Aroooo Posted January 4, 2004 Report Share Posted January 4, 2004 Spirit successfully lands on Mars!! Congrats NASA! Aroooo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hopcroft Posted January 4, 2004 Report Share Posted January 4, 2004 Have the British finally given up on contacting the Beagle probe? I still think there are some areas of space exploration for which there is no substitute for having people on the scene, so I would really like to see a manned mission to Mars succeed in my lifetime. but every step forward helps. Darn those Martians hide real good. We haven't found them yet..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barghest Posted January 4, 2004 Report Share Posted January 4, 2004 Sure we have, Michael. Why do you think the Beagle isn't talking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snarf Posted January 4, 2004 Report Share Posted January 4, 2004 I just saw the pictures it sent back on CNN. GO NASA! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Sarcastic Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 After a few failed attempts...sure...go NASA. I like to see failure from groups like NASA once and awhile, it proves they're not above the rest of us. I think it was hillarious that the first probe missed Mars because someone really did forget to carry the "2". The second time, they didn't forget to carry the "2", but they forgot to convert to (or was it from) feet to meters. I guess milking the public for extra money allowed them to pay for the extra mathematicians to check each others work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
austenandrews Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 Nice. -AA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rigel Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 Actually, yes In all honesty, after the unit conversion fiasco of four years ago, one of the things NASA did was add in more oversight and more "double checking" procedures. So, in effect, they spent money to hire more mathematicians (though they probably call themselves engineers or physicists). That being said, wishing failure on NASA seems a bit harsh to me. I agree that the occasional failures (of both unmanned and trgaically manned missions) do reinforce the perception that rocket science and astrophysics is still an emerging and imperfect process. Instead of proving NASA is not above the rest of us, it proves to me that the universe IS above all of us. Even with some of our best and brightest minds working on these missions, we still have failures. Failures in scientific experimentation are normal and helpful when we can learn from our mistakes. With NASA, these failures are on CNN, the NBC Nightly News and the front page of your local newspaper. When Enrst Rutherford or Thomas Edison had an experiment fail in their labs, they didn't do in front of the international press. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Anomaly Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 Originally posted by Darth Sarcastic After a few failed attempts...sure...go NASA. I like to see failure from groups like NASA once and awhile, it proves they're not above the rest of us. I think it was hillarious that the first probe missed Mars because someone really did forget to carry the "2". The second time, they didn't forget to carry the "2", but they forgot to convert to (or was it from) feet to meters. I guess milking the public for extra money allowed them to pay for the extra mathematicians to check each others work. The problem with this statement is that it leads to less money for NASA! "You can't do it properly with what we're giving you, so we feel it's simply a waste. We're giving you less, and you'll just have to make do." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NuSoardGraphite Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 It simply boggles my mind, the fact that a rocket scientist used english for his initial measurements rather than metric in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Hopcroft I still think there are some areas of space exploration for which there is no substitute for having people on the scene, True, but before we can even start worrying about the logistics of safely getting people to the surface of Mars, we have to be sure that we can GET to the surface of Mars a significant proportion of the time. The hardware is still too expensive to put life sentance convicts, lawyers, or other expendible people-like entities in charge of a hands-on landing... more's the pity, since we've no shortage there. Aw, to heck them... if NASA offered a one-way trip, I might volunteer myself, just to be the first one there. Someone else can be the first one back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Sarcastic Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 Let me clarify. I was neither bitching about the amount of money NASA has spent nor was I wishing them to fail (all the time anyways). I don't know how much it costs to put a probe on Mars or the moon (or somewhere in Utah for that matter...not an attack on Utah)...nor do I really care. As for them "...not carrying the 2..." , it just proves that even rocket scientists and master mathematicians make mistakes. It makes me feel good that nobody on this planet is perfect/infalable (on Mars is another story....), that's all really. And I'm not all that impressed with the pictures from Mars as my imagination has given me much more interessting images (and not just the landscape...oh those naughty Martian women...I hope they're women...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
austenandrews Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 Nah, Mars Needs Women. One can make the argument that many, if not most of these probes would have succeeded if a human had been present to guide them. Probes are basically the world's most extreme RC vehicles, with all the attendant problems. On the other hand, our technology is not remotely ready for a long-distance manned mission. So the point is moot. -AA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Anomaly Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 Originally posted by austenandrews On the other hand, our technology is not remotely ready for a long-distance manned mission. So the point is moot. Actually, I don't think that's really true. Robert Zubrin and his 'Mars Direct' idea have been around for a long time, and the technology has been lab-proven to work. (It is, after all, pretty simple.) The real problem (apart from funding) seems to be people, not technology. It's going to be a couple of years round-trip, and the experiments done here on Earth tend to indicate that a small group, confined like that for that length of time, will self-destruct well short of the time needed to accomplish the mission. If by "our technology is not remotely ready" you mean we can't get people there and back before personalities explode, then I'd have to agree with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
austenandrews Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 Right, our current rocket technology is probably sufficient to get a crew to Mars and back. More than anything else I'm talking about life support technology. Not just going space-crazy, but any number of health issues must be accounted for in a manned mission. The various space stations have given us some idea of what we're up against (those who say space stations yield no real science seem to forget this fact) but truthfully we're talking about a mission that makes the first forays to Mount Everest, the Antarctic and the ocean floor seem like a walk in the park. You've got major psychological stress stretched out over years, which even if it doesn't cause interpersonal conflicts, will surely be a health time bomb for the astronauts. Then there's the usual health risks of sickness and injury, plus a boatload of other risks we're just barely aware of for people in a totally closed environment. And presumably these issues will entail technological solutions, which must be built with redundancy and maintainability, and like all spacecraft systems must rely on an extremely small set of maintenance, repair and replacement equipment. I do think we can develop the necessary technology in a decade, with concerted effort. Personally I think we could solve a lot of problems by breaking out of the "self-contained vehicle/mission" paradigm (which Zubrin does, to a certain extent) and launching caches of supplies, raw materials, medicines, etc. to be intercepted by Mars travelers along the way. I also think we could send a larger crew partway and establish a few remote "way stations" for use in case of emergencies. However these ideas will likely require even more advancements in rocket technology than a more conventional mission. Anyway. -AA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSword Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 I don't believe I am familar with Zubrin's proposal. The one I read most recently which sounded feasible was two 14 man ships each with a crew of 7. In case one of the ships breaks down everyone can safely return in the second ship. As the ISS currently has an air leak, I don't think we've perfected all of the problems related to space travel. While the leak is too small to be a problem, it also helps that the station is in LEO and if it does cause a major problem they can hop in a pod and drop to earth. Things change drastically when a crew is several months from earth. The second major hurdle is radiation. Once away from the Earth's protective fields high levels of radiation from the sun would spell disaster. We don't have a way to protect the crew without making the ship out of lead several inches thick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSword Posted January 8, 2004 Report Share Posted January 8, 2004 Astronomy Picture of the Day has been posting the pictures from the lander. Yesterday (link below) was a nice full color picture. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040107.html Previous pic and todays pic are both stereo, I lack the red/blue glasses so I suppose I am missing the majesty of the view. Maybe I'll drop by Total Recall and get a memory of my trip to Mars implanted this afternoon . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.