[jeffkrol]

http://mashable.com/2012/08/06/nasa-mars-curiosity-high-res-pic/

Something to finally "pat ourselves on the back" for.. though I'm sure some will say it is a waste of fiat money....
We could have used it for tanks...

[JinDesu]

Nah, a tank wouldn't survive a trip to Mars. I know, trust me, I'm an engineer.

[lammie200]

Correct me if I am wrong, but haven't we seen high resolution pics of Mars before? I am sure this rover will give us more info, but the pics look familiar to me.

[jeffkrol]

Correct me if I am wrong, but haven't we seen high resolution pics of Mars before? I am sure this rover will give us more info, but the pics look familiar to me.

Same studio in Hollywood..............

and Martians.. all look the same to me...........

I smell photoshopping...and it's on Fox

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/08/06/amazing-nasa-photographs-split-sec...y-enters-mars/

---

Last edited by jeffkrol; 08-06-2012 at 10:22 AM.

[Medium FormatPro]

Correct me if I am wrong, but haven't we seen high resolution pics of Mars before? I am sure this rover will give us more info, but the pics look familiar to me

The mission is there for only a few items. The main objective was to see if they could land a heavier object on Mars in a non-traditional way. The other two rovers were nowhere near the size and weight of this present one; also noting the (earth) weight of the present one is just over one ton. Another one of the significant factors is that they could not land something of that size and weight using the past methods of bouncing an air balloon for many miles. With this present one; dropping a one ton vehicle with a nuclear reactor would have damaged it beyond repair.

Since the present vehicle does have a reactor it's made to basically last about two years and also work anywhere on the entire surface; thereby not having the need to rely on minimal solar. Now that nasa knows this type of landing works; they are now quickly working on three more similiar rover designs; one at about twice the weight - with a replaceable/workeable reactor.

Also now on the american side the manned deep space program will now really be picking up speed - and they'll use both the landing method and also basicaly the same reactor sytem for an eventual manned mission to Mars, but too late. China will beat america to mars by many years and on a significantly larger scale.

Also the onufficial nasa perspective about Mars. They believe that there is some form of life there - existing presently. That this rover version will in fact find it. This will change the entire space race significantly.

[bossa]

The mission is there for only a few items. The main objective was to see if they could land a heavier object on Mars in a non-traditional way. The other two rovers were nowhere near the size and weight of this present one; also noting the (earth) weight of the present one is just over one ton. Another one of the significant factors is that they could not land something of that size and weight using the past methods of bouncing an air balloon for many miles. With this present one; dropping a one ton vehicle with a nuclear reactor would have damaged it beyond repair.

Since the present vehicle does have a reactor it's made to basically last about two years and also work anywhere on the entire surface; thereby not having the need to rely on minimal solar. Now that nasa knows this type of landing works; they are now quickly working on three more similiar rover designs; one at about twice the weight - with a replaceable/workeable reactor.

Also now on the american side the manned deep space program will now really be picking up speed - and they'll use both the landing method and also basicaly the same reactor sytem for an eventual manned mission to Mars, but too late. China will beat america to mars by many years and on a significantly larger scale.

Also the onufficial nasa perspective about Mars. They believe that there is some form of life there - existing presently. That this rover version will in fact find it. This will change the entire space race significantly.

Is the rover a member of the NRA? It might need to shoot 1st and ask questions later. ;-)

Seriously though; I watched the landing on NASA TV and was inspired. Congratulations to all of you.

[Ratmagiclady]

The mission is there for only a few items. The main objective was to see if they could land a heavier object on Mars in a non-traditional way. The other two rovers were nowhere near the size and weight of this present one; also noting the (earth) weight of the present one is just over one ton. Another one of the significant factors is that they could not land something of that size and weight using the past methods of bouncing an air balloon for many miles. With this present one; dropping a one ton vehicle with a nuclear reactor would have damaged it beyond repair.

The only problem there is... That's not true. Yes, this is heavy, but what's on board is *why.* Back of the napkin calculation says it landed pretty soft for something that can take eleven or twelve gees. (Yes, I watched the telemetry.) Not only is that about the *size* of A 73 Civic, it also landed more gently than those bumpers were designed for... If said Civic landed on its nose. In Mars gravity. On a truck.

Not bad.

Actually, there's a *lot* of stuff on board. You know that sweetie of mine you've been trying to deny me rights to help her now when she needs?
You know who we've been chasing around the country working for half the time since Bush said, 'Let's go to Mars! Cancel all life support research!' (Kind of like he said, 'All you NYPD and FDNY people are heroes, that's why I'm taking your pensions away."

Yeah. NASA. Or what's left.

Since the present vehicle does have a reactor it's made to basically last about two years and also work anywhere on the entire surface; thereby not having the need to rely on minimal solar. Now that nasa knows this type of landing works; they are now quickly working on three more similiar rover designs; one at about twice the weight - with a replaceable/workeable reactor.

Also now on the american side the manned deep space program will now really be picking up speed - and they'll use both the landing method and also basicaly the same reactor sytem for an eventual manned mission to Mars, but too late. China will beat america to mars by many years and on a significantly larger scale.

Also the onufficial nasa perspective about Mars. They believe that there is some form of life there - existing presently. That this rover version will in fact find it. This will change the entire space race significantly.

While it's not a mission parameter, yes, that's reasonably likely. I give it one in five. (that they find it soon. ON this mission. LIke they weren't equipped to on the still-working eight year old rovers)

One thing they're surely right about: all this is a lot cheaper than a lot of movies people spend less time thinking of but still find 'worth the money.'

---

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 08-06-2012 at 05:06 PM.

[magkelly]

This will probably make me sound unpatriotic and make me a bit unpopular for saying it so bluntly but I could care less. One more unmanned space probe, wooh wee. At best it will send back pics of something that looks like a lichen in ice or something similar. Unless it shows us a Martian waving and smiling at us, in which case I suppose I'll have to apologize for being a sourpuss about it, I'm not all that excited. There are a few serious and scary epidemics going on, some places are in such severe drought that the fish are dying off in massive numbers and important crops are dying as I type, and bed bugs are back with a vengeance trying to take over every major city on the planet, apparently. Seems to me we could use that funding for something a little more important right now than taking a walk on Mars.

All we've ever gotten out of the space program is a few space rocks, and some propganda. For what it's actually cost us I don't think that any of it was worth it. Star Trek it's not and never will be unless they can actually invent a space ship that can do more than just orbit the planet, launch and dump satellites, and take people back and forth to a space station. At the rate all this is going we're never going to inhabit our own moon let alone meet anyone else that might be out there. Honestly I'm not sure it's even possible or worth it to even think about going there. Our world is so f-d up and yet we think we're ready to go out more into space?

We can't even handle living on the planet we've got and yet we covet others to live on and their resources? I think we need to grow up a lot more before we should even think about getting that technology or making these kinds of trips. Our doing this is like a toddler trying to get on a bike that's way too big sans training wheels....

[bossa]

How can people showing what's possible be a waste? There are sports stars making 300 million a year.. that's a waste.

[magkelly]

Yeah, it is. Overpriced sports aren't particularly my thing either. But so is what NASA gets up to. Microbes in a petri dish, a few rocks if we're lucky. Big deal...

[boriscleto]

5 Reasons You Should Be Excited About Mars Today | Cracked.com

[kswier]

Our doing this is like a toddler trying to get on a bike that's way too big sans training wheels....

If you never try getting on that bike, you will never learn how to ride.

I think it is human nature to want to explore, expand our knowledge, and do things that no one has done before. Earth is mostly explored, so we turn our attention to space.

Also, does everything we do have to be practical? We wast a lot of time and money creating 50 new car models a year, a bunch of different camera models that are virtually the same, big houses with rooms that are never used, etc. I think allocating some of this money to exploration and scientific discovery is a good thing. I will gladly throw in my $100/year to fund NASA, and wish more of the money that is allocated to defense was allocated to exploration and discovery.

[jeffkrol]

Yeah, it is. Overpriced sports aren't particularly my thing either. But so is what NASA gets up to. Microbes in a petri dish, a few rocks if we're lucky. Big deal...

As I said earlier.. keeps us from building a few more tanks (well since tanks are cheap maybe I should just use fighter jets)

The $1.45 Trillion Fighter Jet—and the Florida Deficit Hawks Who Love It
While Scott famously refused $2 billion in federal funds for high-speed rail in Florida, deriding it as an expensive boondoggle, his team shows no such hesitations about the $1.45 trillion F-35 project. The most expensive weapons system in Pentagon history, it has suffered technical setbacks, nearly a decade of production delays, and substantial cost overruns; the Pentagon currently estimates each plane will cost $135 million to build and maintain.

So it's no surprise that the Simpson-Bowles commission pointed to halving the Navy and Air Forces' orders and eliminating the Marines' version as a deficit-reduction step; in 2009, the Congressional Budget Office floated a similar cut.

Any such reductions would lower the $1.59 billion in economic impact that, Lockheed boasts, Florida will get from F-35 contracts held by 95 in-state suppliers. They would also cut into the profits of Lockheed, whose charm offensive was on full display at the event. The leaders of the Florida state Senate and House had reserved virtual test flights. So had staffers for US congressmen and senators. At the simulator's check in, information sheets with the headline "Protecting Florida's Economy and our National Defense: The F-35 Program" were readily available.

The $1.45 Trillion Fighter Jet?and the Florida Deficit Hawks Who Love It | Mother Jones

you do realize that if we build them, service and maintain them, but never use them, it is equal to just a "stimulus"..........

The ship cost a cool $2.5 billion to design, build and launch, and that price tag is one reason NASA will be especially anxious until it arrives safely next summer. For all the remarkable things Curiosity should do when it does touch down, it's the method NASA has developed to get it there that is especially ingenious.

Like all Mars missions, Curiosity blasted off in a precise window in which the ever changing distance between Mars and Earth affords it the quickest trip possible. At the moment of launch, the blue planet and the red planet were 127 million miles (205 million km) apart, which is less than a third of the maximum distance they reach during their differing orbits around the sun. That's still a lot of cosmic real estate to cover though, enough that when the rover does land, any signal beamed from Mars to Earth or Earth to Mars — traveling at light speed — will take nearly 14 minutes to arrive.

Read more: NASA's Curiosity Rover Blasts Off for Mars - TIME

the Pentagon currently estimates each plane will cost $135 million to build and maintain.
X 20= 2.7 billion... hmm tough choice..............

[jsherman999]

Oval is the planned landing area, little circle is approximate actual landing area:



The little white square above is the complete image below, with the little white square in the image below blown up to be the last image:

[lammie200]

...Actually, there's a *lot* of stuff on board. You know that sweetie of mine you've been trying to deny me rights to help her now when she needs?...

I am not sure that I understand. Your GF is on board the Mars rover thingy? Surely you jest.