Microphone on Mars

I just read through the "Sound Transmission on Mars" thread--wow, you
techies can get really mean!--and it is ever clearer to me why NASA
got itself stuck in the hole that it is (was?) in...desperately
clinging to "science" as the rationale for its existence.

Footnote: In grad school they had this cool science policy seminar.
The small class was made up of a few students and a handful of
professors--Nobel Prize (in science) winners among them. That was my
first up close and personal experience with scientists who felt
strongly that what NASA did was--and I quote--"mere engineering." No
one in the room defended NASA, though I in my small way did speak up
to question that view just a tiny bit.

Footnote: Pathfinder, and now the Rovers have caught the public
imagination. Contrary to what some scientists and other technical
types might think, I suspect 99% of the supporters of these missions
have only the vaguest idea of what science, if any, is planned. And
they wouldn't care if you told them.

In fact, one way of looking at this is that the science experiments
are the expendable part of the missions. Most people--the ones who pay
the bill--just want to be part of the exploration. Science is all and
good, but it is hard to draw a direct line from missions such as these
to any tangible benefit--and even more difficult when you ponder
whether the benefit obtained might not have been obtained more
efficiently in some other manner.

Perhaps scientists should consider themselves lucky that at this stage
in extra-Earth exploration science is playing a dominant role. It
won't last forever, of course.

So I ask the question again--why not put a microphone on a rover to
hear what Mars sounds like--in other words, to experience it more
fully as a human being? That seems like a very powerful emotional
thing to do. I would love to see the video, too. Can you imagine what
an approaching dust storm would look and sound like? Can you imagine
the fire that would light in the imagination of million of people,
young and old alike? What about a Martian sunset? Isn't that worth
seeing, even if its scientific value is nil?

Should exploration of the universe be guided by narrow-minded techies
who confuse their self-interest with some greater truth?

Oh, yes, boo hoo. Bandwidth limitations, and all that. But if NASA
really wanted to couldn't the bandwidth problem be addressed in some
way? Help me out here someone--maybe orbit a satellite over Mars for
that express purpose? Is there no way to increase the bandwidth? We
are talking about billions of dollars in available money. I would be
stunned if it were not possible with that level of resources.

Don't get me wrong and assume I'm anti-science. Not at all. But am I
"science only"? Not at all.

In short, why not put a microphone on Mars?

--Darin

Darin Boville
Fine Art Photography and Video
www.darinboville.com

On 30 Jan 2004 23:57:22 -0800, (Darin Boville) wrote:

I just read through the "Sound Transmission on Mars" thread--wow, you
techies can get really mean!--and it is ever clearer to me why NASA
got itself stuck in the hole that it is (was?) in...desperately
clinging to "science" as the rationale for its existence.

While NASA itself is an agency with political reasons for existence that go
beyond science, science is the fundamental purpose of the researchers who are
largely the designers and operators of the robotic instruments we send to other
planets.


Footnote: In grad school they had this cool science policy seminar.
The small class was made up of a few students and a handful of
professors--Nobel Prize (in science) winners among them. That was my
first up close and personal experience with scientists who felt
strongly that what NASA did was--and I quote--"mere engineering."

How sad. It just shows that Nobel winning scientists can be as foolish as anyone
else, though. Many of those scientists could not have made their advances
without the tools provided by "mere engineering".


Footnote: Pathfinder, and now the Rovers have caught the public
imagination. Contrary to what some scientists and other technical
types might think, I suspect 99% of the supporters of these missions
have only the vaguest idea of what science, if any, is planned. And
they wouldn't care if you told them.

You may be correct that such a large percentage are unaware of the science
goals. I think a larger percentage would be interested to learn them, although
still a far smaller percentage than I'd like. But it isn't the purpose of these
missions to catch the public imagination, although I think it is good when that
happens, both for the sake of the public and for the sake of future support of
publicly funded science.


In fact, one way of looking at this is that the science experiments
are the expendable part of the missions. Most people--the ones who pay
the bill--just want to be part of the exploration.

Only the ones who pay the bill, I'd say, and only some of them.


Science is all and
good, but it is hard to draw a direct line from missions such as these
to any tangible benefit--and even more difficult when you ponder
whether the benefit obtained might not have been obtained more
efficiently in some other manner.

I guess it depends on your definition of "tangible". From these missions we know
vastly more about our Solar System and have the kind of observational data
needed to further develop theories of planetary and moon formation, and of the
formation of the Solar System itself. If you speak of commercial spinoffs,
perhaps these could have been obtained in another matter- but not the scientific
knowledge.


So I ask the question again--why not put a microphone on a rover to
hear what Mars sounds like--in other words, to experience it more
fully as a human being? That seems like a very powerful emotional
thing to do. I would love to see the video, too. Can you imagine what
an approaching dust storm would look and sound like? Can you imagine
the fire that would light in the imagination of million of people,
young and old alike? What about a Martian sunset? Isn't that worth
seeing, even if its scientific value is nil?

No need to imagine the sunset, as that has been imaged nicely in the past.


Should exploration of the universe be guided by narrow-minded techies
who confuse their self-interest with some greater truth?

The scientists who guide the development of these missions are as far from
"narrow-minded" as anyone I know (and I know more than a few of them). Of
course, they are guided by their self-interest like everyone else- indeed, like
you would be in your personal goals for space exploration. But their interests
are broad.


Oh, yes, boo hoo. Bandwidth limitations, and all that. But if NASA
really wanted to couldn't the bandwidth problem be addressed in some
way? Help me out here someone--maybe orbit a satellite over Mars for
that express purpose? Is there no way to increase the bandwidth? We
are talking about billions of dollars in available money. I would be
stunned if it were not possible with that level of resources.

That is the reality. Everything is constrained- the size, weight, power
consumption, bandwidth. It is precisely because the people with the purse
strings don't really have the kind of vision you would like that these
limitations exist. Presumably, to put a microphone on a MER would require
removing something else, something of more scientific value.


Don't get me wrong and assume I'm anti-science. Not at all. But am I
"science only"? Not at all.

In short, why not put a microphone on Mars?

No reason except limited resources. I would suggest that you put your efforts
into supporting increased funding for robotic space exploration, rather than
blaming some lack of romanticism or vision on the part of space scientists.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On 30 Jan 2004 23:57:22 -0800, (Darin Boville) wrote:

I just read through the "Sound Transmission on Mars" thread--wow, you
techies can get really mean!--and it is ever clearer to me why NASA
got itself stuck in the hole that it is (was?) in...desperately
clinging to "science" as the rationale for its existence.

While NASA itself is an agency with political reasons for existence that go
beyond science, science is the fundamental purpose of the researchers who are
largely the designers and operators of the robotic instruments we send to other
planets.


Footnote: In grad school they had this cool science policy seminar.
The small class was made up of a few students and a handful of
professors--Nobel Prize (in science) winners among them. That was my
first up close and personal experience with scientists who felt
strongly that what NASA did was--and I quote--"mere engineering."

How sad. It just shows that Nobel winning scientists can be as foolish as anyone
else, though. Many of those scientists could not have made their advances
without the tools provided by "mere engineering".


Footnote: Pathfinder, and now the Rovers have caught the public
imagination. Contrary to what some scientists and other technical
types might think, I suspect 99% of the supporters of these missions
have only the vaguest idea of what science, if any, is planned. And
they wouldn't care if you told them.

You may be correct that such a large percentage are unaware of the science
goals. I think a larger percentage would be interested to learn them, although
still a far smaller percentage than I'd like. But it isn't the purpose of these
missions to catch the public imagination, although I think it is good when that
happens, both for the sake of the public and for the sake of future support of
publicly funded science.


In fact, one way of looking at this is that the science experiments
are the expendable part of the missions. Most people--the ones who pay
the bill--just want to be part of the exploration.

Only the ones who pay the bill, I'd say, and only some of them.


Science is all and
good, but it is hard to draw a direct line from missions such as these
to any tangible benefit--and even more difficult when you ponder
whether the benefit obtained might not have been obtained more
efficiently in some other manner.

I guess it depends on your definition of "tangible". From these missions we know
vastly more about our Solar System and have the kind of observational data
needed to further develop theories of planetary and moon formation, and of the
formation of the Solar System itself. If you speak of commercial spinoffs,
perhaps these could have been obtained in another matter- but not the scientific
knowledge.


So I ask the question again--why not put a microphone on a rover to
hear what Mars sounds like--in other words, to experience it more
fully as a human being? That seems like a very powerful emotional
thing to do. I would love to see the video, too. Can you imagine what
an approaching dust storm would look and sound like? Can you imagine
the fire that would light in the imagination of million of people,
young and old alike? What about a Martian sunset? Isn't that worth
seeing, even if its scientific value is nil?

No need to imagine the sunset, as that has been imaged nicely in the past.


Should exploration of the universe be guided by narrow-minded techies
who confuse their self-interest with some greater truth?

The scientists who guide the development of these missions are as far from
"narrow-minded" as anyone I know (and I know more than a few of them). Of
course, they are guided by their self-interest like everyone else- indeed, like
you would be in your personal goals for space exploration. But their interests
are broad.


Oh, yes, boo hoo. Bandwidth limitations, and all that. But if NASA
really wanted to couldn't the bandwidth problem be addressed in some
way? Help me out here someone--maybe orbit a satellite over Mars for
that express purpose? Is there no way to increase the bandwidth? We
are talking about billions of dollars in available money. I would be
stunned if it were not possible with that level of resources.

That is the reality. Everything is constrained- the size, weight, power
consumption, bandwidth. It is precisely because the people with the purse
strings don't really have the kind of vision you would like that these
limitations exist. Presumably, to put a microphone on a MER would require
removing something else, something of more scientific value.


Don't get me wrong and assume I'm anti-science. Not at all. But am I
"science only"? Not at all.

In short, why not put a microphone on Mars?

No reason except limited resources. I would suggest that you put your efforts
into supporting increased funding for robotic space exploration, rather than
blaming some lack of romanticism or vision on the part of space scientists.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On 30 Jan 2004 23:57:22 -0800, (Darin Boville) wrote:

I just read through the "Sound Transmission on Mars" thread--wow, you
techies can get really mean!--and it is ever clearer to me why NASA
got itself stuck in the hole that it is (was?) in...desperately
clinging to "science" as the rationale for its existence.

While NASA itself is an agency with political reasons for existence that go
beyond science, science is the fundamental purpose of the researchers who are
largely the designers and operators of the robotic instruments we send to other
planets.


Footnote: In grad school they had this cool science policy seminar.
The small class was made up of a few students and a handful of
professors--Nobel Prize (in science) winners among them. That was my
first up close and personal experience with scientists who felt
strongly that what NASA did was--and I quote--"mere engineering."

How sad. It just shows that Nobel winning scientists can be as foolish as anyone
else, though. Many of those scientists could not have made their advances
without the tools provided by "mere engineering".


Footnote: Pathfinder, and now the Rovers have caught the public
imagination. Contrary to what some scientists and other technical
types might think, I suspect 99% of the supporters of these missions
have only the vaguest idea of what science, if any, is planned. And
they wouldn't care if you told them.

You may be correct that such a large percentage are unaware of the science
goals. I think a larger percentage would be interested to learn them, although
still a far smaller percentage than I'd like. But it isn't the purpose of these
missions to catch the public imagination, although I think it is good when that
happens, both for the sake of the public and for the sake of future support of
publicly funded science.


In fact, one way of looking at this is that the science experiments
are the expendable part of the missions. Most people--the ones who pay
the bill--just want to be part of the exploration.

Only the ones who pay the bill, I'd say, and only some of them.


Science is all and
good, but it is hard to draw a direct line from missions such as these
to any tangible benefit--and even more difficult when you ponder
whether the benefit obtained might not have been obtained more
efficiently in some other manner.

I guess it depends on your definition of "tangible". From these missions we know
vastly more about our Solar System and have the kind of observational data
needed to further develop theories of planetary and moon formation, and of the
formation of the Solar System itself. If you speak of commercial spinoffs,
perhaps these could have been obtained in another matter- but not the scientific
knowledge.


So I ask the question again--why not put a microphone on a rover to
hear what Mars sounds like--in other words, to experience it more
fully as a human being? That seems like a very powerful emotional
thing to do. I would love to see the video, too. Can you imagine what
an approaching dust storm would look and sound like? Can you imagine
the fire that would light in the imagination of million of people,
young and old alike? What about a Martian sunset? Isn't that worth
seeing, even if its scientific value is nil?

No need to imagine the sunset, as that has been imaged nicely in the past.


Should exploration of the universe be guided by narrow-minded techies
who confuse their self-interest with some greater truth?

The scientists who guide the development of these missions are as far from
"narrow-minded" as anyone I know (and I know more than a few of them). Of
course, they are guided by their self-interest like everyone else- indeed, like
you would be in your personal goals for space exploration. But their interests
are broad.


Oh, yes, boo hoo. Bandwidth limitations, and all that. But if NASA
really wanted to couldn't the bandwidth problem be addressed in some
way? Help me out here someone--maybe orbit a satellite over Mars for
that express purpose? Is there no way to increase the bandwidth? We
are talking about billions of dollars in available money. I would be
stunned if it were not possible with that level of resources.

That is the reality. Everything is constrained- the size, weight, power
consumption, bandwidth. It is precisely because the people with the purse
strings don't really have the kind of vision you would like that these
limitations exist. Presumably, to put a microphone on a MER would require
removing something else, something of more scientific value.


Don't get me wrong and assume I'm anti-science. Not at all. But am I
"science only"? Not at all.

In short, why not put a microphone on Mars?

No reason except limited resources. I would suggest that you put your efforts
into supporting increased funding for robotic space exploration, rather than
blaming some lack of romanticism or vision on the part of space scientists.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"Darin Boville" wrote
So I ask the question again--why not put a microphone on a rover to
hear what Mars sounds like--in other words, to experience it more
fully as a human being? That seems like a very powerful emotional
thing to do. I would love to see the video, too. Can you imagine what
an approaching dust storm would look and sound like? Can you imagine
the fire that would light in the imagination of million of people,
young and old alike? What about a Martian sunset? Isn't that worth
seeing, even if its scientific value is nil?

Oh, yes, boo hoo. Bandwidth limitations, and all that. But if NASA
really wanted to couldn't the bandwidth problem be addressed in some
way? Help me out here someone--maybe orbit a satellite over Mars for
that express purpose? Is there no way to increase the bandwidth?

Check out this vision by NASA ("Technologies for the Interplanetary
Network"): http://www.ipnsig.org/reports/Lesh-IPN-Technologies.pdf

That presentation states: "Data rate requirements for science and public
outreach are factors of 10 to 100 higher than can be provided by current
communications technology."

Specifically, maximum data rate from Mars is currently 200kbps while video
would require 500kbps for MPEG-1 through over 100 Mbps for raw studio
quality.

Some points from the presentation:

* Mars 05 will map only 1% of the Mars surface at high (20 cm) resolution -
We may miss many important discoveries

.. If, instead, we had high BW communications wherever we explored, we could
assemble a comprehensive data repository

- A living encyclopedia with all the fusion and cross indexing expected in
such a compendium

- Automatically updated through the IPN

- Including data that has not been fully analyzed by
NASA scientists!

.. High school and college students could explore truly-unknown territory and
make real first-time discoveries or test theories

.. As further missions occur, we would fill in details

- Students could use "NASA as Educator" assets to fill
in data themselves!

* Future mission planners could more effectively
plan the next series of missions

.. Allows science to continue decades after the physical mission has ended

* Future deep space exploration will involve much more complex exploration

- In situ science analysis, Sample handling and return, Cooperating
sciencecraft

.. Humans will have to interact with these missions as the primary explorers

.. The IPN will allow explorers to interact with their "ships" without
actually traveling along

.. Visualization and control applications, enabled by communication, shared
computing,
and shared sensors, will allow scientists to share in the immediacy and
excitement of
initial discoveries, resulting in more human-like strategies for reacting to
the unknown

.. The IPN would allow humans to travel to Mars orbit and participate in
real-time
telerobotics on the Martian surface

See page 21 of the document for a diagram of the Mars Network ("First Stop
on the IPN"). That proposes either an areostationary satellite with 1Mbps
near continuous streaming video and 100 Gb/sol data return, or alternatively
a constellation of low-altitude sats.

Joe

"Darin Boville" wrote
So I ask the question again--why not put a microphone on a rover to
hear what Mars sounds like--in other words, to experience it more
fully as a human being? That seems like a very powerful emotional
thing to do. I would love to see the video, too. Can you imagine what
an approaching dust storm would look and sound like? Can you imagine
the fire that would light in the imagination of million of people,
young and old alike? What about a Martian sunset? Isn't that worth
seeing, even if its scientific value is nil?

Oh, yes, boo hoo. Bandwidth limitations, and all that. But if NASA
really wanted to couldn't the bandwidth problem be addressed in some
way? Help me out here someone--maybe orbit a satellite over Mars for
that express purpose? Is there no way to increase the bandwidth?

Check out this vision by NASA ("Technologies for the Interplanetary
Network"): http://www.ipnsig.org/reports/Lesh-IPN-Technologies.pdf

That presentation states: "Data rate requirements for science and public
outreach are factors of 10 to 100 higher than can be provided by current
communications technology."

Specifically, maximum data rate from Mars is currently 200kbps while video
would require 500kbps for MPEG-1 through over 100 Mbps for raw studio
quality.

Some points from the presentation:

* Mars 05 will map only 1% of the Mars surface at high (20 cm) resolution -
We may miss many important discoveries

.. If, instead, we had high BW communications wherever we explored, we could
assemble a comprehensive data repository

- A living encyclopedia with all the fusion and cross indexing expected in
such a compendium

- Automatically updated through the IPN

- Including data that has not been fully analyzed by
NASA scientists!

.. High school and college students could explore truly-unknown territory and
make real first-time discoveries or test theories

.. As further missions occur, we would fill in details

- Students could use "NASA as Educator" assets to fill
in data themselves!

* Future mission planners could more effectively
plan the next series of missions

.. Allows science to continue decades after the physical mission has ended

* Future deep space exploration will involve much more complex exploration

- In situ science analysis, Sample handling and return, Cooperating
sciencecraft

.. Humans will have to interact with these missions as the primary explorers

.. The IPN will allow explorers to interact with their "ships" without
actually traveling along

.. Visualization and control applications, enabled by communication, shared
computing,
and shared sensors, will allow scientists to share in the immediacy and
excitement of
initial discoveries, resulting in more human-like strategies for reacting to
the unknown

.. The IPN would allow humans to travel to Mars orbit and participate in
real-time
telerobotics on the Martian surface

See page 21 of the document for a diagram of the Mars Network ("First Stop
on the IPN"). That proposes either an areostationary satellite with 1Mbps
near continuous streaming video and 100 Gb/sol data return, or alternatively
a constellation of low-altitude sats.

Joe

"Darin Boville" wrote
So I ask the question again--why not put a microphone on a rover to
hear what Mars sounds like--in other words, to experience it more
fully as a human being? That seems like a very powerful emotional
thing to do. I would love to see the video, too. Can you imagine what
an approaching dust storm would look and sound like? Can you imagine
the fire that would light in the imagination of million of people,
young and old alike? What about a Martian sunset? Isn't that worth
seeing, even if its scientific value is nil?

Oh, yes, boo hoo. Bandwidth limitations, and all that. But if NASA
really wanted to couldn't the bandwidth problem be addressed in some
way? Help me out here someone--maybe orbit a satellite over Mars for
that express purpose? Is there no way to increase the bandwidth?

Check out this vision by NASA ("Technologies for the Interplanetary
Network"): http://www.ipnsig.org/reports/Lesh-IPN-Technologies.pdf

That presentation states: "Data rate requirements for science and public
outreach are factors of 10 to 100 higher than can be provided by current
communications technology."

Specifically, maximum data rate from Mars is currently 200kbps while video
would require 500kbps for MPEG-1 through over 100 Mbps for raw studio
quality.

Some points from the presentation:

* Mars 05 will map only 1% of the Mars surface at high (20 cm) resolution -
We may miss many important discoveries

.. If, instead, we had high BW communications wherever we explored, we could
assemble a comprehensive data repository

- A living encyclopedia with all the fusion and cross indexing expected in
such a compendium

- Automatically updated through the IPN

- Including data that has not been fully analyzed by
NASA scientists!

.. High school and college students could explore truly-unknown territory and
make real first-time discoveries or test theories

.. As further missions occur, we would fill in details

- Students could use "NASA as Educator" assets to fill
in data themselves!

* Future mission planners could more effectively
plan the next series of missions

.. Allows science to continue decades after the physical mission has ended

* Future deep space exploration will involve much more complex exploration

- In situ science analysis, Sample handling and return, Cooperating
sciencecraft

.. Humans will have to interact with these missions as the primary explorers

.. The IPN will allow explorers to interact with their "ships" without
actually traveling along

.. Visualization and control applications, enabled by communication, shared
computing,
and shared sensors, will allow scientists to share in the immediacy and
excitement of
initial discoveries, resulting in more human-like strategies for reacting to
the unknown

.. The IPN would allow humans to travel to Mars orbit and participate in
real-time
telerobotics on the Martian surface

See page 21 of the document for a diagram of the Mars Network ("First Stop
on the IPN"). That proposes either an areostationary satellite with 1Mbps
near continuous streaming video and 100 Gb/sol data return, or alternatively
a constellation of low-altitude sats.

Joe

They do have an audio mic on the rover and they use an audio compression
system to keep the BW down, altho it all top secret so we don't know about it.
And your not realy reading this, are you? It's top secret to.

They do have an audio mic on the rover and they use an audio compression
system to keep the BW down, altho it all top secret so we don't know about it.
And your not realy reading this, are you? It's top secret to.

They do have an audio mic on the rover and they use an audio compression
system to keep the BW down, altho it all top secret so we don't know about it.
And your not realy reading this, are you? It's top secret to.