mars rover touches down
Home > Home Recording Forum > Talkin' Smack > mars rover touches down
flame...bringing sexy backMember
Since: Jul 01, 2002
Jan 04, 2004 07:44 am what happened to the beagle one that got lost...is it still lost?
juesContributor
Since: Dec 30, 2002
Jan 04, 2004 07:52 am presumably it exploded in the upper atmosphere...
flame...bringing sexy backMember
Since: Jul 01, 2002
Jan 04, 2004 08:00 am or got blown up when the martians heard that dodgy tune that blur wrote that was meant to be the first tune played on mars...
no offence blur fans (noize)...
TheTincanbugsloppy dice, drinks twiceMember
Since: Aug 05, 2003
Jan 04, 2004 08:41 am That is so amazing!
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Jan 04, 2004 05:41 pm forty, thats a great link. the kids have been keeping up on that but I dont think they were going to that one.
And no offense taken flame :-)
Jan 04, 2004 07:19 pm the cassini mission? yeah, those jpl sites have lots to explore. you can track the probe/orbiter on the main cassini site there, so make sure they see that.
i am highly anticipating this one. no one really knows what's beneath the clouds. gasoline-like hydrocarbons raining down and forming lakes. oceans perhaps. complex organic molecules for sure. that alone makes it pretty much unique in the solar system. there are some strange places out there. i've read that diamonds may fall as hail on neptune and uranus.
Jan 15, 2004 07:29 pm opinion on the recent news:
i just think we should forget the moon and head for mars.
i don't get this moonbase thing. who really thinks a moonbase is going to make a trip to mars any cheaper? the cost of spacetravel is all in research and development, then lifting the machines out of the earth's gravity well.
people say we can manufacture stuff on the moon? fuel, maybe. as for anything else, not for a few hundred years, if even then. you never see that simple fact covered in the news.
it's a wrong turn.
Jan 15, 2004 07:35 pm yeah forty, it's scheme to get G.W. in for four more, but let's *NOT* go there.
but yeah, i've been following the Spirit thing for a bit, exciting stuff, and it's twin Opportunity is close behind, lets hope for an equally successful landing from that one.
Jan 15, 2004 07:38 pm yeah i'm not trying to get political here. i'm just puzzled that this idea is pushed constantly, that having a moonbase as a launching point for other missions is somehow cheaper in the long run. in fact it's far, far more expensive. some scientist needs to speak up about this. or economist. or both.
Jan 15, 2004 07:45 pm what? speak against the fuhrer!? why, that's TREASON!!
TheTincanbugsloppy dice, drinks twiceMember
Since: Aug 05, 2003
Jan 15, 2004 09:20 pm shhhh..... he can hear you.....
Jan 15, 2004 10:05 pm but forreal, i totally support putting more Federal spending into NASA. It disturbs me when Congress flips out about a billion or two heading into the space program (which ultimately trickles back into our own economy) but they're quick to approve a $100 billion on destroying and/or fixing up another country.
Finishing the ISS, build a base on the Moon, send an American to Mars, i don't care. It's all a peaceful and scientific prospect in my eyes
LokiCone PokerMember
Since: Apr 07, 2002
Jan 16, 2004 10:03 am it's only going to be peaceful for a few more weeks, once the martians realize the thing won't attack them, then they will either attack it or hold it as a god from the outside world. But the martians are very intelligent, and have figured out the secrets of invisibility so our nifty nasa tools won't pick them up. They emit no heat from their bodies, so heat sensors won't work on them. One day though the rover will malfunction and stop working, and NASA will have no real reason why. It will be the martians, angry that we invaded their homeland. Nuclear war will break out, because some of the worlds leaders are influanced by the martians, and part of the deal is we must not invade their planet... now that we've done that the end is eminent. It was nice knowing you guys :|
Jan 16, 2004 10:06 am we.. are.. already.. here.. earthling..
TheTincanbugsloppy dice, drinks twiceMember
Since: Aug 05, 2003
Jan 16, 2004 10:15 am Yeah, we need to develop self-sustaining bases either on the moon, another planet, or in open space... we've kind of got all our eggs in one big, polluted, warring basket here... We need this to ensure the future survival of the race. I mean - what happens if Earth actually does get hit by one of those near miss asteroids? They call them planet-killers for a reason...
Jan 16, 2004 10:44 am Well, about the moon base thing: I mean, so what if we don't need it? We don't need to go to Mars, either. We don't really need to go anywhere. But going back to the moon is a step in the right direction (If we do care about space exploration), and will give us more knowlege about space and make sure we know what we're doing when we do go to Mars. That's how I see it.
Jan 16, 2004 10:47 am I think it's all very fascinating and worth learning. I support it. Do we NEED it, no prolly not, but if my tax dollars are getting spent on something, I prefer it be something I am at least personally interested in. Space, ET life and the like I am very interested in.
TheTincanbugsloppy dice, drinks twiceMember
Since: Aug 05, 2003
Jan 16, 2004 11:50 am I look at it kind of like this... You only need health insurance a few days out of the year. For the most part, it's completely worthless. Why do we have coverage on the days we don't need it? Seems pointless to pay for something you're not using. It doesn't seem quite so pointless when you slip and fall at work. You can never tell what's going to happen that day when you roll out of bed in the morning.
Having a self-sustaining colony means that even if the worst possible catastrophe happens on Earth, there's a chance the human race can continue. Profit from a space exploration venture is $0. (not taking into account fees paid by corporations to get their satellites into orbit)Why spend the money on space exploration when all we need to do is go from home to work to the store and then back home again? Because someday our workplaces, homes, and stores may not be here anymore, nor anyone to miss them.
Sure it's a long shot to say we'll be hit by a planet-killer asteroid - but it happened at least once before, according to most scientists. It might happen again.
Jan 16, 2004 01:25 pm Well, in that case, who really cares if we're all dead with the exception of some small select group of people on a moon colony? What's the continuation of the human race matter to a bunch of dead people?
Jan 16, 2004 01:29 pm My name is on the DVD strapped to that sucker ;)
W.
Jan 16, 2004 01:34 pm Quote:
What's the continuation of the human race matter to a bunch of dead people?
really not a "big picture" kinda guy are ya?
TheTincanbugsloppy dice, drinks twiceMember
Since: Aug 05, 2003
Jan 16, 2004 01:38 pm Yeah, people tend to be divided on the issue. Personally I'd rather at least someone survived an apocolypse than have no one survive it.
LokiCone PokerMember
Since: Apr 07, 2002
Jan 16, 2004 01:46 pm I'd hate to see it turn out like those last man alive flicks.. can you imagine the torment of being the only human in existance, floating around in space? God I'd rather be killed in the nuclear wars than be the last human... Of course I don't really want either
Jan 16, 2004 01:57 pm im surprised you guys feel this way. we've been to the moon, we know we can do it, and a moon base has no economic benefit, now or for hundreds of years. plus the money that goes into that will eat into the really *important* science programs, like the terrestrial planet finder telescope, and probes to europa and triton. things that will now be shelved or put on hold.
the next step as i see it should be mars, within 10 years. and a mars base. forget china, forget that china is going to the moon--its not important. getting to mars is something we can do with our expertise right now. but this moon plan pushes it ahead at least 30 years.
it bothers me very much. space matters--thats why i say no to the moon.
tonyd1970The fat one always watches us.Member
Since: Nov 08, 2002
Jan 16, 2004 02:02 pm i know im a little late on this, but the mission that tore up in the martian atmosphere was caused by incorrect caculations on fuel weight i believe.
the engineers did everyting in the english wt. system (lb's, feet, inches ect) the planners thought everything was in metric - centimeters, meters and stuff. so the engines fired wrong, weight was off and it ran itself into the ground.
very expensive mistake
TheTincanbugsloppy dice, drinks twiceMember
Since: Aug 05, 2003
Jan 16, 2004 02:03 pm you know, I hadn't thought of it that way... I guess the moon base would take resources away from deep space projects. Really, the only way a moon base would be particularly beneficial to deep space missions would be to create a space elevator rig on earth and use the moon as a kind of jumping-off point... but that's not really in their plans, is it?
I think the space elevator discussion we had here a while back was concerned with a proposal from a scientist/futurist guy unaffiliated with NASA... it's a shame they don't come up with a single, solidified plan... but then again, maybe Bush didn't go into details because that's not where his head is... maybe one of his advisors will point these facts out. one can hope...
Jan 16, 2004 02:44 pm Quote:
really not a "big picture" kinda guy are ya?
Well, I guess you could say that. I would rather think of it as a different perspective rather than a more limited one.
I was just trying to stimulate thinking. I didn't really mean to present that as my opinion. I'm just asking why it matters so much to people that the human race continues, beyond earth.
Or... maybe I should stop posing... :)
TheTincanbugsloppy dice, drinks twiceMember
Since: Aug 05, 2003
Jan 16, 2004 02:54 pm Reason #1: man needs a lot of room to grow, since he uses an astronomical amount of resources to maintain society
#2: I'd hate to think that my great great great grandkids might be stuck on Earth with no clean air, clean water, or in an environment so crowded and an economy so strained that the slightest change could cause widespread famine or riots. Sounds like hell on Earth to me.
Jan 16, 2004 03:04 pm a space elevator is a really good idea--it would cut costs on hoisting things into orbit. but as far as i know we're decades away from having that kind of technology. i think they've got to build nanocarbon cables or something--which pretty much requires that that whole industry, still nascent, awakens.
but even then, i can't imagine the moonbase doing anything except maybe making fuel from whatever they find up there in the rocks near the poles. manufacturing parts on the moon would be more expensive than on earth. plus, if we have a space elevator, even fuel isn't a problem--the elevator could take it up into orbit easily.
TheTincanbugsloppy dice, drinks twiceMember
Since: Aug 05, 2003
Jan 16, 2004 03:12 pm Well... it might be cheaper to launch huge payloads of ad hoc space probe/lander assembly kits and put them together on the moon, to launch there. That way, the lander/probes wouldn't have to endure the stresses of launching in high-g or friction from atmosphere.... that actually would cut dow the costs a lot.
They need to build frickin' Von Neumann machines... probes that travel to other planets/planetoids, set up factories, and build new probes. Send out a wave of those, allow for build time, and jst imagine the amount of data we could have flowing in... That's probably 100 years off, though....
LokiCone PokerMember
Since: Apr 07, 2002
Jan 16, 2004 03:32 pm ok I'm lost... space elevators?
Jan 16, 2004 03:44 pm yeah, but tin, they can just assemble stuff in earth orbit can't they?
loki, a space elevator is a a loonnnnng cable that runs up to a satellite in geosationary orbit. there could be one hovering directly over cape canaveral, for instance. on the far side of the satellite, another cable goes in the opposite direction, to act as a counterweight. cargo is hauled up the cable to orbit.
TheTincanbugsloppy dice, drinks twiceMember
Since: Aug 05, 2003
Jan 16, 2004 03:59 pm I don't know... they would have more raw material available on the moon, but if shipping parts, that would rather negate the benefit, wouldn't it? Having some gravity might make production easier... "we lost some robots again today... floated right off the factory floor... we really gotta get some velcro!" hee hee hee hee :)
TheTincanbugsloppy dice, drinks twiceMember
Since: Aug 05, 2003
Jan 16, 2004 04:00 pm oh my god.... (looking at my hands in horror)
I'm a NERD.... NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jan 16, 2004 09:04 pm the moon is full of aluminum and oxygen. all they need is to have tons of hydrogen shipped up, and that's where the elevator would come in.
great article TCB, i didn't realize this was becoming such a possibility
Jan 17, 2004 12:48 am yeah, but why is that such a great idea? with a space elevator, all the fuel could be shipped up from earth and probably at less cost. just think of all the work that would have to be done, far away from home on the moon, in terms of personnel transport, building a self-sustaining life habitat (food, water), generating electricity, and getting an industrial facility rolling. why not just do it here?
Jan 17, 2004 09:12 am i think what TCB's saying is that if we go and blow ourselves up down here, life will go on elsewhere in the solar system. think of it as the world's biggest life insurance policy. or is that life assurance?
Jan 17, 2004 12:49 pm yeah, but forget about that. we won't blow ourselves up. now lets go! mars!
:)