Russa had rovers 30 years before the US

bearack · Aug 1, 2008

I watched a documentary on the Science channel the other day about Lunokhod 1 and 2 rovers Russia sent to the moon and how successful they were.  I must play stupid hear, but I had no ideal about these and how successful these units were.  Lunokhod 1 spent 11 months and traveled 23 miles while Lunokhod 2 spent 4 months but traveled an astounding 40 miles.  Question being, why did it take us 30 years for the birth of the Pathfinder?  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <img id="06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/14/06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /> </div>

silylene old · Aug 1, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I watched a documentary on the Science channel the other day about Lunokhod 1 and 2 rovers Russia sent to the moon and how successful they were.  I must play stupid hear, but I had no ideal about these and how successful these units were.  Lunokhod 1 spent 11 months and traveled 23 miles while Lunokhod 2 spent 4 months but traveled an astounding 40 miles.  Question being, why did it take us 30 years for the birth of the Pathfinder?  Posted by bearack</DIV>Soviet unmanned space technology in its heyday was really quite spectacular.In other missions 30yrs ago, the Soviets also launched successful unmanned missions which landed on the surface of another planetary body (the moon), bored and stored multiple core samples, and then successfully launched and returned these soil samples back to earth for analysis.   Neither the US or any other space agency has duplicated this feat yet with an unmannned vehicle.Also did you know that 23 yrs ago the Soviets launched the very successful Vega 1 and Vega 2 missions, which dropped soft landers on the Venusion surface and transmitted pictures and data back, and also had carried an additonal entry vehicle which floated  in the Venusian atmosphere, suspended by a balloon and transmitted chemical, physical and weather information back to earth.  The Vega 2 balloon drifted 11,000 km across the Venusian surface, transmittting data.  And to top this off, after the Vega motherships dropped off their landers and balloon probes at Venus, they both sped away to rendezvous with Halley's comet, to get the first every close ups of a cometary nucleus. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

bearack · Aug 1, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Soviet unmanned space technology in its heyday was really quite spectacular.In other missions 30yrs ago, the Soviets also launched successful unmanned missions which landed on the surface of another planetary body (the moon), bored and stored multiple core samples, and then successfully launched and returned these soil samples back to earth for analysis.   Neither the US or any other space agency has duplicated this feat yet with an unmannned vehicle.Also did you know that 23 yrs ago the Soviets launched the very successful Vega 1 and Vega 2 missions, which dropped soft landers on the Venusion surface and transmitted pictures and data back, and also had carried an additonal entry vehicle which floated  in the Venusian atmosphere, suspended by a balloon and transmitted chemical, physical and weather information back to earth.  The Vega 2 balloon drifted 11,000 km across the Venusian surface, transmittting data.  And to top this off, after the Vega motherships dropped off their landers and balloon probes at Venus, they both sped away to rendezvous with Halley's comet, to get the first every close ups of a cometary nucleus. Posted by silylene</DIV> Yes, I was very familiar with the Vega missions.  I remember first seeing the images to which started allot of my fascination with extraterrestrial worlds.  I also remember the landers didn't last very long in the intense heat.  Those Russians are some smart folks!  I just never heard to the rovers until this documentary.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <img id="06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/14/06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /> </div>

centsworth_II · Aug 1, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I just never heard to the rovers until this documentary.  Posted by bearack</DIV> Don't blame yourself, blame Soviet secrecy.Edit: Or was it the US press unwilling to cover the Soviet accomplishments.  Most likely a combination.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Philotas · Aug 1, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Don't blame yourself, blame Soviet secrecy.Edit: Or was it the US press unwilling to cover the Soviet accomplishments.  Most likely a combination.   Posted by centsworth_II</DIV> Erm, I can't see why they would cover up successful probes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Carrickagh · Aug 1, 2008

Cool stuff from the Cold War.After Apollo 11 the Soviets did a great deal of hand waving and revisionism to suggest that they had never been in a MoonRace with the Americans. The Lunokhods and sample return missions were not really part of that disinformation campaign, but they were sort of a last ditch effort to do something regarding the Moon.They were succesful robots. And kind of cool, too, despite looking like mobile bathtubs. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/2/0/f22268df-f3c7-4a2a-b036-c0854095ed7b.Medium.jpg" alt="" />There had been rovers on the drawing boards, and there was even a rover-Viking hybrid discussed at one point.The problems of developing a succesful technology to run a rover on the moon vs a rover on Mars is at least a log different. The delivery system is critical, as well as communications and a certain control sophisitication (computer "smarts") to overcvome the 20 minute time lag on Mars.Driving a rover on Luna is more like running an ROV. The timelag is still dangerous, but at 2.5 seconds more manageable.One anecdote: I took a seminar several years ago with a former Russian engineer who was teaching a concept called TRIZ: Theory of Inventive Problem Solving. One of the case studies involved Lunokhod. During development the program ground to a halt because the headlamps on Lunokhod required bulbs that would typically break during shake tests that simulated launch. Without the bulbs the operators would be partially blind. At any rate I believe Dr. Altshuller, the inventor of TRIZ was called in. His solution was to eliminate the bulbs and only used the filaments. The bulbs simply provide a housing for a vacuum, and the lunar surface is essentially a vacuum. The filaments readily worked without the bulb enclosure and the program was then put back on track.Sometimes you get too close to a problem...or perhaps they had never read any heinlein when they were kids...Just a few notions.**   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

newtons_laws · Aug 1, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Don't blame yourself, blame Soviet secrecy.Edit: Or was it the US press unwilling to cover the Soviet accomplishments.  Most likely a combination.   Posted by centsworth_II</DIV>I certainly remember watching a Sky At Night TV programme on British TV at the time with Patrick Moore discussing Lunokhod, so I think the Soviets were more than happy to poblicise it!   <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

silylene old · Aug 1, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I certainly remember watching a Sky At Night TV programme on British TV at the time with Patrick Moore discussing Lunokhod, so I think the Soviets were more than happy to poblicise it!   Posted by newtons_laws</DIV>The Soviet space technology roadshow, which toured several cities in 1986 had an actual backup Vega craft and a backup Lunokhod, in addition to several capsules and cosmonauts to talk to the public.My recollection is that during these missions, the US media largely ignored Lunokhod, not that the Soviets were secretive.  I was young then and extremely interested in all space subjects, and it was nearly impossible to find any information beyond the most minimal in the network news, newspapers or common news magazines.  As there was no internet or cable TV back then, and only the 3 networks+PBS, there were no other options for Americans to learn about these missions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

JonClarke · Aug 1, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Question being, why did it take us 30 years for the birth of the Pathfinder?  Posted by bearack</DIV>There were lunar rovers discussed prior to Apollo.  there was a mission called Prospector and a rover Surveyor mission.  Bt these were overtaken by Apollo.  Lunar rovers can be teleoperated from earth quite easily.  But after Apollo the US was not interested in the Moon, so no lunar rovers.Mars rovers need considerable autonomy even for simple operations.  It was a long time before technology could supply this, Donna Shirley has a lot about the challenges in her book "Managing Martians".  And of course the US lost interest in Mars for 13 years after Viking as well, which did not help.But the Lunakhods were awsome.  They covered a massive amount of distance in a short amount of time and had a huge science payload.  They were roughly the equivalent of MSL.Why so little coverage?  They were from the USSR so less public interest, and were certainly in the shadow of Apollo. It is only with hindsight we can see them as the achievements they were.  But I do remember them in the news including pictures of and from them.  And there were many scientific papers as well.Jon   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

MeteorWayne · Aug 1, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Erm, I can't see why they would cover up successful probes. Posted by Philotas</DIV> Then you don't understand the politics of the time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

Philotas · Aug 2, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Then you don't understand the politics of the time. Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV> It is very hard to relate to such a response, please go into detail. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Aug 2, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is very hard to relate to such a response, please go into detail. Posted by Philotas</DIV> I will as soon as I can post in less than 15 minutes

Hopefully next week. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

stupidlaminatedrock · Aug 2, 2008

Soviets had quiet an amazing unnmanned space program considering its funded size. The Venera program was the high light without a doubt, Landing 5 Crafts on Venus.  However it was very inferior to ours in many many ways. Other than Venus they never had any deep space program akin to Pioneer or Voyager. And the only time the Soviet successfully made it to mars was Phobos-2, which was stunningly advanced by western standards but failed shortly after arrival. Most Soviet missions simply never made it off the ground or out of orbit. Lots of missions (just the ones we know of) failed in orbit. Soviets were 1-11 with mars. And while Venera was great, 16 of the crafts never made it too venus and only 5 did. Terrible Ratio.  Soviet Engineering,programming and Electronic Manufacturing was vastly inferior to the United States. While the Soviets had Luna 9 and Lukonoad we had apollo, and already had been there done that. Now if we are talking about men in space. Soviets win, hands down. The 2 space stations the soviets put up were wonderful achievements, the latter being MIR.

JonClarke · Aug 2, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Soviets had quiet an amazing unnmanned space program considering its funded size. The Venera program was the high light without a doubt, Landing 5 Crafts on Venus.  </DIV>Actually 10 times. Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However it was very inferior to ours in many many ways. Other than Venus they never had any deep space program akin to Pioneer or Voyager. </DIV>As you aid, funding size was smaller.  However there were a number of deep space missions other than to Venyus.  Zond 3, Mars, and Halley's comet.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And the only time the Soviet successfully made it to mars was Phobos-2, which was stunningly advanced by western standards but failed shortly after arrival.</DIV>Mars 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 all successfully made it to Mars.  While Phobos did not complete its mission it did achieve a great dealReplying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Most Soviet missions simply never made it off the ground or out of orbit. </DIV>Only in the early days.  The same could be said for US missions as well.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Lots of missions (just the ones we know of) failed in orbit. </DIV>Again, mostly in the early days.  We know the fate of all planetary missions.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Soviets were 1-11 with mars. </DIV>It's more like 7-18, if you define success as arriving at Mars successfullyAnd while Venera was great, 16 of the crafts never made it too venus and only 5 did. </DIV>You are again mising a few, there were 31 mission attempts, 17 successful.  Almost all the failures were in the 60'sReplying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Soviet Engineering,programming and Electronic Manufacturing was vastly inferior to the United States.</DIV>I assume you weren't thinking about the failure of the first 9 Pioneer missions when you wrote, this, or the first 6 Ragers, and the first 12 Discovery/Corona satellites.  Getting satellites to work in the 60's was hard for everyone.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>While the Soviets had Luna 9 and Lukonoad we had apollo, and already had been there done that. </DIV>Not quite sure what you ean by "been there and done that". There was more to the Soviet lunar program than just Luna 9 and Lunokhod.  Luna 1 was the first flyby, Luna 2 the first impact, Luna 3 the first to image the far side, Zond 3 imaged the rest of the farside, Luna 9 was the first soft lander, folllowed by Luna 13, Luna 10, 11 12, and 14, were the first lunar orbiters, Luna 16, 20, and 24 returned samples, Luna 19 and 22 were further orbiters, and Luna 17 and 21 the Lunokhods.  That is an impressive record.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now if we are talking about men in space. Soviets win, hands down. The 2 space stations the soviets put up were wonderful achievements, the latter being MIR.  Posted by stupidlaminatedrock</DIV>I think you mean 7 stations - Salyut 1, 3, 4, 5, 6,and 7, plus Mir.Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

MarkStanaway · Aug 2, 2008

If you want to check out your knowledge of these fascinating moon rovers take the quiz I posted some time ago onwww.funtrivia.com It will be under the specialised history section  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

JonClarke · Aug 3, 2008

http://selena.sai.msu.ru/Home/Spacecrafts/Lunokhod1/lunokhod1e.htm (some pictures and a traverse map (in Russian)http://selena.sai.msu.ru/Home/Spacecrafts/Lunokhod2/lunokhod2e.htm (A few more pictures)http://lunarandplanetaryrovers.com/lunokhod.htm (Good technical description and project history)http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogMoon.htm (Includes some wonderful historic images from many Soviet lunar missions reprocessed with modern technology)http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,904555,00.html (A contemporary report from TIME)Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

3488 · Aug 3, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://selena.sai.msu.ru/Home/Spacecrafts/Lunokhod1/lunokhod1e.htm (some pictures and a traverse map (in Russian)http://selena.sai.msu.ru/Home/Spacecrafts/Lunokhod2/lunokhod2e.htm (A few more pictures)http://lunarandplanetaryrovers.com/lunokhod.htm (Good technical description and project history)http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogMoon.htm (Includes some wonderful historic images from many Soviet lunar missions reprocessed with modern technology)http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,904555,00.html (A contemporary report from TIME)Jon Posted by jonclarke</DIV>Thank you very much Jon.Yes I agree completely, the Lunokhods were amazing vehicles. What would be great to see, would be hi def images & movies from them covering their entire journeys on the lunar surface. Was it true that the  Mars 2 & Mars 3 landers also carried small Sojourner type rovers as carried by Mars Pathfinder?Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

JonClarke · Aug 3, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thank you very much Jon.Yes I agree completely, the Lunokhods were amazing vehicles. What would be great to see, would be hi def images & movies from them covering their entire journeys on the lunar surface.Was it true that the  Mars 2 & Mars 3 landers also carried small Sojourner type rovers as carried by Mars Pathfinder?Andrew Brown. Posted by 3488</DIV>High AndrewThe Russian Mars landers carried a 4.5 kg tethered walking rover called the PROP-M.  It operated completely autonomously, including obstacle avoidance.  the machine was designed to measure soil density and strength.  Very sophisticated for the early 70's!  It is a great shme we did not see these guys doing their stuff.http://utenti.lycos.it/paoloulivi/propm.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

3488 · Aug 3, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>High AndrewThe Russian Mars landers carried a 4.5 kg tethered walking rover called the PROP-M.  It operated completely autonomously, including obstacle avoidance.  the machine was designed to measure soil density and strength.  Very sophisticated for the early 70's!  It is a great shme we did not see these guys doing their stuff.http://utenti.lycos.it/paoloulivi/propm.html Posted by jonclarke</DIV>Thank you very much Jon.Did not realise that they were walking robots. I see that Mars 6 & 7 landers also carried one each. As you say, it was very impressive for the early 70's, would not have been bad really for the 80's either. It was a great shame that we did not ever see these guys operate. It still seems so strange that the Soviets were so successful with Venus, but had precious little success with Mars, other than Phobos 2 which did survive long enough to succeed in returning new information, before failing prematurely. Lets hope for goodness sake, the Galactic Ghoul does'nt scupper Phobos-Grunt. BTW Jon, youy might know, I cannot seem to find anything new about Deimos-Gulliver. Is that still happenning or was that a paper exercise only? Andrew Brown.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

JonClarke · Aug 4, 2008

We now know that landing on Mars is hard.  I suspect that had the Russians persisted with Mars they would have got the bugs ironed out.  But they didn't, presumably because the Vikings were much more capable than the Mars, and there was still a residual space spectuacular mentality.But of course a few more successful Mars landers would greatly improved our knowledge of the planet.  After all, although less capable tan Viking, the mars were much more capable than Pathfinder (we actually owed a great deal to the Mars design).Phobos 2 did aat quite a bit to our knowledge of Mars, and a little to our knowledge of Phoboss.  Maybe it was too ambitious. Fingers crossed for Phobos Grunt.  With Chinese, Finnish, and Planetary Society hopes riding on it, as well as Russian and ESA, i really, really hope it works.  It is very ambitious too, which worries me.Deimos Gulliver is a new one on me.  Can you fill me in?Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

MarkStanaway · Aug 4, 2008

I came across this interesting information recently on what caused the demise of the 'Great Mars Fleet ' of 1973 when Mars 4, 5, 6. and 7 expired in quick succession just as they were beginning their programmed exploratoin of the Planet. Apparently they were all equipped with this same batch of dodgy transistors which had even failed during ground integration tests before the probes were launched. At this time there was great pressure to score some more points on Mars before the sophisticated Viking landers were launched in 1975. It was calculated the chances of the transistors failing was 50/50 but this was considered acceptable in the rush to upstage the Americans. On this occasion the Soviets once again lucked out as the transistors failed one by one. The Soviet press did little to publicise the the outcomes of the 'Great Mars Fleet' probably so as not to draw attention to its shortcommings but what limited data was returned was published in some obscure Soviet journals. The culprit turned ot to be a 2T-212 transistor made in a factory in Voronezh. The transistors durable gold leads had been replaced with aluminium ones as a cost cutting measure but tended to corrode and fail after about 1.5 to 2 years.Source 'Russian Planetary Exploration' (2007) by Brian Harvey  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

3488 · Aug 4, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We now know that landing on Mars is hard.  I suspect that had the Russians persisted with Mars they would have got the bugs ironed out.  But they didn't, presumably because the Vikings were much more capable than the Mars, and there was still a residual space spectuacular mentality.But of course a few more successful Mars landers would greatly improved our knowledge of the planet.  After all, although less capable tan Viking, the mars were much more capable than Pathfinder (we actually owed a great deal to the Mars design).Phobos 2 did aat quite a bit to our knowledge of Mars, and a little to our knowledge of Phoboss.  Maybe it was too ambitious. Fingers crossed for Phobos Grunt.  With Chinese, Finnish, and Planetary Society hopes riding on it, as well as Russian and ESA, i really, really hope it works.  It is very ambitious too, which worries me.Deimos Gulliver is a new one on me.  Can you fill me in?Jon Posted by jonclarke</DIV>Hi Jon.Most certainly. I am surprised Jon, that you were not aware, as you are leaps & bounds ahead of me on Martian Planetary & exploration knowledge. Link to Deimos-Gulliver.A proposal of a Sample Return from Deimos, very similar to Phobos-Grunt in many respects. That was the most recent paper I could find, dated 2005. I agree completely about the Soviet Mars Landers. It is a huge shame that not one succeeded although Mars 3 nearly worked in 45° S, 158° W. Looks quite an interesting location.Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

3488 · Aug 4, 2008

Thanks Mark, Yes I was aware of the Soviets using 'cheaper' chips in order to upstage NASA, but I was unaware that they deliberately launched the Great Mars Fleet knowing that the craft all had a potentially fatal flaw. Sloppy to say the least. What a shame, what an appalling waste in the name of politics, rather than science.Stuff happens in space, we can accept that, but sloppiness on that scale is unforgivable.Had those craft worked, the amount of Martian surface data & imagery would be far in excess as to what we have now.  The Mars 3 landing site IMO looks the most interesting of the Soviet fleet. I really hope that the MRO HiRISE may yet find the Soviet Mars Landers, though the ones that landed / crashed the exact locations are not known precicely.As Jon says about Phobos_Grunt, it does seem overly ambitious given their poor track record with Mars, yet they they were so spectacularly successful with Venus, the Moon & Halleys Comet, yet Mars has largely eluded them. Strange.Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

JonClarke · Aug 5, 2008

The most detailed account is in chapter  5 of Perminov: "The difficult road to Mars" http://klabs.org/richcontent/Reports/mars/difficult_road_to_mars.pdf <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

Russa had rovers 30 years before the US

bearack

Guest

silylene old

Guest

bearack

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

Philotas

Guest

Carrickagh

Guest

newtons_laws

Guest

silylene old

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

Philotas

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

stupidlaminatedrock

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

MarkStanaway

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

3488

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

3488

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

MarkStanaway

Guest

3488

Guest

3488

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page