NASA Launches First Mercury Mission in 3 Decades

[Khephra]

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (Reuters) - NASA launched its first mission to the planet Mercury in a generation early on Tuesday, one that scientists hope will strip away much of the mystery surrounding the tiny planet closest to the sun.

The MESSENGER (MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry and Ranging) spacecraft, riding a Boeing Co Delta 2 rocket, blazed across the nighttime sky above Florida's Cape Canaveral Air Force Station as the $427 million mission got underway with lift off at 2:16 a.m. EDT on Tuesday.

Among the questions scientists hope to answer is whether Mercury, just slightly larger than Earth's moon, was once Earth-sized itself but lost its rocky exterior either to some cataclysmic collision or to slow ablation by the solar winds.

Scientists also believe there may be frozen water there, trapped in shadowy craters at the planet's poles, never exposed to the sunlight that creates a 1,100 degree F difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures on the planet.

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=902451&tw=wn_wire_story

[Cooley Hurd]

1. I didn't know they had any spare capsules left...

...are thy using the one recently fished out of the Atlantic (Gus Grissom's Liberty Bell 7)?

If they need a chimp to ride it, I know of one who will be in need of employment next January...

Of course, I know that it's not that type of Mercury mission, but the headline made me laugh...

[Minstrel Boy]

2. "Messenger will reach Mercury after a seven-year sojourn

through the solar system that will take it 15 times around the sun, making near passes of Earth once, Venus twice, and Mercury itself three times."

Dammit, Jim, I'm not a doctor, nor a rocket scientist, but that's TOO LONG!

Mariner 10 took five months to reach Mercury in 1974. Okay, it wasn't an orbiter; it made several passes instead. But come on: seven years? Could that have been cut appreciably if a few more million had been released to the project?

[daleo]

3. I read that this method requires less fuel

The spacecraft has something like a 50:50 payload of fuel to actual working spacecraft. This amount of fuel is needed to brake the craft, so that it will go into orbit around Mercury. If they took the more direct route, the fuel:payload ratio would be more like 80:20. So, essentially this allows more cameras, scientific instrumentation, etc. to be put into orbit for the same amount of fuel, with the trade-off being the longer time to actually get to Mercury. Obviously, though, if they were willing to spend more money on a bigger spacecraft, and a larger launch vehicle they could get the craft there a lot faster. I haven't seen a cost comparison.

[ZR2]

4. Yep

There are still children going hungry.

[DrWeird]

5. Hey, if you want to feed hungry kids...

we're spending 200 billion dollars on a boondoggle in Iraq that would be perfect for just that kind of thing.

Jesus, why do people always complain about science and the space program when it comes to wasting money, instead of stupid shit like stealth bombers?

[ZR2]

6. I wish

we could pull out of that place immediately, but that will never happen. My problem is what will we gain from spending 100's of millions of dollars to go look at a rock ? That is also money that could be put to a much better use right here.

[DrWeird]

8. Scientific knowledge.

What will we get from raping Iraqi children?

[Xithras]

12. Look at a rock?

Look, there are very good reasons for this mission that have nothing to do with looking at rocks or checking for ice. Mercury and Earth are the only terrestrial planets with magnetic fields, and according to traditional planetary magnetic field theory, it shouldn't have one. Since our theories about planetary magnetic fields are just that, theories that sound plausible but have little in the way of evidence to prove them, it is important that we examine the magnetic fields of other planets to try and uncover new secrets, or potential flaws, in our understanding of our own planet. This is especially important considering recent relevations about our own magnetic field weakening and the increasing polar drift we've been experiencing. A firmer understanding of the mechanics of planetary magnetic fields might give us a better grasp of what our planet is doing right now.

Besides, even uncovering ice is a noble goal. Any ice on the Mercurial poles would have been deposited there by comets over the eons, and that ice would act almost as a solar time capsule recording everything from solar output to varying dust levels over eons. This is information that we simply don't have, which could be crucial to the long term survival of the human race. Before putting together any kind of lander to sample that ice, we need to find out if it's even there!

[Massacure]

7. OH NOESS, WE ARE SPENDING 16 BILLION ON NASA!!!

OH NOESS!!! WE ARE SPENDING 0.006% of our MONEY ON SCIENCE> OH NOES, WE ARE SPENDING. WE NEED TO CUT BACK ON THAT 0.006% TO PAY TO FEED THE POOR AND TO NOT STOP KILLILLING ALL THOSE INNOCENT IRAQIS!! OHH NOOEEEES!!!

</Sarcasm off>

16 billion dollars a year isn't a lot of money compared to the total budget, and we have earned a lot from it over the years.

[ZR2]

9. WTF does this have to do with Iraq ?

How about we start worrying about American children without helathcare, American children without food.

What scientific knowledge can we learn from examining a fucking rock in space ? Who cares ifit has water on it, all we would do is find some way to pollute it anyways.

[DrWeird]

10. Yes, who cares about learning things.

There's lots of money uselessly being thrown away doing scientific research. Let's take all that money and spend it on children. But not on education. Because education is stupid.

[Massacure]

11. They aren't looking for water.

http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/index.html

Read up on the mission.