surajmal Posted August 6, 2012 Posted August 6, 2012 _KLxmGLZQSY Hats off to NASA engineers. Good Luck Tune in tonight at 21:30 PDT There is a longer video here: http://www.space.com/16917-mars-rover-curiosity-lands-today.html
Clarke Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 Kudos to NASA :hatsoff: Richard Dawkins: "Yes, America STILL manages to reach Mars, despite half the country preparing to elect a man who believes he'll get a planet when he dies" :giggle:
surajmal Posted August 7, 2012 Author Posted August 7, 2012 Watched it live last night. Awesome sight. Gotta say though, NASA engineers are a bunch of cowboys. So many things could have gone wrong in that landing and betting 2.5 billion dollars for just 1 mission is nuts - Thats more than the entire budget of ISRO. But like always, cutting edge science requires some serious gambling. One mission that I'm really waiting for the Mars sample return mission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_sample_return_mission) - something that has been proposed for couple of decades now but always seems to get postponed in the prelim stages. Frankly, I figured, after the successes of Spirit and Opportunity, MSRM would have been the next step. I understand, in front of Curiosity, Spirit and Opportunity are toy robots but considering the roadblocks Socialist Obama has put on funding, one would think that NASA would have been more selective with mission selection. At this stage, manned mission to Mars seems like a distant dream.
punjabi_khota Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 Watched it live last night. Awesome sight. Gotta say though, NASA engineers are a bunch of cowboys. So many things could have gone wrong in that landing and betting 2.5 billion dollars for just 1 mission is nuts - Thats more than the entire budget of ISRO. But like always, cutting edge science requires some serious gambling. One mission that I'm really waiting for the Mars sample return mission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_sample_return_mission) - something that has been proposed for couple of decades now but always seems to get postponed in the prelim stages. Frankly, I figured, after the successes of Spirit and Opportunity, MSRM would have been the next step. I understand, in front of Curiosity, Spirit and Opportunity are toy robots but considering the roadblocks Socialist Obama has put on funding, one would think that NASA would have been more selective with mission selection. At this stage, manned mission to Mars seems like a distant dream. You got no clue the **** you talk about. Look at what Obama proposed for NSF anf what Romney is planning to do.
Clarke Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 Watched it live last night. Awesome sight. Gotta say though, NASA engineers are a bunch of cowboys. So many things could have gone wrong in that landing and betting 2.5 billion dollars for just 1 mission is nuts - Thats more than the entire budget of ISRO. But like always, cutting edge science requires some serious gambling. This 2.5 bil came across many years of work and besides that, in practical terms their budget has fallen quite some since the space race was won. NASA just cannot be compared with ISRO, which is what makes me wonder, how on earth are we spending ~$100 mil on a Mars mission.
surajmal Posted August 7, 2012 Author Posted August 7, 2012 You got no clue the **** you talk about. Look at what Obama proposed for NSF anf what Romney is planning to do. Not interested in comparison. Besides, wasn't Obama touting himself as the champion for science and technology and docking Bush at every chance he got in that regard during the campaign?. What he has done just continuance of Bush's policies with one caveat - become more intrusive with fund management. Welcome an army of bureaucrats. http://www.space.com/14551-nasa-budget-2013-request-obama-mars.html Here is a Bush vs. Obama Comparison http://csis.org/blog/rd-funding-obama-v-bush Not much change from where I stand. Renegade my effin a ss.
India-KXIP fan Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 15 years later' date=' another rover.[/quote'] I think they plan on sending men on asteroids by 2025 (resources in abundance) and manned mission to Mars by 2030. I will be old as *** by then though. In my lifetime I wish to see at least, humans having tech to artificially make atmosphere's on planets like Mars beginning life there. Slip stream travel if possible (or atleast get outside the solar system into other parts of Milky Way). Massive star ships, not fecking small shuttles. And Aliens. :yay:
Rajiv Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 So rover has minimal fuel to get things going and then? solar power I assume. Also,when it uploads images, is it like a mix of satellites which pass it on and broadcast it?
Clarke Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 So rover has minimal fuel to get things going and then? solar power I assume. Also' date='when it uploads images, is it like a mix of satellites which pass it on and broadcast it?[/quote'] Nuclear powered :--D
surajmal Posted August 7, 2012 Author Posted August 7, 2012 So rover has minimal fuel to get things going and then? solar power I assume. Also' date='when it uploads images, is it like a mix of satellites which pass it on and broadcast it?[/quote'] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_Thermoelectric_Generator
Recommended Posts