Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Heads up, Mars Rover Landing

A

amdx

Jan 1, 1970
0
* Yawn; same old DizzyKnee cartoon..

I suspect you watched some animation, I didn't.
I think there will be some *live video when the landing
begins.

Watch Curiosity's Landing!
Aug 5, 2012 10:31 p.m. Pacific
Aug 6, 2012 1:31 a.m. Eastern
Aug 6, 2012 5:31 a.m. Universal


Watch NASA TV Show Online
Begins Aug 5: 2012
8:30 p.m. Pacific
11:30 p.m. Easter

*13 minute delay

Your interests may be elsewhere.
Mikek
 
A

amdx

Jan 1, 1970
0
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?

I intuitively understood that until Curiosity arrives at Mars
there will not be any live video from Mars. Thus no sense in
watching what can only be an animation. I don't want to see an
animation, I want to see it live.
In a later post I added the time and date for to help clarify for
those interested in watching.

Yes I advertised (gave a heads up) thinking readers could go to
the site and figure out when to watch.
Not all readers used the info as I expected.
Mikek
 
J

Jon Kirwan

Jan 1, 1970
0
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.

Jon
 
J

Jon Kirwan

Jan 1, 1970
0
Currently, it is about 14 minutes. I checked by watching the
NASA channel, last night. They mentioned it, specifically.

Just did the computation. Current delay is 13.781 minutes.

Jon
 
H

hamilton

Jan 1, 1970
0
I'll use that defense court if I get pulled over.

If you are going the speed_of_light, how would they catch you ??
 
R

Rich Webb

Jan 1, 1970
0
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.

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.
 
J

Jon Kirwan

Jan 1, 1970
0
That was the point I switched off and stopped
listening, yes.

When a French reporter asked if the team could talk about
what uniquely important contributions were made by non-USA
partners in the project there was no answer, except for "our
partners worked really well with us." They didn't even answer
the question. But there had been plenty of crowing about all
the very difficult puzzles that had to be successfully solved
to achieve this.

The science advisor did say, without naming countries, that
there were other countries who benefitted from the
partnership with the US, because their science projects were
now safely on Mars. So there was a lot of "taking credit."
The only cudo I heard went to Australia (and "other
partners") who had to participate in the communcations effort
with the mission to bring in the data.

I felt that there was so much success to go around in this
project -- it went almost perfectly -- that it wouldn't have
cost anything at all to have shared this great success with
an open hand. I wish that opportunity had been taken. But it
wasn't. And there is no going back, now.

Jon
 
T

Tim Williams

Jan 1, 1970
0
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.

LOL, +1.

I'm surprised http://theoatmeal.com/ hasn't come out with a comic yet,
though Randall has: http://www.xkcd.com/1091/

On topic: The Oatmeal supports Tesla, so there :p

Tim
 
T

Tim Williams

Jan 1, 1970
0
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'.

Why would you want to put squishy meat-sacks into a partial vacuum with
abundant high-energy radiation? That sounds like a very bad idea.

Tim
 
J

Jon Kirwan

Jan 1, 1970
0
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?

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
 
T

Tim Williams

Jan 1, 1970
0
flipper said:
Pardon me but the correct description is "ugly bags of mostly water."

I think it's better to emphasize the squishiness and meatiness than the
aqueous base.

Even so, those bags dry out mightily fast in a hard vacuum, you have to
admit. They'll be preserved very nicely though (minus the cellular damage).
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.

Now you're just being absurd. What else were they going to do, float a
dinghy on a tow rope, wait for it to go out, then haul it back and hope for
spices to appear? Don't forget how many died on those voyages. Not that
that mattered; death was common back then, and states were more eager to
grow their empires.

Neither the expense of launching "spam in a can", nor the loss of human
life, is tolerable today. We have much cheaper, and much better, ways of
doing things, ways that couldn't be dreamed of.

Remember further, few of the earliest explorers, settlers or pilgrims were
even moderately prepared for survival, during the journey and in the
wilderness. And that's landing on a continent covered in green stuff.
There's food and shelter anywhere you look, you just have to know where to
go and what to pick. And they couldn't even do that.

Later on, once we've gotten enough infrastructure out there (in orbit, on
the Moon, asteroids, Mars, etc.) that we can have life support available,
then, and only then, can humans move in, and again do some truely amazing
things. But that's only possible once they can be self sufficient. This
might be another 50-100 years -- which by a more suitable analogy with
history, seems reasonable.

Tim
 
S

Spehro Pefhany

Jan 1, 1970
0
Only if we forget we sent them.

"Stranger in a Strange land"

If the purpose is to establish a permanent colony, then sending a few
scores of fertile women and some frozen test tubes on a one-way trip
to a location prepped by robotics could do the trick-- with enough
genetic diversity.
 
T

T

Jan 1, 1970
0
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

I'd estimate that ten years of warfare in Afghanistan and a little less
in Iraq could have paid for an ion driven starship.

We'd at least be on our way to Alpha Centauri by now.
 
J

josephkk

Jan 1, 1970
0
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

The bet is real, but the denigration of Heinlein is a bit unfair. There
is more to the book than pseudoreligions; it also addresses power
politics, social conventions, some bits of Whorf's hypothesis, and some
other related issues.

?-)
 
Top