A
amdx
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
Time and show page,
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/participate/
Homepage,
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/
Mikek
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/participate/
Homepage,
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/
Mikek
* Yawn; same old DizzyKnee cartoon..
Let me get this straight; you "advertise" the NASA link as if one
would see something real, and you did not bother to even LOOK at it?
Then you are "surprised" that i saw a cartoon and not a video of
something that has YET to happen?
Driving a mars rover isn't a real-time activity, anyway--it's a
programming task.
The speed-of-light delay ranges from about 3 to 20 minutes.
Currently, it is about 14 minutes. I checked by watching the
NASA channel, last night. They mentioned it, specifically.
I'll use that defense court if I get pulled over.
Touchdown confirmed!!!Time and show page,
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/participate/
Homepage,
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/
Mikek
Driving a mars rover isn't a real-time activity, anyway--it's a
programming task.
The speed-of-light delay ranges from about 3 to 20 minutes.
Pity the President's science advisor chose to engage in jingoistic
crowing about it.
“If anybody has been harboring doubts about the status of U.S.
leadership in space,” John P. Holdren, the president’s science
adviser, said at a news conference following the landing, “well,
there’s a one-ton, automobile-size piece of American ingenuity, and
it’s sitting on the surface of Mars right now.”
That was really tacky.
That was the point I switched off and stopped
listening, yes.
Rich Webb said:Really? Now, something like "Fuckin' Marrrrrrrrs bitches!" might have
been a little over the top but, given the difficulty (and anxiety) a bit
of a fist pump doesn't seem too much.
flipper said:It's a worthy accomplishment but it won't put anybody on the
International Space Station, or anywhere else, and a lack of human
launch capability doesn't quite fit the image of 'leadership in
space'.
Plus you don't need all that heavy extra
equipment (oxygen/water supplies, etc)
and you can lower the safety margins on
everything a bit - build three or four
times as many on the same budget.
I really don't understand the obsession
with sending people into Earth Orbit.
Imagine they find life on Mars. It'll
be far more important than *anything*
the ISS ever did.
For the price of one ISS we could have
built dozens of planetary rovers and
space telescopes. Which is more useful?
Does the ISS impress people as much
as the Hubble Images?
flipper said:Pardon me but the correct description is "ugly bags of mostly water."
To answer your question, for the same reason that sending a 'probe'
would have been interesting but ultimately a hell of a lot less useful
than the Niña, Pinta, and Santa Maria, and the rest that followed.
No one-way trips,no suicide missions.
Only if we forget we sent them.
"Stranger in a Strange land"
Can you imagine how much we could do, exploring the solar
system with robots and craft, with what would be saved had
the US been even just slightly wiser, let alone much wiser,
about its warring idiocy? Or if we actually had real rules in
place with real enforcement behind it for the investment
bankers? (which still has nothing at all done about it.)
It makes me sick to realize how little Curiosity cost and how
many billions in piles of US cash were transported to Iraq
and then completely lost without any trace. And that's just
one item of hundreds, perhaps thousands.
I know for sure where we get more for our dollar.
Jon
Only if we forget we sent them.
"Stranger in a Strange land"
That one isn't science fiction, or even fantasy, it's half-baked
religion.
Heinlein, remember, was the one who bet L. Ron Hubbard that Hubbard
couldn't make more money starting a religion than he did writing science
fiction. Heinlein lost, and it seems like he wanted a try himself.
Pure drivel.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Jerk source for a jerk poster.The entire thing was a hoax, much like AGW:
http://theskunk.org/2012/08/republicans-deny-existence-of-mars/