If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Why do we keep going back to Mars? So Quaid can turn the reactor on?   (foxnews.com) divider line 71
    More: Strange, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, nuclear reactors, Timeline of Solar System exploration, Spirit and Opportunity, Pluto, Mars Science Laboratory, national academies, Enceladus  
•       •       •

3158 clicks; posted to Geek » on 28 Jul 2012 at 2:57 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-28 09:52:35 AM  
Because it's farking MARS! What other reason do you need?
 
2012-07-28 10:00:33 AM  
Because we are looking for John Carter.

Or Sarah Connor. I'm pretty sure it's one of them.
 
2012-07-28 10:10:51 AM  
Obviously, so Obama can run up the deficit further by importing foreign socialism from Mars in the most wasteful way possible.
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2012-07-28 11:01:29 AM  

St_Francis_P: Obviously, so Obama can run up the deficit further by importing foreign socialism from Mars in the most wasteful way possible.


I heard they were launching huge loads of taxpayer dollars in space just because they can't find enough crooked companies to take it all.
 
2012-07-28 12:13:53 PM  
Because it's closer and marginally safer than Venus.
 
Pud
2012-07-28 12:15:20 PM  
Because they're simply delicious.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-07-28 01:35:19 PM  

St_Francis_P: Obviously, so Obama can run up the deficit further by importing foreign socialism from Mars in the most wasteful way possible.


It is the RED planet after all
 
2012-07-28 02:10:12 PM  
I wish the article had gone into more detail as to why all the Mars probes only have a 50% success rate.
 
2012-07-28 02:11:37 PM  
It's the closest planet we can reach where equipment has a reasonable chance of surviving for more than an hour or two.
 
2012-07-28 02:14:11 PM  
Girls with 3 boobs.
 
2012-07-28 02:15:24 PM  

Mark Ratner: I wish the article had gone into more detail as to why all the Mars probes only have a 50% success rate.


Everything has to work perfectly, the first time and all the time. Sometimes it doesn't.
 
2012-07-28 02:18:07 PM  

Mark Ratner: I wish the article had gone into more detail as to why all the Mars probes only have a 50% success rate.


Link

not tons of detail, but lists them all...
 
2012-07-28 02:23:15 PM  

Mark Ratner: I wish the article had gone into more detail as to why all the Mars probes only have a 50% success rate.


Because half of them fail.
 
2012-07-28 02:27:03 PM  

sno man: Mark Ratner: I wish the article had gone into more detail as to why all the Mars probes only have a 50% success rate.

Link

not tons of detail, but lists them all...


Thanks. The failure rate appears skewed towards the early efforts of the Russians, but I was surprised to see 3 US failures in a row in the late nineties. This is probably why a manned mission would be nearly impossible/suicidal now or in the near future.
 
2012-07-28 02:27:43 PM  

FloydA: Mark Ratner: I wish the article had gone into more detail as to why all the Mars probes only have a 50% success rate.

Because half of them fail.


Damn you.
 
2012-07-28 02:27:55 PM  

FloydA: Mark Ratner: I wish the article had gone into more detail as to why all the Mars probes only have a 50% success rate.

Because half of them fail.


Hey, it's not rocket science.
 
2012-07-28 02:29:43 PM  

FloydA: Mark Ratner: I wish the article had gone into more detail as to why all the Mars probes only have a 50% success rate.

Because half of them fail.


I was told there'd be no math today.

/Dammit Cohagen you got what you wanted, give these people air!
 
2012-07-28 02:39:01 PM  

Mark Ratner: sno man: Mark Ratner: I wish the article had gone into more detail as to why all the Mars probes only have a 50% success rate.

Link

not tons of detail, but lists them all...

Thanks. The failure rate appears skewed towards the early efforts of the Russians, but I was surprised to see 3 US failures in a row in the late nineties. This is probably why a manned mission would be nearly impossible/suicidal now or in the near future.


The list seems a little optimistic with a few of those successes too, but yea the Russians have had the vast majority of the fails.
 
2012-07-28 03:00:27 PM  
Europa or bust....
 
2012-07-28 03:09:23 PM  
I'm not clicking a FAUX link.
 
2012-07-28 03:33:04 PM  
If I wasn't married, I would gladly sign up to be on a mission to Mars. So long as there are no named robots/computers coming with me.
 
2012-07-28 03:35:26 PM  

Mark Ratner: sno man: Mark Ratner: I wish the article had gone into more detail as to why all the Mars probes only have a 50% success rate.

Link

not tons of detail, but lists them all...

Thanks. The failure rate appears skewed towards the early efforts of the Russians, but I was surprised to see 3 US failures in a row in the late nineties. This is probably why a manned mission would be nearly impossible/suicidal now or in the near future.


If you forget to do things like forget to convert from metric to imperial units for navigation purposes (the cause of at least one US mission failure) then yeah a manned mission is not in the cards. When one system thinks you are closing at a km/sec rate and it's actually mi/sec, the outcome is a big splat (or a complete miss, depending on approach). Thankfully, we learn from unmanned missions and can put those important lessons into practice on manned missions.

I want to say that two of the lost US missions were due to that, but I can't remember atm. They all seemed to be due to "d'oh!" causes though. I think Scientific American had an article on the "Mars Ghost" that went through the causes of the '90s losses several years ago. It was pretty much all on-board software issues.
 
2012-07-28 03:36:36 PM  
Because it's there.
 
2012-07-28 03:40:54 PM  
Obama's communist/socialist agenda to work with the Red Planet.
 
2012-07-28 03:45:54 PM  
The Mars exploration era began in October 1960, when the Soviet Union launched two probes four days apart. The spacecraft, known in the West as Marsnik 1 and Marsnik 2, were designed to perform flybys of the Red Planet, but neither even reached Earth orbit.


So it didn't really began then, did it?
 
2012-07-28 03:58:12 PM  
Because the total recall reboot looks kick ass.

/and SCIENCE!
 
2012-07-28 03:59:33 PM  
It's simply the planet to which we must get our ass to.

/still think we need to bombard it with various bacteria and let the terraforming begin
// until we find the reactor that is
 
2012-07-28 04:06:36 PM  

Mark Ratner: sno man: Mark Ratner: I wish the article had gone into more detail as to why all the Mars probes only have a 50% success rate.

Link

not tons of detail, but lists them all...

Thanks. The failure rate appears skewed towards the early efforts of the Russians, but I was surprised to see 3 US failures in a row in the late nineties. This is probably why a manned mission would be nearly impossible/suicidal now or in the near future.


Not necessarily. If you remember the first manned landing (Apollo 11) only succeeded because the human flying the LEM, Neil Armstrong, was able to think outside the box and actually pilot his ship to a good spot with just 45 seconds of fuel to spare. His years of training as a pilot and intuition for his ship made the difference. A machine would have crashed and burned.

This is also why so many of these probes and landers fail... computers can't handle the unexpected. Whatever decisions need to be made on Mars will need to be done right then and there by the onboard computers, because signals from Earth can take as long as 10 minutes to get there. They can only work with what they know and what's in their programming, and within those parameters they are usually faster and more accurate than any human. But machines can't think on their feet like people, which is why humans will make it to Mars soon and do better than the machines ever could.
 
2012-07-28 04:08:06 PM  
What a stupid ass moronic question.

Because it furthers our exploration of outer space. From all we know, we still don't know the first f*cking thing about this universe, where it came from, or why.
Exploring Mars is the second step after exploring the moon. And unlike the moon, Mars shows evidence of at one point being like Earth. That in itself raises so many questions it's insanely baffling to consider not going to Mars.

If we had kept up with the space race, we probably would have had men on Mars by now. ISS is a great first step, they need to build ships out there now. Build them and keep them entirely in outer space, and have those ships travel to other planets and back. No more thousands of gallons of fuel.
 
2012-07-28 04:08:47 PM  
The Mars exploration era began in October 1960, when the Soviet Union launched two probes four days apart. The spacecraft, known in the West as Marsnik 1 and Marsnik 2, were designed to perform flybys of the Red Planet, but neither even reached Earth orbit.

Also, my vagina exploration quest began in 1984. However, I was not actually able to achieve vaginal penetration until 1989, but my quest began in 1984.
 
2012-07-28 04:11:24 PM  

NewportBarGuy: FloydA: Mark Ratner: I wish the article had gone into more detail as to why all the Mars probes only have a 50% success rate.

Because half of them fail.

I was told there'd be no math today.

/Dammit Cohagen you got what you wanted, give these people air geef dees peepul aaiiiirrrr!!

/FTFY
 
2012-07-28 04:40:38 PM  

INeedAName: If I wasn't married, I would gladly sign up to be on a mission to Mars.


This.
 
2012-07-28 04:45:13 PM  

Jamdug!: Girls with 3 boobs.


I see my work has been done already.
 
2012-07-28 04:57:38 PM  

give me doughnuts: Mark Ratner: I wish the article had gone into more detail as to why all the Mars probes only have a 50% success rate.

Everything has to work perfectly, the first time and all the time. Sometimes it doesn't.


What I want to know is how they can communicate with the damn rover so far away yet I can't get a cell signal in my basement!!!!
 
2012-07-28 05:03:30 PM  

sure haven't: What a stupid ass moronic question.

Because it furthers our exploration of outer space. From all we know, we still don't know the first f*cking thing about this universe, where it came from, or why.
Exploring Mars is the second step after exploring the moon. And unlike the moon, Mars shows evidence of at one point being like Earth. That in itself raises so many questions it's insanely baffling to consider not going to Mars.

If we had kept up with the space race, we probably would have had men on Mars by now. ISS is a great first step, they need to build ships out there now. Build them and keep them entirely in outer space, and have those ships travel to other planets and back. No more thousands of gallons of fuel.


That stupid ass moronic question came from fox news, so... yeah. Redundancy. As for not knowing the first thing about the universe or where it came from... I think there are a few people that would like to have a word with you:

static.guim.co.uk
www.zmescience.com
 
2012-07-28 05:18:28 PM  

INeedAName: If I wasn't married, I would gladly sign up to be on a mission to Mars.


If I was still with my Ex, I'd sign up too.
 
2012-07-28 05:44:43 PM  
Because it's easier than Venus? So the Nutters can prattle on about "exploring" without, actually, you know, exploring jack shiat.
 
2012-07-28 05:50:27 PM  
One of the Mars probes resent blew up on the long trip outbound. As part of Dan Goldin's "faster-better-cheaper" initiative, it was built fast and cheap on the chassis, or "bus" of an Earth-orbiting satellite design, "off the shelf".

What had not been thoroughly planned for, however, was the extra deep cold of interplanetary space, far from the Sun. In Earth orbit, the sat platform gets warmed by the sun every 90 minutes. In the deep dark, it just gets colder and colder, as you leave the Sun behind... one of the propellant lines or valves for the hypergolic rocket fuel of the probe cracked from the cold, and when commanded to fire, the leaking system exploded.
 
2012-07-28 05:54:25 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Because it's easier than Venus? So the Nutters can prattle on about "exploring" without, actually, you know, exploring jack shiat.


C'mon, man. Try to keep within view of reality here. How are they not exploring by sending probes to Mars?
 
2012-07-28 05:55:38 PM  
"See you at the party, Richter! "

I'm witty and fun and clever, please respond to my comment, I need the validation

/mammajamma
:-/
 
2012-07-28 06:02:01 PM  
You know, Quantum, trolling creates life-shortening stress in the body, right?
 
2012-07-28 06:21:34 PM  
i165.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-28 06:22:21 PM  

calbert: "See you at the party, Richter! "

I'm witty and fun and clever, please respond to my comment, I need the validation

/mammajamma
:-/


i105.photobucket.com

Giant Booger!
 
2012-07-28 06:31:44 PM  

steamingpile:

What I want to know is how they can communicate with the damn rover so far away yet I can't get a cell signal in my basement!!!!


Because the rover isn't in a basement on Mars.
 
2012-07-28 06:39:08 PM  

theorellior: Quantum Apostrophe: Because it's easier than Venus? So the Nutters can prattle on about "exploring" without, actually, you know, exploring jack shiat.

C'mon, man. Try to keep within view of reality here. How are they not exploring by sending probes to Mars?


I admit I'm being kind of a dick, but honestly, what do you think they're going to find? I've seen all the pictures of sand and rock I can take. I'm just totally jaded by the whole thing, and I don't really understand the amount of enthusiasm this still elicits. It's like the guy up there said: "because it's Mars". It sounds awfully lot like a religion to me.
 
2012-07-28 06:43:16 PM  

rewind2846:

Not necessarily. If you remember the first manned landing (Apollo 11) only succeeded because the human flying the LEM, Neil Armstrong, was able to think outside the box and actually pilot his ship to a good spot with just 45 seconds of fuel to spare. His years of training as a pilot and intuition for his ship made the difference. A machine would have crashed and burned.


Exactly. A man on the Mars would have performed a lot more science than the current rovers because they can see something interesting and walk to it right away. They can pull out a shovel or rake (like on the Moon missions) and start digging.

A rover has to take photos of the area, send them back, have them processed on Earth for potential targets, program the route to the target objects, send the order to the rover and probably wait for it to acknowledge the routine (more time back and forth). Even then, the equipment is limited as to how much it can dig due to power requirements or whatever (obviously, a human has limitations, too).

Take a look at the Apollo 15 Mission with Jim Irwin and how they found the "Genesis Rock". These astronauts had received their geology training and spotted a patch of white at the edge of a crater. A robot may have been instructed to search there eventually, but you never know with the type of view such machines have. Maybe its camera would not have been in a good position to see the white patch, which resulted in the rover possibly being sent in a completely different direction.
 
2012-07-28 06:44:26 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: theorellior: Quantum Apostrophe: Because it's easier than Venus? So the Nutters can prattle on about "exploring" without, actually, you know, exploring jack shiat.

C'mon, man. Try to keep within view of reality here. How are they not exploring by sending probes to Mars?

I admit I'm being kind of a dick, but honestly, what do you think they're going to find? I've seen all the pictures of sand and rock I can take. I'm just totally jaded by the whole thing, and I don't really understand the amount of enthusiasm this still elicits. It's like the guy up there said: "because it's Mars". It sounds awfully lot like a religion to me.


Because the resources of any one planet are finite, so eventually we're either going to have to start killing people by the millions, or we're going to have to find someplace to put them.


(Yes, it would be nice if we would just learn to limit our population to a sustainable level by voluntary means, but no species has ever accomplished that.)
 
2012-07-28 07:00:21 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: I admit I'm being kind of a dick, but honestly, what do you think they're going to find? I've seen all the pictures of sand and rock I can take. I'm just totally jaded by the whole thing, and I don't really understand the amount of enthusiasm this still elicits. It's like the guy up there said: "because it's Mars". It sounds awfully lot like a religion to me.


"Quantum Apostrophe's seen enough pictures" is a less compelling argument against than "because it's Mars" is in favor.
 
2012-07-28 07:27:18 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe:
I admit I'm being kind of a dick, but honestly, what do you think they're going to find? I've seen all the pictures of sand and rock I can take. I'm just totally jaded by the whole thing, and I don't really understand the amount of enthusiasm this still elicits. It's like the guy up there said: "because it's Mars". It sounds awfully lot like a religion to me.


Here is the single biggest reason to go: ELE

A planet, in this case Mars, can take a lot more abuse than an orbital hab can.
 
2012-07-28 07:52:27 PM  
If it wasn't a Fox News link I'd actually read it for some possible intelligent perspective.
 
Displayed 50 of 71 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report