FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > New "Mars rover" mission planned!
New "Mars rover" mission planned!
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"* billions" Dam! You've made me sound like Dr Evil! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's a lot of things that should be fixed on this planet before wasting gajillions of squids on flying to a planet no fucker outside of NASA and its associates give a toss about." I feel sorry for the squids | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's a lot of things that should be fixed on this planet before wasting gajillions of squids on flying to a planet no fucker outside of NASA and its associates give a toss about." I care about it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shouldn't we try and get fresh water to people on this planet before wasting millions of pounds fucking about on Mars?" Yes we should .... But there is a lot of things humanity needs to accomplish if we are to survive the inevitable demise of our species failing we escape the confines of this doomed planet.... But yes safe water for all is a top priority here and now,,,  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scientist have announced that they have discovered signs of intelligent life...... On Earth! "Doubtful! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 .
If we were to solely focus on the issues you have mentioned our technological advances to would drastically slow down if not come to a halt altogether.
Then again you may say it's more important to feed people rather than invent, however the invention may be a road to not help solve basic issues but prevent them from occurring altogether. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A NASA spacesuit cots 15 million dollars. " The trident a weapon of mass destruction and a 'deterrent' will cost £205 billion to replace. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A NASA spacesuit cots 15 million dollars. The trident a weapon of mass destruction and a 'deterrent' will cost £205 billion to replace." That's a lot of space suits. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shouldn't we try and get fresh water to people on this planet before wasting millions of pounds fucking about on Mars?" . What are you proposing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A NASA spacesuit cots 15 million dollars. who designed it hugo boss? " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shouldn't we try and get fresh water to people on this planet before wasting millions of pounds fucking about on Mars?" I agree with that but a lot of the problems lay with governments and rulers of these countries who willingly spend Billions on things like hosting the Olympics and feck all on the wellfair of thier people. Not having a go specifically at the Olympics but just things like that India for example has a space program that costs quite a few quid and yet they have people still living in slums and on finish tips in real poverty. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A NASA spacesuit cots 15 million dollars. who designed it hugo boss? " Inventors? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm actually all for space exploration, space suits are costly things, they have to protect from radiation,500 degree temperature changes... The technological advances from "not needed" space exploration have massively benefited everybody. . . How about, instead of individual country's giving out foreign aid which usually ends up either achieving very little or in the pockets of tyrants we all put it into a fund at the UN where it can be used to pay for UN troops to install water systems into countries that haven't any. The armies of the world have great knowledge and ability into putting in large scale infrastructure. There's no real reason why Mozambique or any other country couldn't have readily supplied fresh water except the fact that nobody wants to do it!!.... Oh and it's quite costly to do, in fact it makes space suits look cheap" This guy gets it . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I fail to understand is that despite several decades of overseas aid and charity work we are still seeing images of starving children drinking dirty water and trapesing halfway to Mars to fetch it. Have there been NO improvements in the last 40 years? Maybe the idea of financing the UN to manage water projects is not such a bad one." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I fail to understand is that despite several decades of overseas aid and charity work we are still seeing images of starving children drinking dirty water and trapesing halfway to Mars to fetch it. Have there been NO improvements in the last 40 years? Maybe the idea of financing the UN to manage water projects is not such a bad one." . I read a book years ago called I think dead aid or dark aid, it's very eye opening, in lots of ways the aid system we use keeps things worse than it would without it. It's a bit like benefits here, its a system designed to hook in welfare dependant wannabes and keep them in the poverty they've got accustomed to. Take Haiti where the hurricane has just decimated it. Wealthy countries dump they're occasional yearly surplus of grain to it as "aid" , free grain then kills off the local supplier of grain, the next year the wealthy country doesn't get a surplus say due to a drought and the Haiti gets nothing, worse still the local producer went tits on last year's free grain imports so this year they get fuck all.... After a few decades of the same shit they think that's just the way the world is, it's one of many inadvertent stupid ways that we "help" poor people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I fail to understand is that despite several decades of overseas aid and charity work we are still seeing images of starving children drinking dirty water and trapesing halfway to Mars to fetch it. Have there been NO improvements in the last 40 years? Maybe the idea of financing the UN to manage water projects is not such a bad one." Lots has been achieved. We have lower infant mortality rates overall now. War and famine don't get fixed with aid though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They should let the people decide what they spend the peoples' money on. Let's have a referendum on it. " Good plan, that way we could fuck up our budget too! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A NASA spacesuit cots 15 million dollars. " Pretty cheap given it's a small spaceship. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Mr ddc
Ps. It makes you wonder why we bothered saving all those lovely African babies just so we could watch them drown in the Mediterranean instead
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the subjects of Mars probes......one arrived there this afternoon. They've lost it already....so a total TOTAL waste of however many billions! This idea of sending people there eventually....not a snowball in hells chance!" Well, a premature post if ever there was one! The lander is only a small part of the mission so 'billions' not wasted. Then we don't know if it is lost, it's not been long enough to know. Sorry to hit with reality check! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't there water on Mars?" Yes, quite a lot. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Houston.... We have touchdown... We think "Houston? Darmstadt! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't there water on Mars? Yes, quite a lot." There you go then  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently it's still not landed successfully, all that money "All those people in jobs able to feed their families, it's shocking | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently it's still not landed successfully, all that money "Again, we won't know for sure for a while and this isn't the main mission anyway which is the trace gas orbiter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shouldn't we try and get fresh water to people on this planet before wasting millions of pounds fucking about on Mars?" I think there is a place for science, especially if it is to improve our lives here on earth, which space exploration usually does.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet Columbus had to listen to the same sort of shit in his day " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shouldn't we try and get fresh water to people on this planet before wasting millions of pounds fucking about on Mars? I think there is a place for science, especially if it is to improve our lives here on earth, which space exploration usually does. "Very true! And remember, one of the few things we know for certain about the future is that the Earth will become uninhabitable for humans. The only unknown in that is the timing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet Columbus had to listen to the same sort of shit in his day "Bet the indigenous population had wished he'd paid attention | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently it's still not landed successfully, all that money
All those people in jobs able to feed their families, it's shocking"This is the 3rd attempt the beagle being the former never landed successfully now the Schiaparelli which has cost billions of dollars. Im a big believer in scientific progress and progression for future generations. I just argue how and what the ultimate goal is from missions like this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet Columbus had to listen to the same sort of shit in his day
Bet the indigenous population had wished he'd paid attention "And no doubt the Martians are hiding behind their rocks... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently it's still not landed successfully, all that money
All those people in jobs able to feed their families, it's shocking
This is the 3rd attempt the beagle being the former never landed successfully now the Schiaparelli which has cost billions of dollars. Im a big believer in scientific progress and progression for future generations. I just argue how and what the ultimate goal is from missions like this. "Hang on, Schiaparelli hasn't cost billions! Total programme cost is only a couple of billion. The ultimate goal is well documented, ESA website is full of information on it all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet Columbus had to listen to the same sort of shit in his day
Bet the indigenous population had wished he'd paid attention
And no doubt the Martians are hiding behind their rocks..."If they've any sense! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently it's still not landed successfully, all that money
All those people in jobs able to feed their families, it's shocking
This is the 3rd attempt the beagle being the former never landed successfully now the Schiaparelli which has cost billions of dollars. Im a big believer in scientific progress and progression for future generations. I just argue how and what the ultimate goal is from missions like this.
Hang on, Schiaparelli hasn't cost billions! Total programme cost is only a couple of billion.
The ultimate goal is well documented, ESA website is full of information on it all."Couple of billions is that not plural for billions? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not that simple .
If we were to solely focus on the issues you have mentioned our technological advances to would drastically slow down if not come to a halt altogether.
Then again you may say it's more important to feed people rather than invent, however the invention may be a road to not help solve basic issues but prevent them from occurring altogether. "Would they? Did you just make that up? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I fail to understand is that despite several decades of overseas aid and charity work we are still seeing images of starving children drinking dirty water and trapesing halfway to Mars to fetch it. Have there been NO improvements in the last 40 years? Maybe the idea of financing the UN to manage water projects is not such a bad one." Well, Sir Bob has done alright out of it, and so have several dozen dictators, warlords, and huge numbers of their family (aka "government ministers"). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently it's still not landed successfully, all that money
All those people in jobs able to feed their families, it's shocking
This is the 3rd attempt the beagle being the former never landed successfully now the Schiaparelli which has cost billions of dollars. Im a big believer in scientific progress and progression for future generations. I just argue how and what the ultimate goal is from missions like this.
Hang on, Schiaparelli hasn't cost billions! Total programme cost is only a couple of billion.
The ultimate goal is well documented, ESA website is full of information on it all.
Couple of billions is that not plural for billions? "Yes, but Schiaparelli is a small part so doesn't cost billions. On this mission TGO is main mission. Included in the couple of billion is the next mission with the Mars rover. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shouldn't we try and get fresh water to people on this planet before wasting millions of pounds fucking about on Mars? I think there is a place for science, especially if it is to improve our lives here on earth, which space exploration usually does. "But not the thirsty, starving people in Africa or the freezing, starving ones in...wherever they are. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shouldn't we try and get fresh water to people on this planet before wasting millions of pounds fucking about on Mars? I think there is a place for science, especially if it is to improve our lives here on earth, which space exploration usually does.
But not the thirsty, starving people in Africa or the freezing, starving ones in...wherever they are.
"It does really, look for example at how mobiles are helping Africa. In loads of ways. How Earth resources satellites help identify needs, direct resources, etc. How satnav helps to save money by getting resources to where they're needed more economically. Three quick examples for you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes TGO is the main objective of the mission however this follows onto other main objectives one being life forms. I believe as Stephen Hawkins theory very much. " Go on....? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, we're all going to end up living on Mars then. " If we can transport an atmosphere there....and a few oceans....and do something about the crazy levels of radiation due to the lack of magnetic field....and overcome the problem of muscle wastage on an 18 month voyage......and.....and.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's kind of like Pandora's box. Once opened you can't go back. I feel that is what will happen if we seek and hunt down other life forms. " OK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not that simple .
If we were to solely focus on the issues you have mentioned our technological advances to would drastically slow down if not come to a halt altogether.
Then again you may say it's more important to feed people rather than invent, however the invention may be a road to not help solve basic issues but prevent them from occurring altogether.
Would they? Did you just make that up?"Well if you take food for example, there isn't enough suppliers around the world to feed everyone the conventional way (without genetically modifying food, use of preservatives etc.). And the methods mentioned in the bracket only exist because of technological advancement. A lot of things that make our life easier or even extend our life expectancy are thanks to advancement in science, which NASA is all about. They don't just send rovers to Mars. They look at the bigger picture and yes their plans are very much long term and costs billions of dollars, but at least that money is not put to waste. Through space exploration we can discover things that do not exist on Earth but could be extremely beneficial for us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Listening to a recent programme on Radio 4, I became aware that NASA have ensured that no contamination from Mars environment will enter the probe or whatever it is....however the reverse is not true and has been a bit of an oversight, i.e. bugs/beasties from Earth may be able to contaminate mars! FFS! Have NASA never seen The Clangers!" They're built in clean rooms to stop us contaminating Mars. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not that simple .
If we were to solely focus on the issues you have mentioned our technological advances to would drastically slow down if not come to a halt altogether.
Then again you may say it's more important to feed people rather than invent, however the invention may be a road to not help solve basic issues but prevent them from occurring altogether.
Would they? Did you just make that up?
Well if you take food for example, there isn't enough suppliers around the world to feed everyone the conventional way (without genetically modifying food, use of preservatives etc.). And the methods mentioned in the bracket only exist because of technological advancement.
A lot of things that make our life easier or even extend our life expectancy are thanks to advancement in science, which NASA is all about. They don't just send rovers to Mars. They look at the bigger picture and yes their plans are very much long term and costs billions of dollars, but at least that money is not put to waste. Through space exploration we can discover things that do not exist on Earth but could be extremely beneficial for us."Yes I agree. However they may be light years ahead of us and could wipe out the human life form very easily. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shouldn't we try and get fresh water to people on this planet before wasting millions of pounds fucking about on Mars? I think there is a place for science, especially if it is to improve our lives here on earth, which space exploration usually does.
But not the thirsty, starving people in Africa or the freezing, starving ones in...wherever they are.
It does really, look for example at how mobiles are helping Africa. In loads of ways.
How Earth resources satellites help identify needs, direct resources, etc.
How satnav helps to save money by getting resources to where they're needed more economically.
Three quick examples for you."And that is helping people to get safe drinking water and feeding them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not that simple .
If we were to solely focus on the issues you have mentioned our technological advances to would drastically slow down if not come to a halt altogether.
Then again you may say it's more important to feed people rather than invent, however the invention may be a road to not help solve basic issues but prevent them from occurring altogether.
Would they? Did you just make that up?
Well if you take food for example, there isn't enough suppliers around the world to feed everyone the conventional way (without genetically modifying food, use of preservatives etc.). And the methods mentioned in the bracket only exist because of technological advancement.
A lot of things that make our life easier or even extend our life expectancy are thanks to advancement in science, which NASA is all about. They don't just send rovers to Mars. They look at the bigger picture and yes their plans are very much long term and costs billions of dollars, but at least that money is not put to waste. Through space exploration we can discover things that do not exist on Earth but could be extremely beneficial for us.
Yes I agree. However they may be light years ahead of us and could wipe out the human life form very easily. "You mean other forms of life? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Listening to a recent programme on Radio 4, I became aware that NASA have ensured that no contamination from Mars environment will enter the probe or whatever it is....however the reverse is not true and has been a bit of an oversight, i.e. bugs/beasties from Earth may be able to contaminate mars! FFS! Have NASA never seen The Clangers! They're built in clean rooms to stop us contaminating Mars." I am sure they are, but apparently have made a few errors on this mission....I am not saying the probe is going bareback, but .....NASA admit there probe could have been safer | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shouldn't we try and get fresh water to people on this planet before wasting millions of pounds fucking about on Mars?" nar build a big rocket and all the places that dont have fresh water in the world put them on the rocket and shoot them to mars,if they not got fresh water by now 2016, wtf are they doing????????? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes I agree. However they may be light years ahead of us and could wipe out the human life form very easily. " They'd have to be to get here and do that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not that simple .
If we were to solely focus on the issues you have mentioned our technological advances to would drastically slow down if not come to a halt altogether.
Then again you may say it's more important to feed people rather than invent, however the invention may be a road to not help solve basic issues but prevent them from occurring altogether.
Would they? Did you just make that up?
Well if you take food for example, there isn't enough suppliers around the world to feed everyone the conventional way (without genetically modifying food, use of preservatives etc.). And the methods mentioned in the bracket only exist because of technological advancement.
A lot of things that make our life easier or even extend our life expectancy are thanks to advancement in science, which NASA is all about. They don't just send rovers to Mars. They look at the bigger picture and yes their plans are very much long term and costs billions of dollars, but at least that money is not put to waste. Through space exploration we can discover things that do not exist on Earth but could be extremely beneficial for us.
Yes I agree. However they may be light years ahead of us and could wipe out the human life form very easily.
You mean other forms of life?"Amoebae | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes I agree. However they may be light years ahead of us and could wipe out the human life form very easily. They'd have to be to get here and do that." Ahhh but we are seeking them out! Like I said Pandora's box once opened we can not close x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not that simple .
If we were to solely focus on the issues you have mentioned our technological advances to would drastically slow down if not come to a halt altogether.
Then again you may say it's more important to feed people rather than invent, however the invention may be a road to not help solve basic issues but prevent them from occurring altogether.
Would they? Did you just make that up?
Well if you take food for example, there isn't enough suppliers around the world to feed everyone the conventional way (without genetically modifying food, use of preservatives etc.). And the methods mentioned in the bracket only exist because of technological advancement.
A lot of things that make our life easier or even extend our life expectancy are thanks to advancement in science, which NASA is all about. They don't just send rovers to Mars. They look at the bigger picture and yes their plans are very much long term and costs billions of dollars, but at least that money is not put to waste. Through space exploration we can discover things that do not exist on Earth but could be extremely beneficial for us.
Yes I agree. However they may be light years ahead of us and could wipe out the human life form very easily.
You mean other forms of life?
Amoebae "No I meant human life forms. X | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shouldn't we try and get fresh water to people on this planet before wasting millions of pounds fucking about on Mars? I think there is a place for science, especially if it is to improve our lives here on earth, which space exploration usually does.
But not the thirsty, starving people in Africa or the freezing, starving ones in...wherever they are.
It does really, look for example at how mobiles are helping Africa. In loads of ways.
How Earth resources satellites help identify needs, direct resources, etc.
How satnav helps to save money by getting resources to where they're needed more economically.
Three quick examples for you.
And that is helping people to get safe drinking water and feeding them? "Yes, all three of those actually. And there are loads more examples. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not that simple .
If we were to solely focus on the issues you have mentioned our technological advances to would drastically slow down if not come to a halt altogether.
Then again you may say it's more important to feed people rather than invent, however the invention may be a road to not help solve basic issues but prevent them from occurring altogether.
Would they? Did you just make that up?
Well if you take food for example, there isn't enough suppliers around the world to feed everyone the conventional way (without genetically modifying food, use of preservatives etc.). And the methods mentioned in the bracket only exist because of technological advancement.
A lot of things that make our life easier or even extend our life expectancy are thanks to advancement in science, which NASA is all about. They don't just send rovers to Mars. They look at the bigger picture and yes their plans are very much long term and costs billions of dollars, but at least that money is not put to waste. Through space exploration we can discover things that do not exist on Earth but could be extremely beneficial for us.
Yes I agree. However they may be light years ahead of us and could wipe out the human life form very easily.
You mean other forms of life?
Amoebae
No I meant human life forms. X"Well technically speaking light years are a measurement of distance not time. But unless their life expectancy is in millions, they would probably have to warp space time to get to us and vice versa. I honestly don't think we'll be meeting each other anytime soon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not that simple .
If we were to solely focus on the issues you have mentioned our technological advances to would drastically slow down if not come to a halt altogether.
Then again you may say it's more important to feed people rather than invent, however the invention may be a road to not help solve basic issues but prevent them from occurring altogether.
Would they? Did you just make that up?
Well if you take food for example, there isn't enough suppliers around the world to feed everyone the conventional way (without genetically modifying food, use of preservatives etc.). And the methods mentioned in the bracket only exist because of technological advancement.
A lot of things that make our life easier or even extend our life expectancy are thanks to advancement in science, which NASA is all about. They don't just send rovers to Mars. They look at the bigger picture and yes their plans are very much long term and costs billions of dollars, but at least that money is not put to waste. Through space exploration we can discover things that do not exist on Earth but could be extremely beneficial for us.
Yes I agree. However they may be light years ahead of us and could wipe out the human life form very easily.
You mean other forms of life?
Amoebae
No I meant human life forms. X
Well technically speaking light years are a measurement of distance not time. But unless their life expectancy is in millions, they would probably have to warp space time to get to us and vice versa.
I honestly don't think we'll be meeting each other anytime soon. "Assuming they are bound by the same science. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I heard something along the lines that babies born on Mars (and people that lived there for a while) wouldn't be able to live back on Earth as their bones wouldn't be strong enough. The more likely issues will stem from inter-planetary relationships once we set up on different planets. " That's obvious, to me anyway  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not that simple .
If we were to solely focus on the issues you have mentioned our technological advances to would drastically slow down if not come to a halt altogether.
Then again you may say it's more important to feed people rather than invent, however the invention may be a road to not help solve basic issues but prevent them from occurring altogether.
Would they? Did you just make that up?
Well if you take food for example, there isn't enough suppliers around the world to feed everyone the conventional way (without genetically modifying food, use of preservatives etc.). And the methods mentioned in the bracket only exist because of technological advancement.
A lot of things that make our life easier or even extend our life expectancy are thanks to advancement in science, which NASA is all about. They don't just send rovers to Mars. They look at the bigger picture and yes their plans are very much long term and costs billions of dollars, but at least that money is not put to waste. Through space exploration we can discover things that do not exist on Earth but could be extremely beneficial for us.
Yes I agree. However they may be light years ahead of us and could wipe out the human life form very easily.
You mean other forms of life?
Amoebae
No I meant human life forms. X
Well technically speaking light years are a measurement of distance not time. But unless their life expectancy is in millions, they would probably have to warp space time to get to us and vice versa.
I honestly don't think we'll be meeting each other anytime soon. "I don't either , | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I heard something along the lines that babies born on Mars (and people that lived there for a while) wouldn't be able to live back on Earth as their bones wouldn't be strong enough. The more likely issues will stem from inter-planetary relationships once we set up on different planets. That's obvious, to me anyway "Fucking earthling migrants, going over there taking their jobs... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I heard something along the lines that babies born on Mars (and people that lived there for a while) wouldn't be able to live back on Earth as their bones wouldn't be strong enough. The more likely issues will stem from inter-planetary relationships once we set up on different planets. That's obvious, to me anyway
Fucking earthling migrants, going over there taking their jobs..."Damn cheeky and rude I say | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Assuming they are bound by the same science." That's a given. There's only one science. Of course, they may have discovered more of it and engineered it in ways we can't (rocket science is basically gcse and a bit of a-level, the devil's in the engineering). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I heard something along the lines that babies born on Mars (and people that lived there for a while) wouldn't be able to live back on Earth as their bones wouldn't be strong enough. The more likely issues will stem from inter-planetary relationships once we set up on different planets. That's obvious, to me anyway
Fucking earthling migrants, going over there taking their jobs...
Damn cheeky and rude I say "Don't worry, they'd be an Earxit or Marxit referendum to fuck that up too! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Assuming they are bound by the same science. That's a given. There's only one science. Of course, they may have discovered more of it and engineered it in ways we can't (rocket science is basically gcse and a bit of a-level, the devil's in the engineering)." What?!
If that was remotely true we wouldn't be having this debate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Assuming they are bound by the same science. That's a given. There's only one science. Of course, they may have discovered more of it and engineered it in ways we can't (rocket science is basically gcse and a bit of a-level, the devil's in the engineering). What?!
If that was remotely true we wouldn't be having this debate."Which bit isn't? Oh, landing, well that's not rocket science is it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Assuming they are bound by the same science. That's a given. There's only one science. Of course, they may have discovered more of it and engineered it in ways we can't (rocket science is basically gcse and a bit of a-level, the devil's in the engineering). What?!
If that was remotely true we wouldn't be having this debate.
Which bit isn't?
Oh, landing, well that's not rocket science is it?"You don't understand science, let alone rocket science! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Assuming they are bound by the same science. That's a given. There's only one science. Of course, they may have discovered more of it and engineered it in ways we can't (rocket science is basically gcse and a bit of a-level, the devil's in the engineering). What?!
If that was remotely true we wouldn't be having this debate.
Which bit isn't?
Oh, landing, well that's not rocket science is it?
You don't understand science, let alone rocket science!"Feel free to point out my error friend... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Assuming they are bound by the same science. That's a given. There's only one science. Of course, they may have discovered more of it and engineered it in ways we can't (rocket science is basically gcse and a bit of a-level, the devil's in the engineering)." Rocket science is quantum physics!! Very clever shit! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'There's only one science'. We only know as much as we think we know. We haven't a clue as to what we don't - that's why science exists." I think he meant that we're all bound by the same laws of physics as they're universal. Our measurements may differ but the laws themselves don't change. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'There's only one science'. We only know as much as we think we know. We haven't a clue as to what we don't - that's why science exists." Well, we know as much as we know. Agreed. Yes, it's why science exists, and it works. It's not 'we know science A and they know science B', it's we know some part, they may know another, but they're both parts of the same science. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Assuming they are bound by the same science. That's a given. There's only one science. Of course, they may have discovered more of it and engineered it in ways we can't (rocket science is basically gcse and a bit of a-level, the devil's in the engineering). Rocket science is quantum physics!! Very clever shit!" No it's not at all, it's newtonian mechanics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'There's only one science'. We only know as much as we think we know. We haven't a clue as to what we don't - that's why science exists. I think he meant that we're all bound by the same laws of physics as they're universal. Our measurements may differ but the laws themselves don't change." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'There's only one science'. We only know as much as we think we know. We haven't a clue as to what we don't - that's why science exists. Well, we know as much as we know. Agreed. Yes, it's why science exists, and it works. It's not 'we know science A and they know science B', it's we know some part, they may know another, but they're both parts of the same science." And we know this is true how?
There isn't one science that we have to work out the answers to, like a big quiz of the universe! (or maybe there is.. maybe this is the answer )
Science only explains to us what we can understand. It's very likely (almost certain I expect) that there are many things beyond our comprehension and that will defy our understanding via current science. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'There's only one science'. We only know as much as we think we know. We haven't a clue as to what we don't - that's why science exists. I think he meant that we're all bound by the same laws of physics as they're universal. Our measurements may differ but the laws themselves don't change." Very true science has to be proven, where's religion is not theory based. Hmmm let's not go there with religion V science | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'There's only one science'. We only know as much as we think we know. We haven't a clue as to what we don't - that's why science exists. I think he meant that we're all bound by the same laws of physics as they're universal. Our measurements may differ but the laws themselves don't change. Very true science has to be proven, where's religion is not theory based. Hmmm let's not go there with religion V science "Relogion is most cerrainly NOT theory based! Theory = supported by evidence, basically proven. Religion is hypothesis at best. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Assuming they are bound by the same science. That's a given. There's only one science. Of course, they may have discovered more of it and engineered it in ways we can't (rocket science is basically gcse and a bit of a-level, the devil's in the engineering). Rocket science is quantum physics!! Very clever shit! No it's not at all, it's newtonian mechanics. " I will get back to this tomorrow when I'm not half asleep. But no my friend you are wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'There's only one science'. We only know as much as we think we know. We haven't a clue as to what we don't - that's why science exists. I think he meant that we're all bound by the same laws of physics as they're universal. Our measurements may differ but the laws themselves don't change. Very true science has to be proven, where's religion is not theory based. Hmmm let's not go there with religion V science
Relogion is most cerrainly NOT theory based!
Theory = supported by evidence, basically proven.
Religion is hypothesis at best."I got that bit mixed up , gawwd damn  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'There's only one science'. We only know as much as we think we know. We haven't a clue as to what we don't - that's why science exists. Well, we know as much as we know. Agreed. Yes, it's why science exists, and it works. It's not 'we know science A and they know science B', it's we know some part, they may know another, but they're both parts of the same science. And we know this is true how?
There isn't one science that we have to work out the answers to, like a big quiz of the universe! (or maybe there is.. maybe this is the answer )
Science only explains to us what we can understand. It's very likely (almost certain I expect) that there are many things beyond our comprehension and that will defy our understanding via current science."We know it's true because of our observations of the universe. Everything we've seen supports this. Everything. I accept entirely your last paragraph. But that's just what I meant too really. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scientist have announced that they have discovered signs of intelligent life...... On Earth! "they haven't been where I've been then | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Assuming they are bound by the same science. That's a given. There's only one science. Of course, they may have discovered more of it and engineered it in ways we can't (rocket science is basically gcse and a bit of a-level, the devil's in the engineering). Rocket science is quantum physics!! Very clever shit! No it's not at all, it's newtonian mechanics. I will get back to this tomorrow when I'm not half asleep. But no my friend you are wrong. " No, I'm not. Rockets are Newton 1, 2 and 3. Any decent Physics KS3 class has a rocket day at some point using pop bottles and compressed air. Yes, much else about space programmes is seriously clever shit as you put it, for example GPS satellites having to take into account that time runs at a different speed up there than it does down here. I'm not making light of space programmes which I regard as being the only future for humanity (see my comment about Earth becoming uninhabitable above) and I'm woth Brian Cox in thinking that the Apollo program was one of humanity's greatest achievements. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We know it's true because of our observations of the universe. Everything we've seen supports this. Everything. I accept entirely your last paragraph. But that's just what I meant too really." Some of us believe it's true because science suggests it's true. Meanwhile scientists remain sceptical
It's entirely plausible that other species understand and live in the universe in a very different way to us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We know it's true because of our observations of the universe. Everything we've seen supports this. Everything. I accept entirely your last paragraph. But that's just what I meant too really. Some of us believe it's true because science suggests it's true. Meanwhile scientists remain sceptical
It's entirely plausible that other species understand and live in the universe in a very different way to us."Yes but that doesn't change my point? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Assuming they are bound by the same science. That's a given. There's only one science. Of course, they may have discovered more of it and engineered it in ways we can't (rocket science is basically gcse and a bit of a-level, the devil's in the engineering). Rocket science is quantum physics!! Very clever shit! No it's not at all, it's newtonian mechanics. I will get back to this tomorrow when I'm not half asleep. But no my friend you are wrong. No, I'm not. Rockets are Newton 1, 2 and 3. Any decent Physics KS3 class has a rocket day at some point using pop bottles and compressed air. Yes, much else about space programmes is seriously clever shit as you put it, for example GPS satellites having to take into account that time runs at a different speed up there than it does down here. I'm not making light of space programmes which I regard as being the only future for humanity (see my comment about Earth becoming uninhabitable above) and I'm woth Brian Cox in thinking that the Apollo program was one of humanity's greatest achievements." Ok if your going to have a play on words then you win. My kids are rocket scientist. Yaaay | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Assuming they are bound by the same science. That's a given. There's only one science. Of course, they may have discovered more of it and engineered it in ways we can't (rocket science is basically gcse and a bit of a-level, the devil's in the engineering). Rocket science is quantum physics!! Very clever shit! No it's not at all, it's newtonian mechanics. I will get back to this tomorrow when I'm not half asleep. But no my friend you are wrong. No, I'm not. Rockets are Newton 1, 2 and 3. Any decent Physics KS3 class has a rocket day at some point using pop bottles and compressed air. Yes, much else about space programmes is seriously clever shit as you put it, for example GPS satellites having to take into account that time runs at a different speed up there than it does down here. I'm not making light of space programmes which I regard as being the only future for humanity (see my comment about Earth becoming uninhabitable above) and I'm woth Brian Cox in thinking that the Apollo program was one of humanity's greatest achievements. Ok if your going to have a play on words then you win. My kids are rocket scientist. Yaaay "
But it's not a play on words though, it's being precise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Assuming they are bound by the same science. That's a given. There's only one science. Of course, they may have discovered more of it and engineered it in ways we can't (rocket science is basically gcse and a bit of a-level, the devil's in the engineering). Rocket science is quantum physics!! Very clever shit! No it's not at all, it's newtonian mechanics. I will get back to this tomorrow when I'm not half asleep. But no my friend you are wrong. No, I'm not. Rockets are Newton 1, 2 and 3. Any decent Physics KS3 class has a rocket day at some point using pop bottles and compressed air. Yes, much else about space programmes is seriously clever shit as you put it, for example GPS satellites having to take into account that time runs at a different speed up there than it does down here. I'm not making light of space programmes which I regard as being the only future for humanity (see my comment about Earth becoming uninhabitable above) and I'm woth Brian Cox in thinking that the Apollo program was one of humanity's greatest achievements. Ok if your going to have a play on words then you win. My kids are rocket scientist. Yaaay
But it's not a play on words though, it's being precise."That's even better. I shall demand their certificate tomorrow from school. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We know it's true because of our observations of the universe. Everything we've seen supports this. Everything. I accept entirely your last paragraph. But that's just what I meant too really. Some of us believe it's true because science suggests it's true. Meanwhile scientists remain sceptical
It's entirely plausible that other species understand and live in the universe in a very different way to us.
Yes but that doesn't change my point?"It entirely changes your point. If our understanding of the universe is limited by what we can comprehend and there are other species living in and using the universe in ways beyond our comprehension, we can't assume they are bound by the same scientific constraints that we have. They're already here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Assuming they are bound by the same science. That's a given. There's only one science. Of course, they may have discovered more of it and engineered it in ways we can't (rocket science is basically gcse and a bit of a-level, the devil's in the engineering). Rocket science is quantum physics!! Very clever shit! No it's not at all, it's newtonian mechanics. I will get back to this tomorrow when I'm not half asleep. But no my friend you are wrong. No, I'm not. Rockets are Newton 1, 2 and 3. Any decent Physics KS3 class has a rocket day at some point using pop bottles and compressed air. Yes, much else about space programmes is seriously clever shit as you put it, for example GPS satellites having to take into account that time runs at a different speed up there than it does down here. I'm not making light of space programmes which I regard as being the only future for humanity (see my comment about Earth becoming uninhabitable above) and I'm woth Brian Cox in thinking that the Apollo program was one of humanity's greatest achievements. Ok if your going to have a play on words then you win. My kids are rocket scientist. Yaaay
But it's not a play on words though, it's being precise."My kids study rocket science as you say. That don't make them a rocket scientist though. Or does it ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We know it's true because of our observations of the universe. Everything we've seen supports this. Everything. I accept entirely your last paragraph. But that's just what I meant too really. Some of us believe it's true because science suggests it's true. Meanwhile scientists remain sceptical
It's entirely plausible that other species understand and live in the universe in a very different way to us.
Yes but that doesn't change my point?
It entirely changes your point.
If our understanding of the universe is limited by what we can comprehend and there are other species living in and using the universe in ways beyond our comprehension, we can't assume they are bound by the same scientific constraints that we have.
They're already here "Well, they may well be here in which case we'd expect to see them wetting themselves at our stupidity these days. But they must be bound by the same science or we would see failures for want of a better word in our science. Which we don't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Houston.... We have touchdown... We think
Houston?
Darmstadt!
". Forgive me I was just paraphrasing! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But they must be bound by the same science or we would see failures for want of a better word in our science. Which we don't." We see failures in our science every day. If we didn't we wouldn't need science! 'They' are not necessarily bound by our understanding of the universe given that we know fuck all about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'There's only one science'. We only know as much as we think we know. We haven't a clue as to what we don't - that's why science exists." . . Or in other words we know what we know but we don't know what we don't know!!! Simplistic stuff | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Assuming they are bound by the same science. That's a given. There's only one science. Of course, they may have discovered more of it and engineered it in ways we can't (rocket science is basically gcse and a bit of a-level, the devil's in the engineering). Rocket science is quantum physics!! Very clever shit!" No : rocket science ( well within the solar system) is Newtonian physics : basic action/ reaction and gravity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Assuming they are bound by the same science. That's a given. There's only one science. Of course, they may have discovered more of it and engineered it in ways we can't (rocket science is basically gcse and a bit of a-level, the devil's in the engineering). Rocket science is quantum physics!! Very clever shit! No : rocket science ( well within the solar system) is Newtonian physics : basic action/ reaction and gravity." Yes but to become a rocket scientist is not simplistic. As I said above. Splitting hairs. Rocket science is not basic, come on really are we arguing over terminology? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Assuming they are bound by the same science. That's a given. There's only one science. Of course, they may have discovered more of it and engineered it in ways we can't (rocket science is basically gcse and a bit of a-level, the devil's in the engineering). Rocket science is quantum physics!! Very clever shit! No : rocket science ( well within the solar system) is Newtonian physics : basic action/ reaction and gravity. Yes but to become a rocket scientist is not simplistic. As I said above. Splitting hairs. Rocket science is not basic, come on really are we arguing over terminology?" Children study chemistry and biology at primary school. It don't make them doctors or chemists or surgeons. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Assuming they are bound by the same science. That's a given. There's only one science. Of course, they may have discovered more of it and engineered it in ways we can't (rocket science is basically gcse and a bit of a-level, the devil's in the engineering). Rocket science is quantum physics!! Very clever shit! No : rocket science ( well within the solar system) is Newtonian physics : basic action/ reaction and gravity. Yes but to become a rocket scientist is not simplistic. As I said above. Splitting hairs. Rocket science is not basic, come on really are we arguing over terminology?" . Come on Smythes this is brain surgery not rocket science!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Assuming they are bound by the same science. That's a given. There's only one science. Of course, they may have discovered more of it and engineered it in ways we can't (rocket science is basically gcse and a bit of a-level, the devil's in the engineering). Rocket science is quantum physics!! Very clever shit! No : rocket science ( well within the solar system) is Newtonian physics : basic action/ reaction and gravity. Yes but to become a rocket scientist is not simplistic. As I said above. Splitting hairs. Rocket science is not basic, come on really are we arguing over terminology?" Yes; because the terminology should be correct; it's Newtonian physics. Quantum physics is a whole separate issue. " Rocket science " however, does demand us to master exceptionally difficult engineering. Which we need to master, if we are ever to do what should be done, and explore the universe ( not just piddle around in the solar system, which is just our backyard) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like the latest Mars Rover is fucked already... .... "I think when it comes to Mars, we're essentially "littering". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like the latest Mars Rover is fucked already... ....
I think when it comes to Mars, we're essentially "littering"." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like the latest Mars Rover is fucked already... .... "The latest Mars rover - "Curiosity" -is doing fine, and has been for about 15 months.... Nothing fucked about it at all . In fact its mission has now been extended indefinitely. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like the latest Mars Rover is fucked already... ....
The latest Mars rover - "Curiosity" -is doing fine, and has been for about 15 months....
Nothing fucked about it at all .
In fact its mission has now been extended indefinitely."Schiaparelli, on the other hand, does not seem to have done so well. Maybe a little more work required on the parachute? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like the latest Mars Rover is fucked already... ....
The latest Mars rover - "Curiosity" -is doing fine, and has been for about 15 months....
Nothing fucked about it at all .
In fact its mission has now been extended indefinitely."Well pardon me all over the place.... OK just for those that hadn't worked it out... please allow me to correct myself and apologise for my misleading inaccuracy....... Its something called something like the latest Mars Schiaparelli that seems to be fucked...... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like the latest Mars Rover is fucked already... ....
The latest Mars rover - "Curiosity" -is doing fine, and has been for about 15 months....
Nothing fucked about it at all .
In fact its mission has now been extended indefinitely.
Well pardon me all over the place....
OK just for those that hadn't worked it out... please allow me to correct myself and apologise for my misleading inaccuracy.......
Its something called something like the latest Mars Schiaparelli that seems to be fucked...... ". You heathen in a dress!! How dare you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like the latest Mars Rover is fucked already... ....
The latest Mars rover - "Curiosity" -is doing fine, and has been for about 15 months....
Nothing fucked about it at all .
In fact its mission has now been extended indefinitely."Is that because no one wants to go and bring it back? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have they found it yet?" . Yes it's on Mars, it's not lost its misplaced.... All over | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like the latest Mars Rover is fucked already... ....
The latest Mars rover - "Curiosity" -is doing fine, and has been for about 15 months....
Nothing fucked about it at all .
In fact its mission has now been extended indefinitely.
Well pardon me all over the place....
OK just for those that hadn't worked it out... please allow me to correct myself and apologise for my misleading inaccuracy.......
Its something called something like the latest Mars Schiaparelli that seems to be fucked...... "Schiaparelli isn't ( wasn't) a rover: it was a test of possible landing technology ( and would have taken a few readings as well. ) it appears to have crashed. It has done its job as the data will show why; so future systems can be improved: The main experiment is the Gas Trace Orbiter which is doing fine and will continue to sample Martian atmosphere from orbit for years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like the latest Mars Rover is fucked already... ....
The latest Mars rover - "Curiosity" -is doing fine, and has been for about 15 months....
Nothing fucked about it at all .
In fact its mission has now been extended indefinitely.
Well pardon me all over the place....
OK just for those that hadn't worked it out... please allow me to correct myself and apologise for my misleading inaccuracy.......
Its something called something like the latest Mars Schiaparelli that seems to be fucked...... .
You heathen in a dress!!
How dare you "Shut up you..... make allowance for my recent absence from the cut and thrust of forum pedantics,,,, I'll soon re-sharpen my game and then you're all in for it..... yeah you heard me ,,,,, in for it.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like the latest Mars Rover is fucked already... ....
The latest Mars rover - "Curiosity" -is doing fine, and has been for about 15 months....
Nothing fucked about it at all .
In fact its mission has now been extended indefinitely.
Well pardon me all over the place....
OK just for those that hadn't worked it out... please allow me to correct myself and apologise for my misleading inaccuracy.......
Its something called something like the latest Mars Schiaparelli that seems to be fucked......
Schiaparelli isn't ( wasn't) a rover: it was a test of possible landing technology ( and would have taken a few readings as well. ) it appears to have crashed. It has done its job as the data will show why; so future systems can be improved:
The main experiment is the Gas Trace Orbiter which is doing fine and will continue to sample Martian atmosphere from orbit for years."Bloom'in heck.... let its go.... I only pointed out something got fucked and that's an end to it .... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You heathen in a dress!! How dare you
Shut up you..... make allowance for my recent absence from the cut and thrust of forum pedantics,,,,
I'll soon re-sharpen my game and then you're all in for it..... yeah you heard me ,,,,, in for it.... ". I ain't afraid of no dress... It's what's under there that keeps me awake at night .
.
I was beginning to get worried you'd fallen down a well | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You heathen in a dress!! How dare you
Shut up you..... make allowance for my recent absence from the cut and thrust of forum pedantics,,,,
I'll soon re-sharpen my game and then you're all in for it..... yeah you heard me ,,,,, in for it.... .
I ain't afraid of no dress... It's what's under there that keeps me awake at night .
.
I was beginning to get worried you'd fallen down a well "There were times when hiding in the well was a desirable state of being..... But mission accomplished this year.... until next time.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like the latest Mars Rover is fucked already... ....
No rover. Lander, not the same."Dude you need to keep-up ,,, we've already held the enquiry and the guilty party has been well and truly ridiculed... Get over it..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like the latest Mars Rover is fucked already... ....
The latest Mars rover - "Curiosity" -is doing fine, and has been for about 15 months....
Nothing fucked about it at all .
In fact its mission has now been extended indefinitely.
Well pardon me all over the place....
OK just for those that hadn't worked it out... please allow me to correct myself and apologise for my misleading inaccuracy.......
Its something called something like the latest Mars Schiaparelli that seems to be fucked......
Schiaparelli isn't ( wasn't) a rover: it was a test of possible landing technology ( and would have taken a few readings as well. ) it appears to have crashed. It has done its job as the data will show why; so future systems can be improved:
The main experiment is the Gas Trace Orbiter which is doing fine and will continue to sample Martian atmosphere from orbit for years."Yes, I saw that PR, too. "It's great that the parachute and boosters were crap. That was the whole point of us trying to land the thing." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like the latest Mars Rover is fucked already... ....
The latest Mars rover - "Curiosity" -is doing fine, and has been for about 15 months....
Nothing fucked about it at all .
In fact its mission has now been extended indefinitely.
Well pardon me all over the place....
OK just for those that hadn't worked it out... please allow me to correct myself and apologise for my misleading inaccuracy.......
Its something called something like the latest Mars Schiaparelli that seems to be fucked......
Schiaparelli isn't ( wasn't) a rover: it was a test of possible landing technology ( and would have taken a few readings as well. ) it appears to have crashed. It has done its job as the data will show why; so future systems can be improved:
The main experiment is the Gas Trace Orbiter which is doing fine and will continue to sample Martian atmosphere from orbit for years.
Yes, I saw that PR, too. "It's great that the parachute and boosters were crap. That was the whole point of us trying to land the thing.""That's the point of testing stuff; And the point of adding that on to the main mission. It's easy to practice how to land on earth ( we live here) It's relatively easy to land on the moon ( it's quite close, and no atmosphere to get in the way) It's bloody difficult to work out how to do it on Mars, given issues with uneven gravity, and an atmosphere which we don't know a whole lot about. The success rate is pretty low at the moment, so we need every possible opportunity to try it. For serious Mars exploration, especially if we send man to Mars, it needs to be a +90% success rate if it can be achieved. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You heathen in a dress!! How dare you
Shut up you..... make allowance for my recent absence from the cut and thrust of forum pedantics,,,,
I'll soon re-sharpen my game and then you're all in for it..... yeah you heard me ,,,,, in for it.... .
I ain't afraid of no dress... It's what's under there that keeps me awake at night .
.
I was beginning to get worried you'd fallen down a well
There were times when hiding in the well was a desirable state of being.....
But mission accomplished this year.... until next time.... ". Your my second favourite tranny on here after Debbi... What's that, she isn't . Ohhhh.... Your my favourite on here and actually better looking than Debbie!!.
.
.
Anyhoo has this Land rover turned up yet | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like the latest Mars Rover is fucked already... ....
The latest Mars rover - "Curiosity" -is doing fine, and has been for about 15 months....
Nothing fucked about it at all .
In fact its mission has now been extended indefinitely.
Well pardon me all over the place....
OK just for those that hadn't worked it out... please allow me to correct myself and apologise for my misleading inaccuracy.......
Its something called something like the latest Mars Schiaparelli that seems to be fucked......
Schiaparelli isn't ( wasn't) a rover: it was a test of possible landing technology ( and would have taken a few readings as well. ) it appears to have crashed. It has done its job as the data will show why; so future systems can be improved:
The main experiment is the Gas Trace Orbiter which is doing fine and will continue to sample Martian atmosphere from orbit for years.
Yes, I saw that PR, too. "It's great that the parachute and boosters were crap. That was the whole point of us trying to land the thing."
That's the point of testing stuff;
And the point of adding that on to the main mission.
It's easy to practice how to land on earth ( we live here)
It's relatively easy to land on the moon ( it's quite close, and no atmosphere to get in the way)
It's bloody difficult to work out how to do it on Mars, given issues with uneven gravity, and an atmosphere which we don't know a whole lot about.
The success rate is pretty low at the moment, so we need every possible opportunity to try it.
For serious Mars exploration, especially if we send man to Mars, it needs to be a +90% success rate if it can be achieved.
"Of course. But you have to love the PR spin, don't you? "Yeah, we fucked it up. It cost millions. But we only ever hoped how to use a parachute anyway." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like the latest Mars Rover is fucked already... ....
The latest Mars rover - "Curiosity" -is doing fine, and has been for about 15 months....
Nothing fucked about it at all .
In fact its mission has now been extended indefinitely.
Well pardon me all over the place....
OK just for those that hadn't worked it out... please allow me to correct myself and apologise for my misleading inaccuracy.......
Its something called something like the latest Mars Schiaparelli that seems to be fucked......
Schiaparelli isn't ( wasn't) a rover: it was a test of possible landing technology ( and would have taken a few readings as well. ) it appears to have crashed. It has done its job as the data will show why; so future systems can be improved:
The main experiment is the Gas Trace Orbiter which is doing fine and will continue to sample Martian atmosphere from orbit for years.
Yes, I saw that PR, too. "It's great that the parachute and boosters were crap. That was the whole point of us trying to land the thing."
That's the point of testing stuff;
And the point of adding that on to the main mission.
It's easy to practice how to land on earth ( we live here)
It's relatively easy to land on the moon ( it's quite close, and no atmosphere to get in the way)
It's bloody difficult to work out how to do it on Mars, given issues with uneven gravity, and an atmosphere which we don't know a whole lot about.
The success rate is pretty low at the moment, so we need every possible opportunity to try it.
For serious Mars exploration, especially if we send man to Mars, it needs to be a +90% success rate if it can be achieved.
Of course.
But you have to love the PR spin, don't you?
"Yeah, we fucked it up. It cost millions. But we only ever hoped how to use a parachute anyway."
"Why is it a PR spin? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like the latest Mars Rover is fucked already... ....
The latest Mars rover - "Curiosity" -is doing fine, and has been for about 15 months....
Nothing fucked about it at all .
In fact its mission has now been extended indefinitely.
Well pardon me all over the place....
OK just for those that hadn't worked it out... please allow me to correct myself and apologise for my misleading inaccuracy.......
Its something called something like the latest Mars Schiaparelli that seems to be fucked......
Schiaparelli isn't ( wasn't) a rover: it was a test of possible landing technology ( and would have taken a few readings as well. ) it appears to have crashed. It has done its job as the data will show why; so future systems can be improved:
The main experiment is the Gas Trace Orbiter which is doing fine and will continue to sample Martian atmosphere from orbit for years.
Yes, I saw that PR, too. "It's great that the parachute and boosters were crap. That was the whole point of us trying to land the thing."
That's the point of testing stuff;
And the point of adding that on to the main mission.
It's easy to practice how to land on earth ( we live here)
It's relatively easy to land on the moon ( it's quite close, and no atmosphere to get in the way)
It's bloody difficult to work out how to do it on Mars, given issues with uneven gravity, and an atmosphere which we don't know a whole lot about.
The success rate is pretty low at the moment, so we need every possible opportunity to try it.
For serious Mars exploration, especially if we send man to Mars, it needs to be a +90% success rate if it can be achieved.
Of course.
But you have to love the PR spin, don't you?
"Yeah, we fucked it up. It cost millions. But we only ever hoped how to use a parachute anyway."
Why is it a PR spin?
"What do you think they hoped for? A successfully landed module or a destroyed lump of metal? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like the latest Mars Rover is fucked already... ....
The latest Mars rover - "Curiosity" -is doing fine, and has been for about 15 months....
Nothing fucked about it at all .
In fact its mission has now been extended indefinitely.
Well pardon me all over the place....
OK just for those that hadn't worked it out... please allow me to correct myself and apologise for my misleading inaccuracy.......
Its something called something like the latest Mars Schiaparelli that seems to be fucked......
Schiaparelli isn't ( wasn't) a rover: it was a test of possible landing technology ( and would have taken a few readings as well. ) it appears to have crashed. It has done its job as the data will show why; so future systems can be improved:
The main experiment is the Gas Trace Orbiter which is doing fine and will continue to sample Martian atmosphere from orbit for years.
Yes, I saw that PR, too. "It's great that the parachute and boosters were crap. That was the whole point of us trying to land the thing."
That's the point of testing stuff;
And the point of adding that on to the main mission.
It's easy to practice how to land on earth ( we live here)
It's relatively easy to land on the moon ( it's quite close, and no atmosphere to get in the way)
It's bloody difficult to work out how to do it on Mars, given issues with uneven gravity, and an atmosphere which we don't know a whole lot about.
The success rate is pretty low at the moment, so we need every possible opportunity to try it.
For serious Mars exploration, especially if we send man to Mars, it needs to be a +90% success rate if it can be achieved.
Of course.
But you have to love the PR spin, don't you?
"Yeah, we fucked it up. It cost millions. But we only ever hoped how to use a parachute anyway."
Why is it a PR spin?
What do you think they hoped for? A successfully landed module or a destroyed lump of metal?"They would naturally hope for a successful landing; however, they will have got massive amounts of data from the rest of the descent; And actually, in engineering terms; a machine that fails somewhere tells you more than one that doesn't fail. If it had all been hunky dory; a weakness may not have been exposed; this crash may highlight a key design change needed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But you've got to admit it would have been a tad amusing if Schiaparelli had landed bang on top of Rover .... Oh how them serious minded science guys would have laughed until they stopped.... "It would have been fun ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like the latest Mars Rover is fucked already... ....
The latest Mars rover - "Curiosity" -is doing fine, and has been for about 15 months....
Nothing fucked about it at all .
In fact its mission has now been extended indefinitely.
Well pardon me all over the place....
OK just for those that hadn't worked it out... please allow me to correct myself and apologise for my misleading inaccuracy.......
Its something called something like the latest Mars Schiaparelli that seems to be fucked......
Schiaparelli isn't ( wasn't) a rover: it was a test of possible landing technology ( and would have taken a few readings as well. ) it appears to have crashed. It has done its job as the data will show why; so future systems can be improved:
The main experiment is the Gas Trace Orbiter which is doing fine and will continue to sample Martian atmosphere from orbit for years.
Yes, I saw that PR, too. "It's great that the parachute and boosters were crap. That was the whole point of us trying to land the thing."
That's the point of testing stuff;
And the point of adding that on to the main mission.
It's easy to practice how to land on earth ( we live here)
It's relatively easy to land on the moon ( it's quite close, and no atmosphere to get in the way)
It's bloody difficult to work out how to do it on Mars, given issues with uneven gravity, and an atmosphere which we don't know a whole lot about.
The success rate is pretty low at the moment, so we need every possible opportunity to try it.
For serious Mars exploration, especially if we send man to Mars, it needs to be a +90% success rate if it can be achieved.
Of course.
But you have to love the PR spin, don't you?
"Yeah, we fucked it up. It cost millions. But we only ever hoped how to use a parachute anyway."
Why is it a PR spin?
What do you think they hoped for? A successfully landed module or a destroyed lump of metal?
They would naturally hope for a successful landing; however, they will have got massive amounts of data from the rest of the descent;
And actually, in engineering terms; a machine that fails somewhere tells you more than one that doesn't fail.
If it had all been hunky dory; a weakness may not have been exposed; this crash may highlight a key design change needed."It does tell you that they got it wrong, that is clear. It would have been better if they had got it right. I like your optimism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like the latest Mars Rover is fucked already... ....
The latest Mars rover - "Curiosity" -is doing fine, and has been for about 15 months....
Nothing fucked about it at all .
In fact its mission has now been extended indefinitely.
Well pardon me all over the place....
OK just for those that hadn't worked it out... please allow me to correct myself and apologise for my misleading inaccuracy.......
Its something called something like the latest Mars Schiaparelli that seems to be fucked......
Schiaparelli isn't ( wasn't) a rover: it was a test of possible landing technology ( and would have taken a few readings as well. ) it appears to have crashed. It has done its job as the data will show why; so future systems can be improved:
The main experiment is the Gas Trace Orbiter which is doing fine and will continue to sample Martian atmosphere from orbit for years.
Yes, I saw that PR, too. "It's great that the parachute and boosters were crap. That was the whole point of us trying to land the thing."
That's the point of testing stuff;
And the point of adding that on to the main mission.
It's easy to practice how to land on earth ( we live here)
It's relatively easy to land on the moon ( it's quite close, and no atmosphere to get in the way)
It's bloody difficult to work out how to do it on Mars, given issues with uneven gravity, and an atmosphere which we don't know a whole lot about.
The success rate is pretty low at the moment, so we need every possible opportunity to try it.
For serious Mars exploration, especially if we send man to Mars, it needs to be a +90% success rate if it can be achieved.
Of course.
But you have to love the PR spin, don't you?
"Yeah, we fucked it up. It cost millions. But we only ever hoped how to use a parachute anyway."
Why is it a PR spin?
What do you think they hoped for? A successfully landed module or a destroyed lump of metal?
They would naturally hope for a successful landing; however, they will have got massive amounts of data from the rest of the descent;
And actually, in engineering terms; a machine that fails somewhere tells you more than one that doesn't fail.
If it had all been hunky dory; a weakness may not have been exposed; this crash may highlight a key design change needed.
It does tell you that they got it wrong, that is clear.
It would have been better if they had got it right.
I like your optimism."It's not optimism; it's knowledge of engineering: It's what engineers do . Try stuff and see if it works; It's a prototype lander that could be developed for the rover in 2020. Curiosity's lander was a novel design; a huge risk; and was rated as having perhaps a 10-25% chance of success . That one worked . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shouldn't we try and get fresh water to people on this planet before wasting millions of pounds fucking about on Mars?" Mars milky way or fucking galaxy...gimme a bite | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like the latest Mars Rover is fucked already... ....
The latest Mars rover - "Curiosity" -is doing fine, and has been for about 15 months....
Nothing fucked about it at all .
In fact its mission has now been extended indefinitely.
Well pardon me all over the place....
OK just for those that hadn't worked it out... please allow me to correct myself and apologise for my misleading inaccuracy.......
Its something called something like the latest Mars Schiaparelli that seems to be fucked......
Schiaparelli isn't ( wasn't) a rover: it was a test of possible landing technology ( and would have taken a few readings as well. ) it appears to have crashed. It has done its job as the data will show why; so future systems can be improved:
The main experiment is the Gas Trace Orbiter which is doing fine and will continue to sample Martian atmosphere from orbit for years.
Yes, I saw that PR, too. "It's great that the parachute and boosters were crap. That was the whole point of us trying to land the thing."
That's the point of testing stuff;
And the point of adding that on to the main mission.
It's easy to practice how to land on earth ( we live here)
It's relatively easy to land on the moon ( it's quite close, and no atmosphere to get in the way)
It's bloody difficult to work out how to do it on Mars, given issues with uneven gravity, and an atmosphere which we don't know a whole lot about.
The success rate is pretty low at the moment, so we need every possible opportunity to try it.
For serious Mars exploration, especially if we send man to Mars, it needs to be a +90% success rate if it can be achieved.
Of course.
But you have to love the PR spin, don't you?
"Yeah, we fucked it up. It cost millions. But we only ever hoped how to use a parachute anyway."
Why is it a PR spin?
What do you think they hoped for? A successfully landed module or a destroyed lump of metal?
They would naturally hope for a successful landing; however, they will have got massive amounts of data from the rest of the descent;
And actually, in engineering terms; a machine that fails somewhere tells you more than one that doesn't fail.
If it had all been hunky dory; a weakness may not have been exposed; this crash may highlight a key design change needed.
It does tell you that they got it wrong, that is clear.
It would have been better if they had got it right.
I like your optimism.
It's not optimism; it's knowledge of engineering:
It's what engineers do .
Try stuff and see if it works;
It's a prototype lander that could be developed for the rover in 2020.
Curiosity's lander was a novel design; a huge risk; and was rated as having perhaps a 10-25% chance of success .
That one worked .
"I am so glad that knowledge of engineering embraces wasted millions. As I said, it failed. It is not something to embrace. Unless you are an engineer, it seems. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Someone set the counter wrong ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like the latest Mars Rover is fucked already... ....
The latest Mars rover - "Curiosity" -is doing fine, and has been for about 15 months....
Nothing fucked about it at all .
In fact its mission has now been extended indefinitely.
Well pardon me all over the place....
OK just for those that hadn't worked it out... please allow me to correct myself and apologise for my misleading inaccuracy.......
Its something called something like the latest Mars Schiaparelli that seems to be fucked......
Schiaparelli isn't ( wasn't) a rover: it was a test of possible landing technology ( and would have taken a few readings as well. ) it appears to have crashed. It has done its job as the data will show why; so future systems can be improved:
The main experiment is the Gas Trace Orbiter which is doing fine and will continue to sample Martian atmosphere from orbit for years.
Yes, I saw that PR, too. "It's great that the parachute and boosters were crap. That was the whole point of us trying to land the thing."
That's the point of testing stuff;
And the point of adding that on to the main mission.
It's easy to practice how to land on earth ( we live here)
It's relatively easy to land on the moon ( it's quite close, and no atmosphere to get in the way)
It's bloody difficult to work out how to do it on Mars, given issues with uneven gravity, and an atmosphere which we don't know a whole lot about.
The success rate is pretty low at the moment, so we need every possible opportunity to try it.
For serious Mars exploration, especially if we send man to Mars, it needs to be a +90% success rate if it can be achieved.
Of course.
But you have to love the PR spin, don't you?
"Yeah, we fucked it up. It cost millions. But we only ever hoped how to use a parachute anyway."
Why is it a PR spin?
What do you think they hoped for? A successfully landed module or a destroyed lump of metal?
They would naturally hope for a successful landing; however, they will have got massive amounts of data from the rest of the descent;
And actually, in engineering terms; a machine that fails somewhere tells you more than one that doesn't fail.
If it had all been hunky dory; a weakness may not have been exposed; this crash may highlight a key design change needed.
It does tell you that they got it wrong, that is clear.
It would have been better if they had got it right.
I like your optimism.
It's not optimism; it's knowledge of engineering:
It's what engineers do .
Try stuff and see if it works;
It's a prototype lander that could be developed for the rover in 2020.
Curiosity's lander was a novel design; a huge risk; and was rated as having perhaps a 10-25% chance of success .
That one worked .
I am so glad that knowledge of engineering embraces wasted millions. As I said, it failed. It is not something to embrace. Unless you are an engineer, it seems."And that just shows how fucked Half the world is when they know fuck all about how to make progress. Or fuck all about how science, engineering, innovation or technology works. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shouldn't we try and get fresh water to people on this planet before wasting millions of pounds fucking about on Mars?" That's all well and good,save millions now. Then sometime in the future,the Earths about to be hit by a gigantic rock thing from outerspace. All you'll get from the incumbent generation is, Why didn't our selfish ancestors invest some money in space technology,when they had the chance. by now we may have developed the technology,to escape our terrible fate. On the other hand,we'll all be pushing up daisies, So let the whinging bastards burn. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like the latest Mars Rover is fucked already... ....
The latest Mars rover - "Curiosity" -is doing fine, and has been for about 15 months....
Nothing fucked about it at all .
In fact its mission has now been extended indefinitely.
Well pardon me all over the place....
OK just for those that hadn't worked it out... please allow me to correct myself and apologise for my misleading inaccuracy.......
Its something called something like the latest Mars Schiaparelli that seems to be fucked......
Schiaparelli isn't ( wasn't) a rover: it was a test of possible landing technology ( and would have taken a few readings as well. ) it appears to have crashed. It has done its job as the data will show why; so future systems can be improved:
The main experiment is the Gas Trace Orbiter which is doing fine and will continue to sample Martian atmosphere from orbit for years.
Yes, I saw that PR, too. "It's great that the parachute and boosters were crap. That was the whole point of us trying to land the thing."
That's the point of testing stuff;
And the point of adding that on to the main mission.
It's easy to practice how to land on earth ( we live here)
It's relatively easy to land on the moon ( it's quite close, and no atmosphere to get in the way)
It's bloody difficult to work out how to do it on Mars, given issues with uneven gravity, and an atmosphere which we don't know a whole lot about.
The success rate is pretty low at the moment, so we need every possible opportunity to try it.
For serious Mars exploration, especially if we send man to Mars, it needs to be a +90% success rate if it can be achieved.
Of course.
But you have to love the PR spin, don't you?
"Yeah, we fucked it up. It cost millions. But we only ever hoped how to use a parachute anyway."
Why is it a PR spin?
What do you think they hoped for? A successfully landed module or a destroyed lump of metal?
They would naturally hope for a successful landing; however, they will have got massive amounts of data from the rest of the descent;
And actually, in engineering terms; a machine that fails somewhere tells you more than one that doesn't fail.
If it had all been hunky dory; a weakness may not have been exposed; this crash may highlight a key design change needed.
It does tell you that they got it wrong, that is clear.
It would have been better if they had got it right.
I like your optimism.
It's not optimism; it's knowledge of engineering:
It's what engineers do .
Try stuff and see if it works;
It's a prototype lander that could be developed for the rover in 2020.
Curiosity's lander was a novel design; a huge risk; and was rated as having perhaps a 10-25% chance of success .
That one worked .
I am so glad that knowledge of engineering embraces wasted millions. As I said, it failed. It is not something to embrace. Unless you are an engineer, it seems.
And that just shows how fucked Half the world is when they know fuck all about how to make progress.
Or fuck all about how science, engineering, innovation or technology works.
". I normally disagree with you, mainly because you've got a very tight bottom muscle! .
But I'll admit your 110% right this time.
In engineering terms 110% is when your very right.... Just in case anyone was wondering .
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shouldn't we try and get fresh water to people on this planet before wasting millions of pounds fucking about on Mars? That's all well and good,save millions now. Then sometime in the future,the Earths about to be hit by a gigantic rock thing from outerspace. All you'll get from the incumbent generation is, Why didn't our selfish ancestors invest some money in space technology,when they had the chance. by now we may have developed the technology,to escape our terrible fate. On the other hand,we'll all be pushing up daisies, So let the whinging bastards burn. "I'm off to the moon, to the Clangers Motel.....Soup Dragon will be there, so will never go hungry | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shouldn't we try and get fresh water to people on this planet before wasting millions of pounds fucking about on Mars? That's all well and good,save millions now. Then sometime in the future,the Earths about to be hit by a gigantic rock thing from outerspace. All you'll get from the incumbent generation is, Why didn't our selfish ancestors invest some money in space technology,when they had the chance. by now we may have developed the technology,to escape our terrible fate. On the other hand,we'll all be pushing up daisies, So let the whinging bastards burn.
I'm off to the moon, to the Clangers Motel.....Soup Dragon will be there, so will never go hungry"Bring us something back,a moon burger would be nice. And tell the man on the moon,to straighten that face. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like the latest Mars Rover is fucked already... ....
The latest Mars rover - "Curiosity" -is doing fine, and has been for about 15 months....
Nothing fucked about it at all .
In fact its mission has now been extended indefinitely.
Well pardon me all over the place....
OK just for those that hadn't worked it out... please allow me to correct myself and apologise for my misleading inaccuracy.......
Its something called something like the latest Mars Schiaparelli that seems to be fucked......
Schiaparelli isn't ( wasn't) a rover: it was a test of possible landing technology ( and would have taken a few readings as well. ) it appears to have crashed. It has done its job as the data will show why; so future systems can be improved:
The main experiment is the Gas Trace Orbiter which is doing fine and will continue to sample Martian atmosphere from orbit for years.
Yes, I saw that PR, too. "It's great that the parachute and boosters were crap. That was the whole point of us trying to land the thing."
That's the point of testing stuff;
And the point of adding that on to the main mission.
It's easy to practice how to land on earth ( we live here)
It's relatively easy to land on the moon ( it's quite close, and no atmosphere to get in the way)
It's bloody difficult to work out how to do it on Mars, given issues with uneven gravity, and an atmosphere which we don't know a whole lot about.
The success rate is pretty low at the moment, so we need every possible opportunity to try it.
For serious Mars exploration, especially if we send man to Mars, it needs to be a +90% success rate if it can be achieved.
Of course.
But you have to love the PR spin, don't you?
"Yeah, we fucked it up. It cost millions. But we only ever hoped how to use a parachute anyway."
Why is it a PR spin?
What do you think they hoped for? A successfully landed module or a destroyed lump of metal?
They would naturally hope for a successful landing; however, they will have got massive amounts of data from the rest of the descent;
And actually, in engineering terms; a machine that fails somewhere tells you more than one that doesn't fail.
If it had all been hunky dory; a weakness may not have been exposed; this crash may highlight a key design change needed.
It does tell you that they got it wrong, that is clear.
It would have been better if they had got it right.
I like your optimism.
It's not optimism; it's knowledge of engineering:
It's what engineers do .
Try stuff and see if it works;
It's a prototype lander that could be developed for the rover in 2020.
Curiosity's lander was a novel design; a huge risk; and was rated as having perhaps a 10-25% chance of success .
That one worked .
I am so glad that knowledge of engineering embraces wasted millions. As I said, it failed. It is not something to embrace. Unless you are an engineer, it seems.
And that just shows how fucked Half the world is when they know fuck all about how to make progress.
Or fuck all about how science, engineering, innovation or technology works.
"Some sense at last! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Assuming they are bound by the same science. That's a given. There's only one science. Of course, they may have discovered more of it and engineered it in ways we can't (rocket science is basically gcse and a bit of a-level, the devil's in the engineering). Rocket science is quantum physics!! Very clever shit!" Actually rocket science is the very basic bit of Newtonian physics....the "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" bit! (And before this goes further I have a physics degree) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Aparantly the landing rockets only for 3 seconds and not 30, one almighty fuck-up springs to mind
Someone set the counter wrong ? "Like a previous NASA lander mission? Half the engineers working in metric and the other half in imperial......but no-one noticed! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No wonder that Mars thing didn't work. All the rockets scientists have been busy wanking on Fab." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Assuming they are bound by the same science. That's a given. There's only one science. Of course, they may have discovered more of it and engineered it in ways we can't (rocket science is basically gcse and a bit of a-level, the devil's in the engineering). Rocket science is quantum physics!! Very clever shit! " Meh. It's hardly brain surgery though... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I
(and I still thought the thread was about something else )
Mr ddc
(as an aside, I used to be a rocket scientist ) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No wonder that Mars thing didn't work. All the rockets scientists have been busy wanking on Fab."
But if that were true at least we'd have correct dick measurements! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not trying to be a smart-arse here, but, if you were spending millions on getting a probe into space, flying it to Mars, and landing it, wouldn't you want the last bit to be a little more high-tech than "boosters cut out and probe falls last few feet to crash onto the surface"? That's not landing, that's falling lol! While they can put any kind of spin on it that they want, the truth is the parachutes didn't work properly, the boosters didn't either, and the probe became a hugely expensive man made fucking asteroid! Now, I don't claim to be a rocket scientist, (I get laid too much lol!), but seeing as others have landed probes on Mars successfully, wouldn't it have been a good idea to use proven technology and ask them how they did it? "I am no longer surprised by levels of sheer ignorance. It's not a question of " just asking how others did it". Nor " proven technology" ; the successful landers are about 50% of the attempts. And as each rover/ instrument placed on Mars gets bigger, or more sophisticated, different methods of landing them are needed. These need to be tested. On a planet a long way away, in conditions we are unsure of. Pity you can't be bothered to try to actually understand what was being done; There is a mission to put a satellite in orbit to measure mars atmospheric gasses. Tick; it's there; it works. Since there was a ticket going there; it is sensible, for not much extra money; to take a lander design and test it . They did; It had an issue. It crashed In doing so, it sent back huge amounts of data as to why. Which means the next one can be improved. Thus reducing the risk of loss when the rover is landed . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not trying to be a smart-arse here, but, if you were spending millions on getting a probe into space, flying it to Mars, and landing it, wouldn't you want the last bit to be a little more high-tech than "boosters cut out and probe falls last few feet to crash onto the surface"? That's not landing, that's falling lol! While they can put any kind of spin on it that they want, the truth is the parachutes didn't work properly, the boosters didn't either, and the probe became a hugely expensive man made fucking asteroid! Now, I don't claim to be a rocket scientist, (I get laid too much lol!), but seeing as others have landed probes on Mars successfully, wouldn't it have been a good idea to use proven technology and ask them how they did it?
I am no longer surprised by levels of sheer ignorance.
It's not a question of " just asking how others did it". Nor " proven technology" ; the successful landers are about 50% of the attempts.
And as each rover/ instrument placed on Mars gets bigger, or more sophisticated, different methods of landing them are needed. These need to be tested. On a planet a long way away, in conditions we are unsure of.
Pity you can't be bothered to try to actually understand what was being done;
There is a mission to put a satellite in orbit to measure mars atmospheric gasses.
Tick; it's there; it works.
Since there was a ticket going there; it is sensible, for not much extra money; to take a lander design and test it .
They did;
It had an issue.
It crashed
In doing so, it sent back huge amounts of data as to why.
Which means the next one can be improved.
Thus reducing the risk of loss when the rover is landed .
"Good man!
Oh, and it wouldn't be an asteroid would it? They orbit the sun. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not trying to be a smart-arse here, but, if you were spending millions on getting a probe into space, flying it to Mars, and landing it, wouldn't you want the last bit to be a little more high-tech than "boosters cut out and probe falls last few feet to crash onto the surface"? That's not landing, that's falling lol! While they can put any kind of spin on it that they want, the truth is the parachutes didn't work properly, the boosters didn't either, and the probe became a hugely expensive man made fucking asteroid! Now, I don't claim to be a rocket scientist, (I get laid too much lol!), but seeing as others have landed probes on Mars successfully, wouldn't it have been a good idea to use proven technology and ask them how they did it?
I am no longer surprised by levels of sheer ignorance.
It's not a question of " just asking how others did it". Nor " proven technology" ; the successful landers are about 50% of the attempts.
And as each rover/ instrument placed on Mars gets bigger, or more sophisticated, different methods of landing them are needed. These need to be tested. On a planet a long way away, in conditions we are unsure of.
Pity you can't be bothered to try to actually understand what was being done;
There is a mission to put a satellite in orbit to measure mars atmospheric gasses.
Tick; it's there; it works.
Since there was a ticket going there; it is sensible, for not much extra money; to take a lander design and test it .
They did;
It had an issue.
It crashed
In doing so, it sent back huge amounts of data as to why.
Which means the next one can be improved.
Thus reducing the risk of loss when the rover is landed .
Good man!
Oh, and it wouldn't be an asteroid would it? They orbit the sun."Yeah well not worth explaining that; I seems that some don't know the difference between a bit of rock in orbit and a bit of bent metal sitting on Mars. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Good man!
Oh, and it wouldn't be an asteroid would it? They orbit the sun.
Yeah well not worth explaining that;
I seems that some don't know the difference between a bit of rock in orbit and a bit of bent metal sitting on Mars."True! I despair sometimes at the lack of scientific knowledge on here, and in society as a whole. Our entire society is based on science, you'd think, therefore, that people would know something about it. Yet people are happy to admit ignorance of science and maths, when they'd be horrified to admit they couldn't read! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just despair ...... "Thanks for all the great scientific posters. I now realise the error of my ways. It is obviously a great day for science. The boundaries have been pushed and lessons learned. P.S. Tie a better knot on the parachute next time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just despair ......
Thanks for all the great scientific posters. I now realise the error of my ways.
It is obviously a great day for science. The boundaries have been pushed and lessons learned.
P.S. Tie a better knot on the parachute next time."But on the bright side those who feel empowered with the self-belief that the focus of their field of interests sets them way above us puny brained mortals ..... Well you've gotta admire their optimism... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If anything, it helps proove that the first manned Moon landing was a fake." . What about the other five... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just despair ......
Thanks for all the great scientific posters. I now realise the error of my ways.
It is obviously a great day for science. The boundaries have been pushed and lessons learned.
P.S. Tie a better knot on the parachute next time.
But on the bright side those who feel empowered with the self-belief that the focus of their field of interests sets them way above us puny brained mortals .....
Well you've gotta admire their optimism... "I'm fick, me. Them scientific folk have it sussed. Though they do need to practice their knots. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
