typical (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 4 years ago | (#31169974)

While I agree with you, you should bear in mind that many advances in medicine, surgery and our understanding of anatomy owe their existence to war. A lot of knowledge was gained on how the visual cortex works by performing tests on soldiers with localised gun shot wounds to the head, for example.

Because no-one ever gets injured except during a war, of course.

Re:Typical (1)

boxwood (1742976) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167340)

actually the main reason for NASA being founded was to improve the US's rocket technology so they could better deliver nuclear weapons to other continents. NASA has a pretty big connection to the military, the line is pretty blurred as to what amount of NASA's funding actually is military spending.

Re:Typical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31169160)

I wish I had mod points. It really bothers me that most people have failed to see through the feel-good space exploration and "we must go to the moon!" rhetoric to see what NASA's real intention was- to close the missle gap and develop ways to accurately deliver ICBM's anywhere around the globe. Once they got us there, NASA has largely existed to put up satellites for the DoD. The fact that the US won a major PR battle by getting to the moon first was certainly a tremendous help as well. It is interesting to note though that after we went to the moon, NASA went kind of adrift for awhile, not having a whole lot of purpose aside from doing some very expensive science. They do have the hearts and minds of the people though, and will probably always exist to maintain and improve our rocket (ICBM) and satellite deployment capability, if nothing else.

NASA does some awesome stuff, and I feel they had an unnecessarily bad reputation throughout much of the 90's when everyone was raining on their parade. People tend to forget rocket science is damn hard, and that the ESA has mostly failed in its attempts to do anything with Mars aside from creating some small craters. I don't think I have ever seen a PR department that could so easily manipulate everyone as well. Whenever the organization doesn't get the budget increase it was hoping for, a headline goes out the next day saying "$POPULAR/SUCCESSFUL/COSTEFFECTIVE project will be cut, due to lack of funding!" and instead of anyone taking a reasonable look at the issue and noting that they already get somewhere around $18 BILLION a year, just about everyone says "stupid politicians! cutting their budget to the bone where they can't even afford to keep a $1 million dollar a year project that is immensely productive!" This works... every time, and I would bet my paycheck that there is absolutely zero intention of the projects being canceled.

I love NASA and what it strives to do, but there is a not so upfront side to the organization, and I wish more people would see it.

Re:Typical (2, Insightful)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163182)

I support science funding, but a billion dollars can fund a lot of terrestrial science projects, so any space mission better not be a stand-alone one as long as the budget stays so high. I agree putting a man on Mars isn't practical in the short term, but we should still be working towards making a Mars mission become practical. A data-gathering mission should have to fight directly with telescope projects for funding, otherwise it has to provide more direct benefits. For example, the article says it is planned to get samples back to earth by the 2020's. That mission would combine technical progress (getting something off of Mars for the first time) with scientific research, so it is an ideal project.

As for this mission, knowing more about the composition of the moon can help us if we want to make use of it for future missions (for its gravity or as a base), and the mapping of the Martian surface will help us direct future missions. This is a good mission, and I support its funding. It isn't just about getting pictures of a rock.

Re:Typical (1)

Ricochet (16874) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163268)

Your sight is short and your mind narrow! We're running out of resources at an alarming rates and I'm not talking petroleum. Perhaps we can create extremely good recycling technology but I doubt it will occur before another great war. If we don't start figuring out how to get off the rock we call home we will surely perish on it. We will need a great deal of effort and time to figure out how to survive in space as it is a dangerous place. Yes, I know you don't care, it won't happen in your lifetime but the work needed to take that next great step had better begin in our lifetime. That doesn't mean we should spend crazily either. We need to have a well thought out plan (I'm not sure any country does).

The amount we don't know could fill galaxies the amount we are learning is doing just that.

Re:Typical (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#31164024)

Except that Phobos is in Inner Space.

Outer space is the solar system beyond the asteroid belt (which Mars is inside). Deep space is beyond the solar system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System#Structure [wikipedia.org]

There's some homework for you. Troll.

Re:Typical (1)

FearForWings (1189605) | more than 4 years ago | (#31164428)

Except that Phobos is in Inner Space.

LIES!!! Wikipedia is patently wrong in this case.

It is a well established fact that Innerspace [imdb.com] is the area within the human body.

Re:Typical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31168530)

Except in the space industry, where "deep space" usually means anywhere beyond Earth orbit.

Re:Typical (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178460)

Which is wrong. Apologies to the Space Industry, but you can't go reassigning scientific terms because you feel like it.

Re:Typical (1)

cusco (717999) | more than 4 years ago | (#31164210)

Now THIS is the post that deserves the flame up above.

Re:Typical (1)

FiloEleven (602040) | more than 4 years ago | (#31164922)

How much money are we gonna let these scientists waste?
A billion dollars?

How quaint! I am reminded of Dr. Evil.

Re:Typical (1)

Sophira (1364317) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167460)

I must say, I'm impressed that this troll has gathered so many replies. Especially as he advertises that it's a troll.

Look at the first letter of the subject and each line in the post: "TROLLED SO HARD".

I don't like to encourage trolls, but this one was quite inventive.

Re:Typical (1)

chickenarise (1597941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31173196)

Heh, you nailed it. Was waiting for this reply before posting that I disagree entirely with everything I said :)

Yes! (2, Funny)

Nai7 (703453) | more than 4 years ago | (#31162880)

W00t a rock!

Death Star (0)

Sasayaki (1096761) | more than 4 years ago | (#31162892)

Phobos == Death Star.

So, obviously they'll need to get a lot lower than *that*. The Rebel snubfighters were only meters above the surface...

Picture caption (5, Funny)

jms (11418) | more than 4 years ago | (#31162896)

For sale: One Death Star. Full size. Somewhat lumpy. Amateur construction. Needs work.

Re:Picture caption (5, Funny)

RobertB-DC (622190) | more than 4 years ago | (#31162996)

For sale: One Death Star. Full size. Somewhat lumpy. Amateur construction. Needs work.

That's just an early engineering prototype. The production model came out looking much better [nasa.gov] .

Re:Picture caption (1)

PingPongBoy (303994) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163594)

That's no Death Star.

You'll never sell with that description (2, Funny)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163846)

For sale: One Death Star. Full size. Somewhat lumpy. Amateur construction. Needs work.

That'll never sell on Ebay!

Try this:
Act now! One Death Star. Full size. Special lumps making it even more terrifying. Created same time and in same process as other more expensive objects! Condition as new. Comes with 3 free gifts. Free shipping. Why pay more for larger when this does so well? Hurry! This won't last. Seller has A++++ rating.

Re:You'll never sell with that description (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31166872)

Change "Condition as new" to "Condition like new"

Re:You'll never sell with that description (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31167596)

NOT Playstation 3, Xbox, iPod, iPhone

"Hollow"? (3, Interesting)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31162902)

> When calculating the density, this gives a surprising figure because it
> seems that parts of Phobos may be hollow...

That is interesting, to say the least.

Re:"Hollow"? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31163052)

"For the World is Hollow and I Touched the Sky" Star Trek:OS

Maybe, there's a door camouflaged as a crater or something and there's some really hot priestess that worships a computer that's looking for a husband?

Re:"Hollow"? (4, Funny)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163356)

Hot priestess with computer? Plz send picture of computer.

Re:"Hollow"? (1)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163392)

At least it's not an ordinary computer. There aren't many computers that are looking for a husband.

Re:"Hollow"? (2, Insightful)

haruharaharu (443975) | more than 4 years ago | (#31164078)

Sure there are - you just haven't done much internet dating.

Re:"Hollow"? (1)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163208)

That was from previous flybys, so this one might confirm and explain why.

Re:"Hollow"? (1)

srothroc (733160) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163344)

I wonder if there could be pockets of gas inside Phobos.

Re:"Hollow"? (1)

MokuMokuRyoushi (1701196) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163454)

After all, that huge hole has to serve *some* purpose.

Re:"Hollow"? (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163896)

Not very likely - it would escape rapidly. There might be pockets of ice, though.

Re:"Hollow"? (2, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163346)

If Phobos has ice under its surface the next 50 years will be very interesting. A mission to mars orbit with ISRU [nasa.gov] would suddenly look feasible.

Re:"Hollow"? (4, Informative)

mbone (558574) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163582)

When calculating the density, this gives a surprising figure because it
  seems that parts of Phobos may be hollow...

There was a 50 year old hypothesis that Phobos was hollow, with a very low density, in order to explain the anomalous drag on the satellite, which has now been shown to be due to the tidal bulge raised on Mars by Phobos. The measured density is about 1.9 gm/cm^3, which is a little low, but not unusual compared to the asteroids [mac.com] , especially small asteroids.

These are probably just all rock piles, repeatedly fractured by collisions and without enough self-gravity to smush things back together, so some internal voids would not be surprising.

Re:"Hollow"? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163780)

> These are probably just all rock piles, repeatedly fractured by collisions
> and without enough self-gravity to smush things back together, so some
> internal voids would not be surprising.

Small voids, yes, but they would have be pretty big to show up at the resolution these measurements good for.

Re:"Hollow"? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177800)

It's a pile of rubble; the voids permeate it through.

Re:"Hollow"? (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 4 years ago | (#31169706)

I think they flew to the wrong moon and ended up photographing the UESC Marathon instead. I just hope that they don't try to go LCROSS on it; if a large bomb is allowed to detonate in the Engineering Section, the Marathon would be ^&2``~<Colloquialism Search Error #F9C>

~[p[]]*kc3sla/.U

***MESSAGE INTERRUPTED***

Oblig. (3, Funny)

Freaky Spook (811861) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163048)

IT's A TRAP!!!!!!

no no, wait, I got this..

That's no moon!!!

Re:Oblig. (3, Funny)

lul_wat (1623489) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163188)

Where did you dig up that old fossil?

Re:Oblig. (1)

studpuppy (624228) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167880)

That's not a fossil. That's a monolith.

Larest? Larger (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31163116)

"Phobos, the largest moon of Mars"

Mars has just two moons, so that should probably read "Phobos, the larger of the two moons of Mars".

it fills me with fear to look at it (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163158)

can you possibly imagine the horror of something similar?

Fear of the moon = Selenophobia (1)

R3coiler (1740032) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163178)

Fear of a moon named Phobos (fear) = ???

Re:Fear of the moon = Selenophobia (1)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163254)

Churchill had it right...

Re:Fear of the moon = Selenophobia (1)

drharris (1100127) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163436)

Fear of a moon named Phobos (fear) = ???

I like "phobophobia" better.

Re:Fear of the moon = Selenophobia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31163484)

would that not be fear of fear itself?

Re:Fear of the moon = Selenophobia (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163494)

Didn't FDR suffer from that?

Mmmmm.... (1)

chill (34294) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163200)

Leather Goddesses!

This all began in Upper Sandusky, Ohio, in 1936. The Leather Goddesses of Phobos are just finalizing their plans for the invasion of Earth. People have been abducted by the Leather Goddesses for the final testing of the plan which will enslave all of humanity. Unless this nefarious plan is stopped, the Earth will be turned into these twisted vixens' pleasure dome. For some unknown reason, this outcome is considered unfavorable.

Did some one say... (0, Troll)

Brad1138 (590148) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163206)

Extreme Close-Up? [ytmnd.com]

DOOM (1)

mogness (1697042) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163238)

Where are all the imps... bulldog demons... barons of hell?

Doom (1)

WilyCoder (736280) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163350)

I won't lie, the first thing I thought of when I read 'Phobos' was the classic game 'Doom', which takes place on Phobos I believe...

Re:Doom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31173090)

I won't lie, the first thing I thought of when I read 'Phobos' was the classic game 'Doom', which takes place on Phobos I believe...

My reaction was to your post was: Phobos is way to small to have enough gravity. Turns out Doom was on Phobos [wikia.com] despite how silly the idea is.

Does this mean... (1)

rainmayun (842754) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163368)

I can look forward to a Google Phobos [google.com] ?

Where's the fucking hi-res pictures? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31163462)

Sorry to be blunt, but I don't visit Slashdot to get redirected to some shitty ad-plastered website with half-assed copy/pasted information.

Was it really so hard for the submitter to give this a proper non-misleading title, and a link to the actual ESA press release? [esa.int]

Is there a way to get kdawson fired? He seems to pull this shit a lot.

Re:Where's the fucking hi-res pictures? (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163606)

They should bring back Michael Sims and have him fist-fight KDawson, 'cuz Mikey don't take shit from no-one.

Re:Where's the fucking hi-res pictures? (1)

dylan_- (1661) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167444)

but I don't visit Slashdot to get redirected to some shitty ad-plastered website with half-assed copy/pasted information.

That's not a redirect.

[just kidding...I think...]

Re:Where's the fucking hi-res pictures? (1)

RealErmine (621439) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168690)

Sorry to be blunt, but I don't visit Slashdot to get redirected to some shitty ad-plastered website with half-assed copy/pasted information. Was it really so hard for the submitter to give this a proper non-misleading title, and a link to the actual ESA press release? [esa.int] Is there a way to get kdawson fired? He seems to pull this shit a lot.

I'm going to guess it's because the linked article had that nice photo to look at. You know, the extreme close up photo that was the whole point of the article submission. Not that official information like the link you suggested isn't nice.

Pictures from 200 km (4, Interesting)

mbone (558574) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163470)

The Soviet Phobos-2 mission returned some cool pictures [iki.rssi.ru] before its computer failed. I especially like the ones with Mars in the background [mentallandscape.com] .

Re:Pictures from 200 km (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 4 years ago | (#31173296)

Maybe this mission will catch a cyberdaemon, or at least a wraith, on camera.

What if Manhattan were on Phobos? (1)

digitalsushi (137809) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163560)

Wikipedia says Manhattan is 21km, and that Phobos is 11km average radius.

Is this what Manhattan would look like on Phobos? [digitalsushi.com]

I dunno. I think the math is about right, but I've been really wrong before.

Re:What if Manhattan were on Phobos? (1)

M8e (1008767) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167966)

A 11km radius gives a circumfence of 69Km. Manhattan would be under a third of the circumfence, the picture looks like it cover one half.

Hollow? Hmmm... (1)

CanKicker (1747094) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163574)

Hello, Greg Bear? I gotta idea for a book....

phobic! (1)

e**(i pi)-1 (462311) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163588)

Weird. The story made me suddenly phobic of close-ups of Mars [wikimedia.org] mooning [flickr.com] .

Mars needs a larger moon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31165516)

Sorry about posting anonymously. I read an article about how Earth's moon churns our planet's core. One of the reasons Earth's core is so hot and molten may be only because of Earth's moon. Without it, the Earth would be a dead, lifeless place, maybe a lot like Mars and Venus are now (notice how besides the obvious difference in distance from the sun, neither Mars nor Venus have a large companion sattelite). To sum up, the gravitational pull of Earth's moon provides a tidal force that induces geological heat and activity at the center of the Earth. Without the moon, the core of the Earth would be still and cold. No one really knows what effect this has on the biological processes of life on this planet.

If we are interested in terraforming Mars, it might be productive to simulate the effect of bringing in a Luna-size sattelite in proportion to Mars to try and jump start Mars' inactive geologic core. It would be interesting if one of the key features of life-bearing planets in the universe is simply the presence of a large enough sattelite to agitate the core. A example of this in reverse might be the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, whose cores may be hot and molten because of the gravitational forces of the large planets they orbit.

How does this qualify as extreme close up? (1)

jriskin (132491) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166390)

Looks pretty low resolution to me compared to NASA's HiRISE [wikipedia.org] images from 2008. The wikipedia page has a link to a nice time magazine gallery and the Official HiRISE Site [arizona.edu] Go ahead click on the 3374 × 3300 pixel image on this UCL page [ucl.ac.uk] for an EXTREME closeup of Phobos.

So nice snap shots ESA, but hardly extreme...

extreme close up... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31168046)

...but no pictures. Closest approach will be when moon is in shadow of Mars apparently.

Dumb question time (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168240)

For the sake of argument, let's assume that either Phobos or Deimos are composed of something we really want. Titanium, uranium, etc. What would be the effect on Mars' orbit if we mined the moon? I know that their gravity, compared to Mars, is negligible, but they still have an effect on the orbit.

What would happen if one or both moons were removed from their orbits?

Re:Dumb question time (1)

bloodninja (1291306) | more than 4 years ago | (#31169310)

It would be safe to assume that the moons help to stabilize Mars' rotation around it's own axis. Phobos has an associated tidal bulge on Mars itself, I don't know about Deimos. Without these moons, Mars' geographic pole axis would wander around the celestial sphere. That means that the geographic poles would be in the same place on Mars, but the "north star" would change every so often. Be aware that this happens on Earth, too, in a 24000 year cycle.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?