Menaka 'Mercury' Indrani . . . has a nice sound to it!

I'm still waiting for a probe of Uranus.

lol

I agree the money spent will not further our Knowledge of anything but Mercury .. a life less planet we cant live on .. or extract resourses from .. concentrate on planets worth something

There are some observed oddities about Mercury which raised questions that couldn't be answered by remote observation from Earth. This orbiter was sent to try and answer those questions.

Proabably the biggest question they want an answer to. Why does Mercury have a relatively strong global magnetosphere for it's size? Is the core still somewhat molten?

By contrast, larger Mars has nearly no magnetosphere, which is likely a big reason why multicellular life failed to take hold there.

that was a much smarter response than the answer I was thinking off...thanks for being so smart.

timewonttell - You sir, are a bigot!

God created all planets equally worthy and for you to attempt to submit your biased viewpoint of which planet does or does not have worth, is a travesty on its own accord.

"GendoIkari

Proabably the biggest question they want an answer to. Why does Mercury have a relatively strong global magnetosphere for it's size? Is the core still somewhat molten?

By contrast, larger Mars has nearly no magnetosphere, which is likely a big reason why multicellular life failed to take hold there."

There is no scientific data indicating that molecular life failed to take hold on Mars. What we know is that currently, Mars has a very weak magnetic field, which means that it's surface is more exposed to harmfull radiation from space.

Also, there is a difference between a "magnetosphere" and a "magnetic field". It is the latter that should be used. The former relates to what is created when charged particles hit the magnetic field of a celestial body.

freedman1.....tak your meds!

With issues on this planet, I dont see the benefit of wasting money for pictures. How has our lives benefited? People still starving - yes. Disease still killing - yes. Wars still waging - yes. Families still homeless - yes. Education still expensive - yes. Medical care still expensive - yes. Hmmmm...nothing has changed for the better except we're now billions in debt for a pretty picture. Oh, so worth it. Not!

Oh yeah, and I'm sure all that sciency stuff is way too tough to think about. The answers that will be gained can be used to extrapolate data about our own planet, it's atmosphere, geologic processes, affects of magnetic fields and solar winds, and much much more. Of course the dark ages was much nicer time with plagues and fevers and belieif in magical stuff like witches and curses and such stuff. My friend it is the shortsighted view and the inability to recognize the value of scientific research that keeps us chained to outdated belief systems and inability to move ahead.

Ru,

Your definition of "for the better" obviously differs from the majority of the people on the board. "For the better" is the American people using their abilities to further scientific knowledge for all humankind. Unfortunately, there will always be disease, hungry, wars, homeless, etc. By that argument, why spend money on sports, arts, movies, TVs, or even the computer you used to type that post while these issues exist? As for MESSENGER, the cost was $443 million over well over ten years. That's $443 million that made it back into the economy (and that's the US economy, not the Iraqi or Afghan economy) for the engineers, scientists, and multiple support personnel to spend. But OK, you now want you money back. Tell you what: put your address here and I'll mail it to you. There were 99,800,223 people that paid taxes in 2005. That's $4.44 per taxpayer in the US over the course of more than a decade (~40 cents a year). I'll even make it an even $5 so I don't have to send change.

I'm with you, way too much spent on space with little benefit to mankind. Lets spend some of those billions on medicine and education.

Ok NASA budge for 2010: $18.724 billion dollars. Defense Department budgeting: $663.7 billion. Oh, and on the note of medicine, take a look at this:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/moonandmars/med.html

You could also do a search for NASA and technology, they have to share their developed tech with the american public

As for Education:

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/education/about/elesec_overview.html

Tom,

I going to assume you have done research regarding the many spinoffs of technology from the space program that have benefited the medical field and, after that, you still agree that there hasn't been enough. I assume this because I'd like to think that before people post knee jerk reactions regarding a given area, that they have done their research. Hence, let's forgo that argument.

However, let's also assume that all the world's people are healthy, well fed, and there are no more wars. Imagine. So where are we then? We wake up, eat, watch a little TV, post a few things on the Internet, make new people, and go to bed. Kind of reminds of my dogs (minus the Internet posts and they're fixed). I say that because having a society is more than that or what's the point? Why even exist? To watch "Jersey Shore?" The lasting impact of societies is in the arts and sciences. I can promise you that 100 years from now no one is going to remember Google and Facebook or Dancing with the Stars. Iraq, Afghanistan, Obama, Bush, etc. will be footnotes in a history book. You and I will be dust. But the knowledge we gained by space exploration will remain and continually expanded.

Tell that to the thousands of teachers getting layed off this month because there's no money in the budget for teachers. Hows that picture looking now? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42349401/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/

I don't like the idea that teachers are being laid off, either, but the federal government doesn't pay teachers, the state government does. If MESSENGER had never existed, that money wasn't going to be spent on employing teachers.

BTW, to again put this into perspective, let's look at school district budget numbers. Picking a random school district in Maryland since that's where APL is, Prince George's County had a budget $1.6 billion in 2010. Yes. $1.6 billion for one school district for one year. So even taking MESSENGER's budget over its entire lifetime, it still wouldn't cover the Prince George's County budget for 3 months. Keep in mind, again, that, for a middle class employee on MESSENGER, a significant portion of that money was re-taxed and sent back into the system to help pay for that $1.6 billion along with other money keeping other local employees employed.

Look, it's fine if you don't like science and you don't care what is in the world around you. Fortunately for society but unfortunately for you, there are enough people in the country who do care and they have voted for enough people that also care.

Besides, you're making an argument that you can't win. I assume that you have never partaken in anything was at least partially financed by federal or state funds? Did I get that same benefit? If not, why wasn't that money spent on teachers? The scientific and technical benefits apply to everyone in the country.

Here is an interesting though: How many science programs wouldn't exsist in school in the first place if it weren't for NASA and these missions? Even without financial contribution, we have learned so much about the world, and universe around us because of the space program. Oustide of education(though people taking an interest in this while in school in needed) fusion reactors are a very good example of real world benefits from NASA, and contributing space programs, because the premise behind them is the same as the Sun itself. Without a space program helping to contribute to our understanding how the sun works, we wouldn't be able to come up with a reactor like that, beyond an on paper theory. Now I know that does not appear to have any sort of correlation to the Messenger mission, however it is out there to study Mercury's own magenetic field, and since magnetic fields play an intergral role in fusion reactors, a better understanding of how they are generated may very well lead to break through in development of sustained fusion in these reactors, and give us a whole new, very powerful and clean energy source.

Eric,

Well, that's just it. When it comes to science and engineering, in an ideal world it would be great if somebody woke up one day and said "I'm going to discover X!" and then X was discovered. But it doesn't work that way. As with your example, creating a technology such as a fusion reactor, if it happens, will be the result of a multitude of disciplines that, if you simply said "I'm going to build a fusion reactor!" there's no way that you'd be able to fund the various technologies that are needed.

Scientists and engineers build upon the shoulders of the giants who came before them. An application in one field may end up being the one thing that is needed in another. Unfortunately, some of the people on this board who don't denigrate NASA are either don't or are unwilling to understand this. Perhaps they should have listened better to the teachers that tried to explain that to them.

There is evidence that Venus is still alive, geologically speaking. There is evidence of "recent" lava flows from volcanic eruptions. Also, it rotates once every 243 Earth days. That's a lot of heat for a very long time on the surface.

It is very similar to a young Earth. If we could tow it out to our orbit, and make it spin faster, humans could likely inhabit it in the future.

.......... rick ....... you mean like call Jetson's wrecker service and have it towed ? What a great idea ,

Cygnus, it's quite the opposite, as Mercury is the closest to the Star, all the other planets already took most incoming asteroids.

Recall that the mission was launched six years ago. Whatever our money is currently going towards has very little bearing on such a project due to the fact that the project is already operational and the money has already been spent. In the meantime, enjoy the discoveries.

avengemesir

Recall that the mission was launched six years ago. Whatever our money is currently going towards has very little bearing on such a project due to the fact that the project is already operational and the money has already been spent. In the meantime, enjoy the discoveries.

Although it's true that the satellite is already built and has already been launched, significant resources are still spent and devoted to its ongoing operation. This money is allocated in past, present, and future NASA budgets to continue to operate the mission.

Scott M,

Of course funds are allocated for the mission, because it would be an even more colossal waste of money to have already spent this much on the production of the probe if you are going to defund the relatively small expense of monitoring the data it sends back to us.

It's the equivilent of paying for a brand new high-end luxury car in cash, paying to have it shipped to your home, and then letting it sit and rust because you decide not to pay for gas.

Its never too late to stop wasting money.

"Its never too late to stop wasting money."

Don't worry - your portion went to pay for a bolt on a rocket that hit some desert camp a week ago. My congressman said mine went for the space station's toilet chain. Didn't you get the memo? If you don't specifically earmark your taxes they'll spend it on what they want to.

So true. MSNBC just reported on the thousands of teachers being layed off - no money available in the budget.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42349401/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/

See above.

@RevLucifer

The cost to maintain the probe and operate the mission is much more than you may think and in many cases, the cost is MORE than to build and launch that sattelite itself. In the exteme example. look at the Voyager I and II probes. We have spent significantly more money monitoring and operating them over the last 30 years than it took to build them.

Stop spending so much money on pro sports every year, Give that money to the schools and leave science alone to come up with the answers to fix our ever growing list of problems. If they can use whatever they find on other planets to help us I say go for it!

I was thinking that a moon outpost would be good to the point so much fuel would not be needed to continuoulsy get through our atmosphere. I'm also sure that mining from the moon could produce needed structure to create some type of settlement along with materials we would ship from Earth. That's just some of my thoughts. Thanks for responding.

LouisJ
I was thinking that a moon outpost would be good to the point so much fuel would not be needed to continuoulsy get through our atmosphere. I'm also sure that mining from the moon could produce needed structure to create some type of settlement along with materials we would ship from Earth. That's just some of my thoughts. Thanks for responding.

There's quite a bit more to it than that. Having human colonies on the moon presents huge challenges that currently don't have viable solutions. The first of which is how to protect the humans from the prolonged exposure to solar radiation.

Next, you have to think about things like:
1. How would the crew evacuate in an emergency?
2. How will we get the habitat and all its equipment there and setup and functioning?
3. How will the outpost be sustained with food, water, oxegen, electricity, etc.?

These are just a few of the tough questions, that, as of yet, don't have proven answers.

" I think exploring just to explore hasn't been an objective since landing on the moon."

Even then it wasn't just about that as much as it was about cold war one-upsmanship.

Besides the problems that Scott M mentioned, the biggest reason that a lunar colony is not a priority as a low-gravity starting point is because everything we send to the moon has to come from earth in the first place. The fuel needed to push an object out of our atmosphere is based on the mass to be moved, so it costs as much, if not more, in fuel costs to push the object from the Earth to the moon, and then from the moon to it's destination as it does simply to push from the Earth to it's destination. An arguement may be attempted that states that you can transport the objects to the lunar base for assemply first, but again you deal with the fact that it's is the mass that counts; it costs as much in extra fuel to move 2 tons of materials for building a probe as it does to move the 2 ton probe fully assembled, with the only possible savings coming from better aerodynamics in the transport versus the probe. Those benefits would be negligible in most instances, given the common design of probe launching vehicles.

Not true my friend. We would use the resources on the moon. (They are already there.) There appears to be much more water than we originally thought and the mineral and metal resources are amazing.

.... and Navy ......... don't forget all that cheese.

But isn't the moon's synchronous rotation beneficial to placing a habitat close to the pole? Wouldn't that limit any dangers to those that would be stationed there?

Not all war are stupid, I think this one is right for the only reason one nutty so called leader rise to kill everybody using his very power full army led by his three spoiled sons. The responsibility of thousands unprotected Libyans mass murder fall collectively to the occupant of this planet. We have to stop him, he don't have any Wright. America the superpower of this planet can't ignore, when innocent children are bombed. What good is to discover another planet with maybe another civilization, who maybe, already discover us but they didn't wont to interact with us because of what they found out about us "warmongers"

+427 C

"Anyone not wearing 2 million sunblock is going have a really bad day." (Terminator 2)

Little sure shoot: You beat me to that joke!

Since the space program began, I have enjoyed watching the Alan Shepard, the first (American) man to go into space; John Glenn, the first man to circle the Earth. The first man to walk on the moon, Neil Armstrong and of course Apollo 13, was a real hand wringer. But all of this, has been nothing more than hype and a race for power. Not the kind of power that gets you more stuff, but know-how power. Hubris if you will. I enjoy learning about science and the great unknown but let's face it, trying to equip an out-post, on the moon is like, taking water a teaspoon, at a time, from the Lake Erie to the Mojave Desert.

I would like to see more exploration of the oceans. Not for oil but for nature and other forms of life. It is too bad, all of us are so busy trying to keep our bills paid and our families safe, we are not able to appreciate science. The fifties and sixties were a wonderful time for that, except of course Viet Nam. We lost our innocence, after that war.

Maybe it is time to full up the tents at NASA and start using that money for other things like, people's needs. I agree, with one of the previous posters, who said he/she would rather see the money, be spent on space exploration, than wars.

Happy trails.

Larry, the first rule of physics is that "matter can neither be created nor destroyed, it simply changes from one form to another". Though I agree that our Earth will feel the strain of slow recovery from all of the "changes", the actual resources can never be "used up". As time goes by (decades down the road) our recognition of these changes and how to help Earth recover will become more of a priority. Hopefully, better technology and understanding will grow at a matched pace. At least that's what I think.

The USA has more trees now than in 1492. The bays have more fish and less toilet paper compared to 20 years ago. Doomsday is for the doomed.

Ken-2498054

Larry, the first rule of physics is that "matter can neither be created nor destroyed, it simply changes from one form to another". Though I agree that our Earth will feel the strain of slow recovery from all of the "changes", the actual resources can never be "used up". As time goes by (decades down the road) our recognition of these changes and how to help Earth recover will become more of a priority. Hopefully, better technology and understanding will grow at a matched pace. At least that's what I think.

I'm not sure that this is the first rule of physics, and I'm pretty sure the rule talks about energy (of which matter is a representation of) but regardless, the rule relates to the entire system that the energy is contained within. In this case... the universe as we know it.

As Earth's resources are consumed, that matter is mostly converted to heat energy, of which some stays trapped in our atmosphere and some escapes into space. The overal energy is not lost, but spread out through our solar system and no longer 100% contained within Earth's boundaries.

So, as a matter of practicality, yes Earth's resources can be used up so that none of those resources are on Earth or accessible from Earth any more.

So, the reason behind exploring the near-earth asteroids with a mind to mining them. Another project I'm sure the short-sighted would prefer was not funded.

No, it's a recent crater with darker deposit plume that looks like a shadow. A lander would not be visible, or very large!

Thanks I got an email saying it was a spacecraft with two exhaust plums.

It appears to be an ancient energy device. The amount of solar energy that could be captured by such a device would likely be enough for intergalactic travel.

Maybe it's a nuc power plant powering something beneth the surface? I don't think there is a wind blowing so there should not be a smoke trail.

In a perfect world cost would have little to do with scientific discovery. But we do not have an unlimited supply of funding. So it comes to what are you willing to give up for the spending to continue.

Otherwise, some great pictures.

We have plenty of money. The presses are running so fast the bearings are smoking. Good that we are spending it on research while it has a little value left.

Given how close Mercury is to the sun, I hardly find that surprising.

What were you expecting?

Wow... I got it Garrick....too bad some people.....you know.

This project was launched six years ago. The money has been spent for some time now.

Thank you for your serious reply to a completely non serious goofball comment.

On this forum, you'd be surprised just how many "non serious goofball comments" are in fact people being serious. Look at some other articles and you'll know what I mean.

Ok, you two....seperate corners, now!

I thought these "were" pics of our bombing third of world countries....kinda looks like Lybia from up there!

Unlike Venus

Unlike Uranus

Chris - dirty! ;)

Uranus is dirty?

"Talk about a waste of taxpayer money....."

Ok, where should we start? How about nation building? If we're gonna talk rehtorically lets skip right to the real expensive wasteful stuff with zero ROI! Surely that trumps our investments in science for "waste"......shesh