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.

(Discover)   What was it like for Curiosity to descend to Mars? See for yourself in this rover's-eye-view video of the landing   (blogs.discovermagazine.com) divider line 158
    More: Cool, heat shield, other worlds, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, mantle plume  
•       •       •

19201 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Aug 2012 at 10:32 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-08-06 08:47:45 PM
Absolutely mind-blowing.
 
2012-08-06 09:06:50 PM
Whenever I see awesome stuff like this I'm always reminded of the line from The Gladiator when they see the Coliseum "I did not know men could build such things."

Science!
 
2012-08-06 09:08:07 PM
img829.imageshack.us
 
2012-08-06 10:04:47 PM
Looks shopped.

But seriously, this is awesome. Fark anyone who bemoans the cost. We need to do this for humanity because we can.
 
2012-08-06 10:06:23 PM
Wait for the full res, 1600x1200
 
2012-08-06 10:18:57 PM
So what's it doing now?

/just idle Curiosity...
 
2012-08-06 10:24:44 PM
onfinite.com

/how many Curiosity threads have we had so far?
//it probably isn't anywhere near enough
 
2012-08-06 10:35:40 PM
We need Slim Plckins to sit on top of that screaming Yeee Ha! Too bad he died.
 
2012-08-06 10:35:42 PM

doyner: Fark anyone who bemoans the cost. We need to do this for humanity because we can.


Seriously, it cost roughly $2.5bn, or about $8 a person. Meanwhile, we're about to spend $3bn refurbishing a fleet of Abrams tanks that the Pentagon doesn't even want. I don't even have good snark for that, it just makes me sad.
 
2012-08-06 10:35:57 PM
"Yayyyyy...Science!

What if life was prominent?

Then what?

Mind."

P.S. You're welcome.
 
2012-08-06 10:39:07 PM
You'd think science could increase the resolution. Somebody get to the CSI machine and enhance this video.
 
2012-08-06 10:40:21 PM
I continue to be blown away by everything Curiosity-related from the last 24 hours. Way to go, science nerds!

/spider
//gumdrop
 
2012-08-06 10:40:26 PM
The Curiosity rover has 724k followers on twitter. That's more than Jeri Ryan and Thinkgeek put together!!
 
2012-08-06 10:40:52 PM

doyner: Looks shopped.

But seriously, this is awesome. Fark anyone who bemoans the cost. We need to do this for humanity because we can.


People bemoan the costs?!? farking savages.
 
2012-08-06 10:41:20 PM
What was that one black pixel near the middle of the screen? Already a malfunctioning component?
 
2012-08-06 10:42:42 PM
Worst video game ever.
 
2012-08-06 10:43:49 PM

nmrsnr: Seriously, it cost roughly $2.5bn, or about $8 a person. Meanwhile, we're about to spend $3bn refurbishing a fleet of Abrams tanks that the Pentagon doesn't even want. I don't even have good snark for that, it just makes me sad.


There is a segment of human beings who live for strife, for violence, and for chaos. Until that segment is identified and eliminated, human beings will never be able to fully devote their lives to peaceful pursuits.
 
2012-08-06 10:43:54 PM

ultraholland: You'd think science could increase the resolution. Somebody get to the CSI machine and enhance this video.


Seriously. 16:9 does not have concave sides, NASA.
 
2012-08-06 10:45:01 PM
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-08-06 10:45:10 PM
Looks like it landed in Nevada.
 
2012-08-06 10:45:47 PM
Why the low resolution? Doesn't NASA have HD cameras now? I've seen better photos from a GD iPhone.
 
2012-08-06 10:46:11 PM

Kenny B: Looks like it landed in Nevada.


shhhhh!
 
2012-08-06 10:46:16 PM
I kept expecting to see a bowl of petunias falling too. "Oh no, not again"
 
2012-08-06 10:47:50 PM

Token Anarchist: ple bemoan the costs?!? farking savages.


I think it's more about spending the money on things that will have a greater effect on solving national problems. Don't get me wrong, this mars mission is beyond cool, but you can't tell someone he or she is wrong for wanting to have spent the money feeding the poor. Just a matter of perspective for some people I guess.
 
2012-08-06 10:49:40 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com

//I hated that move
//Would still disappoint a young Ally Sheedy
 
2012-08-06 10:51:08 PM
Blurry, Lo-res, they could have held the camera steady! ;)

I heard there is a full res HD version after they finish downloading it.
 
2012-08-06 10:51:38 PM

the_chief: Why the low resolution? Doesn't NASA have HD cameras now? I've seen better photos from a GD iPhone.


Those pictures are taken with the 1 megapixel hazard avoidance cameras (you know, for navigation).
 
2012-08-06 10:52:29 PM
I feel the highest form of patriotic.
 
2012-08-06 10:53:04 PM

Cheesehead_Dave: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 499x354]


Just a 7 minute delay in seeing the automated results. It's a 14 minute round trip delay between triggering and action and getting the results. But the landing was all scripted and happened 7 minutes before the NASA JPL control room got their rocks off.
 
2012-08-06 10:53:42 PM

trappedspirit: What was that one black pixel near the middle of the screen? Already a malfunctioning component?


That's you needing to clean the spittle off your display
 
2012-08-06 10:54:43 PM

ultraholland: You'd think science could increase the resolution. Somebody get to the CSI machine and enhance this video.


NASA is already working on it, preliminary results, original:

farm8.staticflickr.com

Enhanced:

farm8.staticflickr.com

And CSI-version:

farm9.staticflickr.com
 
2012-08-06 10:54:46 PM

LordOfThePings: I feel the highest form of patriotic.


jingoistic, hate monger.
 
2012-08-06 10:54:51 PM

Cheesehead_Dave: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 499x354]


Thank you dave!
Made me laugh!

/hating nbc continues
 
2012-08-06 10:55:01 PM

Harry_Seldon: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 295x400]

//I hated that move
//Would still disappoint a young Ally Sheedy


"...is this here, this here, where you label me?

P.S. Five was alive b4 robots could talk, friend."
 
2012-08-06 10:55:30 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Seriously. 16:9 does not have concave sides, NASA.


the ultra wide angle lens does
 
2012-08-06 10:59:07 PM

Kenny B: Looks like it landed in Nevada.


Naw... Nevada is more desolate than that
 
2012-08-06 10:59:36 PM

Lordserb: Token Anarchist: ple bemoan the costs?!? farking savages.

I think it's more about spending the money on things that will have a greater effect on solving national problems. Don't get me wrong, this mars mission is beyond cool, but you can't tell someone he or she is wrong for wanting to have spent the money feeding the poor. Just a matter of perspective for some people I guess.


Just tell them that we are going to spend more on tanks that nobody wants than this entire mission cost.

/Sorry for harping on the subject, but the fact that this is headline news across the country, and people are worried about the cost, while the tank thing is a by-line on page 6, but nobody questions those costs seriously really, really bothers me.
 
2012-08-06 11:00:58 PM
$2.5B project, or about 10% of our annual air conditioning costs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wanna know what I'd rather my tax money be spent on?

We landed a robot on Mars using a f*cking rocket-powered sky crane. I didn't even know we could do that on Earth.
 
2012-08-06 11:01:18 PM

Lordserb: Token Anarchist: ple bemoan the costs?!? farking savages.

I think it's more about spending the money on things that will have a greater effect on solving national problems. Don't get me wrong, this mars mission is beyond cool, but you can't tell someone he or she is wrong for wanting to have spent the money feeding the poor. Just a matter of perspective for some people I guess.


Seems appropriate:
www.smbc-comics.com
 
2012-08-06 11:02:28 PM

James F. Campbell: nmrsnr: Seriously, it cost roughly $2.5bn, or about $8 a person. Meanwhile, we're about to spend $3bn refurbishing a fleet of Abrams tanks that the Pentagon doesn't even want. I don't even have good snark for that, it just makes me sad.

There is a segment of human beings who live for strife, for violence, and for chaos. Until that segment is identified and eliminated, human beings will never be able to fully devote their lives to peaceful pursuits.


Just how stupid are you? The pentagon doesn't want to spend that money on tanks, they are being forced to by congressmen who have been bought by General Dynamics. I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be for some of these generals to have the best interests of the military overridden by the best interest of some shiat eating corporate profiteers.

You want some real food for thought though? Imagine if we took all the money and effort spent on the war in Iraq and put it into space exploration. We could have a permanent colony on goddam mars. Instead thousands are needlessly dead and the pockets of a few have been lined. Not to mention we are no safer than before.
 
2012-08-06 11:02:33 PM

Kenny B: Looks like it landed in Nevada.


I was going to say Detroit....
 
2012-08-06 11:02:48 PM

Lordserb: Token Anarchist: ple bemoan the costs?!? farking savages.

I think it's more about spending the money on things that will have a greater effect on solving national problems. Don't get me wrong, this mars mission is beyond cool, but you can't tell someone he or she is wrong for wanting to have spent the money feeding the poor. Just a matter of perspective for some people I guess.


There are a lot of hungry people in the world, and none of them are hungry because we went to the moon Mars. None of them are colder, and certainly none of them are dumber because we went to the moon Mars.

The thing is, if you took money away from NASA (correction: if you took MORE money away from NASA) it wouldn't be redirected into food for the poor. Most likely it would get dumped into defense spending. NASA's budget is less than a half-penny on the dollar, anyway.

But we can do both. We can do great science and feed the poor in this country. As a matter of fact, making sure that everyone is well-fed and well-educated from birth is probably the best way to ensure that we have a robust science program.
 
2012-08-06 11:03:59 PM

Lordserb: you can't tell someone he or she is wrong for wanting to have spent the money feeding the poor



I sure as fark can tell them they're wrong. For starters, I would point out the size of NASA's budget vs. the BILLIONS that are completely wasted in the defense industries every year. There are other places to cut way the fark before anyone gets anywhere close to touching NASA.
 
2012-08-06 11:04:00 PM
Between this, SKY CRANE and the pics of Curiosity descending (and the heat shield falling away). It's been a pretty damn good run for NASA.
 
2012-08-06 11:06:43 PM
After initial reports on Mars that the heat shield was a "flying saucer," the Martian Air Force is now claiming that it was a weather balloon, and there is nothing to worry about. Also, all civilian travel to the Gale Crater is strictly prohibited while they clean up the flying-- er weather balloon.
 
2012-08-06 11:06:49 PM

BSABSVR: Between this, SKY CRANE and the pics of Curiosity descending (and the heat shield falling away). It's been a pretty damn good run for NASA.


Agreed.
 
2012-08-06 11:08:27 PM
i283.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-06 11:08:47 PM

Lordserb: Token Anarchist: ple bemoan the costs?!? farking savages.

I think it's more about spending the money on things that will have a greater effect on solving national problems. Don't get me wrong, this mars mission is beyond cool, but you can't tell someone he or she is wrong for wanting to have spent the money feeding the poor. Just a matter of perspective for some people I guess.


I don't think that spending money on societal ills will necessarily fix anything, let alone our problems as a nation. Additionally, I'd go as far as to say that the pursuit of science and discovery for the mere sake of discovery is *more* noble than feeding the poor.

The more young people that are inspired to pursue STEM, the more we benefit in the long run.
 
2012-08-06 11:10:40 PM
High Res will be coming. Hope the scheduled software upgrade isn't like some Adobe Flash fix...

If/when all systems get vetted then this mission should actually be interesting in the extreme.

Pu-238 for your driving enjoyment: http://www.inl.gov/research/mars-science-laboratory/
 
2012-08-06 11:12:00 PM

Lordserb: Token Anarchist: ple bemoan the costs?!? farking savages.

I think it's more about spending the money on things that will have a greater effect on solving national problems. Don't get me wrong, this mars mission is beyond cool, but you can't tell someone he or she is wrong for wanting to have spent the money feeding the poor. Just a matter of perspective for some people I guess.


First time I've said 'proud to be an American' without wincing in a LOOOONG farking time. So, $8 well spent on this farker.

Oh, and a HUGE chunk of my paycheck goes to those on the dole, MUCH more than $8.

/perspective, I haz it
 
2012-08-06 11:13:41 PM
huge file
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/videos/movies/msl20120806_malinde s centvideo/msl20120806_malindescentvideo-1280.mov
 
2012-08-06 11:14:30 PM
It's... pretty much the way super nintendo graphics always depicted it.
 
2012-08-06 11:15:01 PM
 
2012-08-06 11:17:38 PM
Afa feeding the poor, was the number of Americans that starved to death last year higher than zero? Frankly, most of us could eat LESS...

Anyway, serious question: why did we go all Rube Goldberg on this? I'm delighted it worked, but didn't we get the last rover down a little more simply?
 
2012-08-06 11:17:58 PM

trappedspirit: Cheesehead_Dave: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 499x354]

Just a 7 minute delay in seeing the automated results. It's a 14 minute round trip delay between triggering and action and getting the results. But the landing was all scripted and happened 7 minutes before the NASA JPL control room got their rocks off.


No, it's not a 14 minute round trip. It's currently 14 minutes for the signal to get from Mars, as noted in 7 Minutes of Terror. By the time they got the indication that the equipment had entered the atmosphere, the lander was either successfully landed or destroyed for at least seven minutes.

Also, they had stopped communicating with the equipment about a half hour before it entered the atmosphere. It was on its own because there was nothing Mission Control could do.

See this page for the current distance from Mars and how long it takes a signal to reach Earth from that point.
 
2012-08-06 11:18:14 PM
I'm fairly certain I spotted a Starbucks in that sequence.
 
2012-08-06 11:20:03 PM

PunGent: Afa feeding the poor, was the number of Americans that starved to death last year higher than zero? Frankly, most of us could eat LESS...

Anyway, serious question: why did we go all Rube Goldberg on this? I'm delighted it worked, but didn't we get the last rover down a little more simply?


The other rovers were much smaller and lighter than this guy. Air bags and parachutes alone wouldn't cut it.
 
2012-08-06 11:22:26 PM

PunGent: Afa feeding the poor, was the number of Americans that starved to death last year higher than zero? Frankly, most of us could eat LESS...

Anyway, serious question: why did we go all Rube Goldberg on this? I'm delighted it worked, but didn't we get the last rover down a little more simply?


Weight. This project was too big for air bags. They wanted to put down this rover as gently as possible.

Watch 7 Minutes of Terror. They agree that it looked like a crazy way to do things, but they were confident of the engineering and rightfully so considering how things have turned out.
 
2012-08-06 11:24:12 PM

space_cowgirl: PunGent: Afa feeding the poor, was the number of Americans that starved to death last year higher than zero? Frankly, most of us could eat LESS...

Anyway, serious question: why did we go all Rube Goldberg on this? I'm delighted it worked, but didn't we get the last rover down a little more simply?

The other rovers were much smaller and lighter than this guy. Air bags and parachutes alone wouldn't cut it.


"We needed retro-jets, mini-rocket backpacks, as it were..." she adjusted her glasses..."...how else would we achieve such a retroactive bounce, gravitationally?"

;)
 
2012-08-06 11:24:22 PM

space_cowgirl: PunGent: Afa feeding the poor, was the number of Americans that starved to death last year higher than zero? Frankly, most of us could eat LESS...

Anyway, serious question: why did we go all Rube Goldberg on this? I'm delighted it worked, but didn't we get the last rover down a little more simply?

The other rovers were much smaller and lighter than this guy. Air bags and parachutes alone wouldn't cut it.


plus they were trying to disturb the landing site as little as possible, due to the ability to kick up dust all over this critter (and all over the landing site...)
 
2012-08-06 11:29:42 PM

Lordserb: but you can't tell someone he or she is wrong for wanting to have spent the money feeding the poor. Just a matter of perspective for some people I guess.


Higgs conference had these people, too. Here's their answer:
Link
 
2012-08-06 11:30:05 PM
Now, try to parallel park that sucker.
 
2012-08-06 11:30:14 PM

Lordserb: Token Anarchist: ple bemoan the costs?!? farking savages.

I think it's more about spending the money on things that will have a greater effect on solving national problems. Don't get me wrong, this mars mission is beyond cool, but you can't tell someone he or she is wrong for wanting to have spent the money feeding the poor. Just a matter of perspective for some people I guess.


We could take the money they're spending on the Osprey that can't fly and the Abrams upgrade the Army doesn't want, give door-to-door meal service to all those hungry people...and STILL have enough leftover to go to Mars.
 
2012-08-06 11:31:15 PM
I just saw this on the NASA website. Is that real?

www.agoracosmopolitan.com
 
2012-08-06 11:32:09 PM
I can't wait til we can start a war on Mars. Spare no expense, I will say.
 
2012-08-06 11:32:33 PM
I hope they brought a decent offering to appease the martians, like some four loko, bath salts and spice.
 
2012-08-06 11:35:40 PM
I saw it and was about to complain about the quality and stuff, and then I reminded myself:
That's on Mars. For real.

/putting away the snark and admitting that this is pretty freakin' cool
 
2012-08-06 11:36:10 PM
apod.nasa.gov

Opportunity Rover says:

This was a triumph!
I'm making a note here:
"huge success!!"

It's hard to overstate
My satisfaction.

Aperture science:
We do what me must
Because we can.

For the good of all of us.
Except the ones who are dead.

But there's no sense crying
Over every mistake.
You just keep on trying
Till you run out of cake.
And the science gets done.
And you make a neat gun
For the people who are
Still alive.

I'm not even angry...
I'm being so sincere right now-
Even though you broke my heart,
And killed me.

And tore me to pieces.
And threw every piece into a fire.
As they burned it hurt because
I was so happy for you!

Now, these points of data
Make a beautiful line.
And we're out of beta.
We're releasing on time!
So i'm glad i got burned-
Think of all the things we learned-
For the people who are
Still alive.

Go ahead and leave me...
I think i'd prefer to stay inside...
Maybe you'll find someone else
To help you?
Maybe black mesa?
That was a joke! haha!! fat chance!!

Anyway this cake is great!
It's so delicious and moist!

Look at me: still talking
When there's science to do!
When i look out there,
It makes me glad I'm not you.

I've experiments to run.
There is research to be done.
On the people who are
Still alive.
And believe me i am
Still alive.
I'm doing science and i'm
Still alive.
I feel fantastic and i'm
Still alive.
While you're dying i'll be
Still alive.
And when you're dead i will be
Still alive.

Still alive.

Still alive.
 
2012-08-06 11:39:04 PM

Harry_Seldon: the_chief: Why the low resolution? Doesn't NASA have HD cameras now? I've seen better photos from a GD iPhone.

Those pictures are taken with the 1 megapixel hazard avoidance cameras (you know, for navigation).


Actually, the landing approach video was taken with the MARDI (MARs Descent Imager) camera. The camera took five color pictures per second at 1600x1200 resolution from the time that the heat shield ejected all the way until touchdown. This period took roughly 134 seconds, which means that the rover should have took roughly 670 still images.

The rover only has so much bandwidth available to transmit data back to Earth, so rather than transmitting the full, high-resolution version it has instead transmitted a highly compressed version (192x144 resolution). This compressed version will let scientists determine if they need to get the whole video right away, or if it can wait and be a low-priority task. It looks as though the landing went very smoothly, but if something unexpected had happened during landing these images would be very high priority, just to figure out what happened and why.

Assuming they were using48-bit RGB colors (and I really have no idea what format they're using) then each pixel would be 6 bytes of information, so the full length HD movie would be 1600x1200x670x6 = 7718400000 bytes, or about 7.7 gigabytes. The compressed version is only 192*144*297*6 = 32 meg, note they only sent back 297 thumbnails.

The exact bandwidth available to the Curiosity rover is a complicated answer depending on where the rover is with respect to Mars, the Earth, and any orbiting satellites, but the peak transmission rate of the direct Rover-Earth link is 32,000 Kbps, or roughly half as fast as your 56K modem back in the day. To transmit the full HD movie would take 536 hours, while the thumbnail version would have only taken about 3.4 hours, and both of those numbers assume perfect conditions.
 
2012-08-06 11:40:26 PM

GungFu: I just saw this on the NASA website. Is that real?

[www.agoracosmopolitan.com image 500x412]


No, can't be, because it didn't come down anywhere near the Sydonia region.
 
2012-08-06 11:43:09 PM

Dadoody: Aperture science:
We do what me must
Because we can.


I'm not even AZN
 
2012-08-06 11:43:16 PM

stirfrybry: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/videos/movies/msl20120806_malinde s centvideo/msl20120806_malindescentvideo-1280.mov


Better link. For some reason a copy/pasta link ends up with spaces in it.
 
2012-08-06 11:43:34 PM
Just to put it in perspective, there's a substantial portion of Congress that would like to cut projects like Curiosity AND feeding the poor

/both equal wastes of money as far as they're concerned
 
2012-08-06 11:44:32 PM
Here's a story from Omni mag back in 1985 that suggested you shouldn't trust what cameras show of Mars

Gods of Mars
 
2012-08-06 11:44:47 PM

Fubini: The rover only has so much bandwidth available to transmit data back to Earth, so rather than transmitting the full, high-resolution version it has instead transmitted a highly compressed version (192x144 resolution). This compressed version will let scientists determine if they need to get the whole video right away, or if it can wait and be a low-priority task. It looks as though the landing went very smoothly, but if something unexpected had happened during landing these images would be very high priority, just to figure out what happened and why.


Thanks for ruining a good telling-off of those nerds who landed a tiny scrap of metal on a tiny scrap of moving rock 139,809,000 miles away.
 
2012-08-06 11:51:45 PM

mjjt: Here's a story from Omni mag back in 1985 that suggested you shouldn't trust what cameras show of Mars

Gods of Mars


Were you an Omni reader? Seems there weren't a lot of us

/got a whole box full of them
 
2012-08-06 11:51:51 PM

Lordserb: Token Anarchist: ple bemoan the costs?!? farking savages.

I think it's more about spending the money on things that will have a greater effect on solving national problems. Don't get me wrong, this mars mission is beyond cool, but you can't tell someone he or she is wrong for wanting to have spent the money feeding the poor. Just a matter of perspective for some people I guess.


No, it is simply being realistic. The problem most years is food distribution, not a lack of food. Distribution problems are largely political and throwing money at political problems only makes them worse. If one wanted to back that up with a Bible quote (unlike most people who fake the references), "The poor will be with you always." J.C. If god can't fix it, what chance do we have? Science we can do.
 
2012-08-06 11:52:12 PM
I heard somewhere that the engineers endured 7 minutes of terror while the craft entered the atmosphere at 13000 miles, before it slowed down and deployed a sky crane to lower the rover, which is actually the size of a car.

Whoa! 7 minutes of terror!
 
2012-08-06 11:53:14 PM

Lordserb: Token Anarchist: ple bemoan the costs?!? farking savages.

I think it's more about spending the money on things that will have a greater effect on solving national problems. Don't get me wrong, this mars mission is beyond cool, but you can't tell someone he or she is wrong for wanting to have spent the money feeding the poor. Just a matter of perspective for some people I guess.


Well, Americans could spend less than 50 billion dollars on pets, which includes 3.79 BILLION for various pet services. I'm willing to bet we could squeeze out 2.5 billion from there and give that to the poor instead.

Or, Americans could maybe not spend 60+ BILLION on weight-loss products. We could probably almost erase this entirely by eating healthier - go look up how much we spent on fast food in 2011. Never mind, we're talking around 160 BILLION DOLLARS!

Did you want more "perspective" from the 270 billion dollars above? Think we could squeeze out a 2.5 billion dollar Mars mission and give 2.5 billion dollars for your idea from that 270 billion?
 
2012-08-06 11:56:09 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: mjjt: Here's a story from Omni mag back in 1985 that suggested you shouldn't trust what cameras show of Mars

Gods of Mars

Were you an Omni reader? Seems there weren't a lot of us

/got a whole box full of them


I miss Omni. That was an awesome magazine.

I remember that Cydonia spread. I was more interested in the "city" and the "pyramids" than that stupid face.
 
2012-08-06 11:57:24 PM

Fubini: The rover only has so much bandwidth available to transmit data back to Earth, so rather than transmitting the full, high-resolution version it has instead transmitted a highly compressed version (192x144 resolution).


You would think if they were going to fly all that way, they would spool out a couple of strands of fiber optic cable.
 
2012-08-06 11:59:07 PM
Didn't have to use the soundstage of the moon just a bowl of custard.
 
2012-08-07 12:03:59 AM

Harry_Seldon: You would think if they were going to fly all that way, they would spool out a couple of strands of fiber optic cable.


What about a really long stick?

www.internetmemepics.com
 
2012-08-07 12:05:41 AM
Hey, if this technology leads to inventing machines that could zap ass cancer through a pinhole in your belly button instead of cutting you open and laying your intestines on your stomach, then I am all for the costs!
 
2012-08-07 12:05:42 AM
"highly compressed version (192x144 resolution)"
When in the 70's did we launch this thing? I have a keychain video camera that does 720 x something and it was $25 ... so small a sparrow could take it to mars. Estes rocket and a ziplock bag and ..... spacefood sticks gall dangit ....
 
2012-08-07 12:09:33 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: mjjt: Here's a story from Omni mag back in 1985 that suggested you shouldn't trust what cameras show of Mars

Gods of Mars

Were you an Omni reader? Seems there weren't a lot of us

/got a whole box full of them


more than you might think

Link

Link
 
2012-08-07 12:09:51 AM

roughridersfan: Lordserb: Token Anarchist: ple bemoan the costs?!? farking savages.

I think it's more about spending the money on things that will have a greater effect on solving national problems. Don't get me wrong, this mars mission is beyond cool, but you can't tell someone he or she is wrong for wanting to have spent the money feeding the poor. Just a matter of perspective for some people I guess.

Well, Americans could spend less than 50 billion dollars on pets, which includes 3.79 BILLION for various pet services. I'm willing to bet we could squeeze out 2.5 billion from there and give that to the poor instead.

Or, Americans could maybe not spend 60+ BILLION on weight-loss products. We could probably almost erase this entirely by eating healthier - go look up how much we spent on fast food in 2011. Never mind, we're talking around 160 BILLION DOLLARS!

Did you want more "perspective" from the 270 billion dollars above? Think we could squeeze out a 2.5 billion dollar Mars mission and give 2.5 billion dollars for your idea from that 270 billion?




Making the argument that americans waste money all the time is not relevant, I'm simply pointing out that it is your opinion that going to mars benefits us more than helping our poor, just as it is someone else's opinion that helping the poor is better than going to mars. All the stats in the world aren't going to make you right in this instance.
 
2012-08-07 12:12:53 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: mjjt: Here's a story from Omni mag back in 1985 that suggested you shouldn't trust what cameras show of Mars

Gods of Mars

Were you an Omni reader? Seems there weren't a lot of us

/got a whole box full of them


Stopped my subscription near the end of its run when the editorial bent went too far on the UFO end of the spectrum.

I miss the early years when it was a good mix of science and fiction.
 
2012-08-07 12:13:00 AM

Fubini: Harry_Seldon: the_chief: Why the low resolution? Doesn't NASA have HD cameras now? I've seen better photos from a GD iPhone.

Those pictures are taken with the 1 megapixel hazard avoidance cameras (you know, for navigation).

Actually, the landing approach video was taken with the MARDI (MARs Descent Imager) camera. The camera took five color pictures per second at 1600x1200 resolution from the time that the heat shield ejected all the way until touchdown. This period took roughly 134 seconds, which means that the rover should have took roughly 670 still images.

The rover only has so much bandwidth available to transmit data back to Earth, so rather than transmitting the full, high-resolution version it has instead transmitted a highly compressed version (192x144 resolution). This compressed version will let scientists determine if they need to get the whole video right away, or if it can wait and be a low-priority task. It looks as though the landing went very smoothly, but if something unexpected had happened during landing these images would be very high priority, just to figure out what happened and why.

Assuming they were using48-bit RGB colors (and I really have no idea what format they're using) then each pixel would be 6 bytes of information, so the full length HD movie would be 1600x1200x670x6 = 7718400000 bytes, or about 7.7 gigabytes. The compressed version is only 192*144*297*6 = 32 meg, note they only sent back 297 thumbnails.

The exact bandwidth available to the Curiosity rover is a complicated answer depending on where the rover is with respect to Mars, the Earth, and any orbiting satellites, but the peak transmission rate of the direct Rover-Earth link is 32,000 Kbps, or roughly half as fast as your 56K modem back in the day. To transmit the full HD movie would take 536 hours, while the thumbnail version would have only taken about 3.4 hours, and both of those numbers assume perfect conditions.


Are the numbers that you give for peak transmission rate showing sums for the current UHF antenna or the High-Gain ant. that should be deployed and activated tomorrow? I just sort of thought they would relay data with a faster connection than the previous two rovers.

/could be wrong
//usually am
 
2012-08-07 12:21:57 AM

Fubini: The rover only has so much bandwidth available to transmit data back to Earth, so rather than transmitting the full, high-resolution version it has instead transmitted a highly compressed version (192x144 resolution).


250x150 for the thumbnail image.


Yeah, give it a day or two. right now they have a paltry 5 megabit connection. Once they hit 40 megabits we'll see the full res video, and I think everything else you said is correct.

Here's a calibration image that has been fixed to take out the pincushion distortion.
 
2012-08-07 12:23:05 AM
I'm amazed at just how farking retarded most people are.
 
2012-08-07 12:29:21 AM
(192x144 resolution).

250x150 for the thumbnail image

well that's better

I bet you listen to 45's
 
2012-08-07 12:30:59 AM

anfrind: Harry_Seldon: You would think if they were going to fly all that way, they would spool out a couple of strands of fiber optic cable.

What about a really long stick?

[www.internetmemepics.com image 461x600]


Troll guy with the stick already knows that stick-transmission is actually much slower, limited to the speed of sound in the stick. He just wants me to respond, so I'll oblige.
 
2012-08-07 12:31:48 AM

innsaei: Fubini: Harry_Seldon: the_chief: Why the low resolution? Doesn't NASA have HD cameras now? I've seen better photos from a GD iPhone.

Those pictures are taken with the 1 megapixel hazard avoidance cameras (you know, for navigation).

Actually, the landing approach video was taken with the MARDI (MARs Descent Imager) camera. The camera took five color pictures per second at 1600x1200 resolution from the time that the heat shield ejected all the way until touchdown. This period took roughly 134 seconds, which means that the rover should have took roughly 670 still images.

The rover only has so much bandwidth available to transmit data back to Earth, so rather than transmitting the full, high-resolution version it has instead transmitted a highly compressed version (192x144 resolution). This compressed version will let scientists determine if they need to get the whole video right away, or if it can wait and be a low-priority task. It looks as though the landing went very smoothly, but if something unexpected had happened during landing these images would be very high priority, just to figure out what happened and why.

Assuming they were using48-bit RGB colors (and I really have no idea what format they're using) then each pixel would be 6 bytes of information, so the full length HD movie would be 1600x1200x670x6 = 7718400000 bytes, or about 7.7 gigabytes. The compressed version is only 192*144*297*6 = 32 meg, note they only sent back 297 thumbnails.

The exact bandwidth available to the Curiosity rover is a complicated answer depending on where the rover is with respect to Mars, the Earth, and any orbiting satellites, but the peak transmission rate of the direct Rover-Earth link is 32,000 Kbps, or roughly half as fast as your 56K modem back in the day. To transmit the full HD movie would take 536 hours, while the thumbnail version would have only taken about 3.4 hours, and both of those numbers assume perfect conditions.

Are the numbers that you give for peak trans ...


It can transmit to the orbiter also in UHF if I recall, but I don't know what kind of data rates that gets. Hopefully AT&T doesn't service it
 
2012-08-07 12:33:51 AM

nmrsnr: doyner: Fark anyone who bemoans the cost. We need to do this for humanity because we can.

Seriously, it cost roughly $2.5bn, or about $8 a person. Meanwhile, we're about to spend $3bn refurbishing a fleet of Abrams tanks that the Pentagon doesn't even want. I don't even have good snark for that, it just makes me sad.


Roughly $15.00 a person if you factor in those that don't pay federal income tax. Money well spent if you consider the jobs it created NASA said something like 700 direct but supported 7000, many of the private jobs are in defense contractors (Lockheed and General Dynamics) as well. On top of jobs it also supports science and engineering and had an actual result to the project unlike some spending where it seems like nothing ever happens.

When I read about the silver circle the first thing I though was that the comment was added to make sure people didn't think it was a UFO.
 
2012-08-07 12:34:54 AM
You can really see it lock on to that flat area right at the end.

How much flight time did it have, and how much was used?
 
2012-08-07 12:38:29 AM
Alright...i get it, we sent another rover to Mars
i admit i haven't been interested in watching any of the coverage, and yes i am a career geek...
i just don't get the hype...
isn't this like the 4th rover we've sent there?
Can one of you Farkers please explain to me why this one is so friggin special, and why do i KNEED to watch the landing of another rover?


/am i missing something?
 
2012-08-07 12:44:54 AM

cretinbob: I'm amazed at just how farking retarded most people are.


As long as you've been a Farker?

/I'm amazed you're still amazed
//at least your spirit hasn't been crushed into unquestioning acceptance of it yet
 
2012-08-07 12:45:47 AM

EffervescingElephant: isn't this like the 4th rover we've sent there?


Seven rovers have been sent to Mars:

Mars 2, Prop-M rover, 1971, landing failed.

Mars 3, Prop-M rover, 1971, communication failure after landing. The Mars 2 and 3 spacecraft from the USSR, had identical 4.5 kg Prop-M rovers. They were to move on skis while connected to the landers with cables. The Mars 2 rover crashed into the Martian surface.[2] The Mars 3 lander stopped communicating about 20 seconds after landing.[2] Mars 2 and Mars 3 both had companion orbiters which were successful.

Sojourner rover, Mars Pathfinder, landed successfully on July 4, 1997. Communications were lost on September 27, 1997.

Beagle 2, Planetary Undersurface Tool, lost with Beagle 2 on deployment from Mars Express.[3] A compressed spring mechanism was designed to enable to movement across the surface at a rate of 1 cm per 5 seconds[3] and to burrow into the ground and collect a subsurface sample in a cavity in its tip.

Spirit (MER-A), Mars Exploration Rover, landed successfully on January 4, 2004. Nearly 6 years after the original mission limit, Spirit had covered a total distance of 7.73 km (4.80 mi) but its wheels became trapped in sand.[4] Around January 26, 2010, NASA conceded defeat in its efforts to free the rover and stated that it would now function as a stationary science platform.[5] The last communication received from the rover was on March 22, 2010 and NASA ceased attempts to re-establish communication on May 25, 2011.[6]

Opportunity (MER-B), Mars Exploration Rover, landed successfully on January 25, 2004. Opportunity was still operating as of 2012, having surpassed the previous record for longevity of a surface mission to Mars on May 20, 2010.[7][8]

Curiosity, Mars Science Laboratory, by NASA. It was launched November 26, 2011 at 10:02 EST[9][10] and landed in the Aeolis Palus plain near Aeolis Mons (formerly "Mount Sharp")[11][12][13][14] in Gale Crater on August 6, 2012, 05:31 UTC.[15][16][17]
 
2012-08-07 12:52:10 AM
You'd think that Curiousity would have been listening to some music on the way down in order to heighten the experience. What a dull individual it must be. I bet it's a real blast at parties.
 
2012-08-07 12:54:43 AM

fragMasterFlash: EffervescingElephant: isn't this like the 4th rover we've sent there?

Seven rovers have been sent to Mars:

Mars 2, Prop-M rover, 1971, landing failed.

Mars 3, Prop-M rover, 1971, communication failure after landing. The Mars 2 and 3 spacecraft from the USSR, had identical 4.5 kg Prop-M rovers. They were to move on skis while connected to the landers with cables. The Mars 2 rover crashed into the Martian surface.[2] The Mars 3 lander stopped communicating about 20 seconds after landing.[2] Mars 2 and Mars 3 both had companion orbiters which were successful.

Sojourner rover, Mars Pathfinder, landed successfully on July 4, 1997. Communications were lost on September 27, 1997.

Beagle 2, Planetary Undersurface Tool, lost with Beagle 2 on deployment from Mars Express.[3] A compressed spring mechanism was designed to enable to movement across the surface at a rate of 1 cm per 5 seconds[3] and to burrow into the ground and collect a subsurface sample in a cavity in its tip.

Spirit (MER-A), Mars Exploration Rover, landed successfully on January 4, 2004. Nearly 6 years after the original mission limit, Spirit had covered a total distance of 7.73 km (4.80 mi) but its wheels became trapped in sand.[4] Around January 26, 2010, NASA conceded defeat in its efforts to free the rover and stated that it would now function as a stationary science platform.[5] The last communication received from the rover was on March 22, 2010 and NASA ceased attempts to re-establish communication on May 25, 2011.[6]

Opportunity (MER-B), Mars Exploration Rover, landed successfully on January 25, 2004. Opportunity was still operating as of 2012, having surpassed the previous record for longevity of a surface mission to Mars on May 20, 2010.[7][8]

Curiosity, Mars Science Laboratory, by NASA. It was launched November 26, 2011 at 10:02 EST[9][10] and landed in the Aeolis Palus plain near Aeolis Mons (formerly "Mount Sharp")[11][12][13][14] in Gale Crater on August 6, 2012, 05:31 UTC.[15][16][17]


Right...
i did check wiki before i made my post for accuracy...
7 were sent
4 of OURS made it there successfully
the first one was awesome...i will always remember it like the day Kennedy was shot on the moon...
i still don't understand what the big friggin deal is...
alright i get it, it is a great human achievement...USA...USA and everything
but seriously...
is there something special about this one that i am not getting?
 
2012-08-07 12:56:06 AM
That video almost made me tear up all over again. Humanity rules!
 
2012-08-07 12:59:40 AM

EffervescingElephant: is there something special about this one that i am not getting?


I bet if you hang around the monolith long enough you might just find a new and interesting use for those dried up old bones...
 
2012-08-07 01:03:14 AM

EffervescingElephant: Can one of you Farkers please explain to me why this one is so friggin special, and why do i KNEED to watch the landing of another rover?


Hi, are you watching the Olympics? So far, we've had 30 of them, we have one every 4 years and the events are, more or less, the same ones every 4 years. Do you like watching people set world records? They are doing things marginally faster/higher/stronger than have ever been done before. Why do we care? Because it is something that people have planned and prepared for for years and have only one chance to succeed at. When they do, and they surpass what humanity has ever done before through sweat, blood, and tears, that is something worth getting excited about. If you don't get that, I really don't know what to tell you.
 
2012-08-07 01:04:11 AM

Trapper439: You'd think that Curiousity would have been listening to some music on the way down in order to heighten the experience. What a dull individual it must be. I bet it's a real blast at parties.



I am thinking it should have had some loudspeakers installed - blasting out Flight of the Valkyries on it's decent...now that would have been cool


/THAT i would have watched...
 
2012-08-07 01:06:41 AM

miniflea: Just how stupid are you?


Not as stupid as someone who is so illiterate that he misreads a post and attacks the poster for saying the exact opposite of what he thinks he said.
 
2012-08-07 01:14:06 AM

EffervescingElephant: I am thinking it should have had some loudspeakers installed - blasting out Flight of the Valkyries on it's decent...now that would have been cool


You know who else like Wagner?
 
2012-08-07 01:15:16 AM
I turned my speakers all the way up, but CAN'T GET ANY SOUND. WTF NASA??

/sending an angry email to their admin right now
 
2012-08-07 01:16:40 AM

Buckner: EffervescingElephant: I am thinking it should have had some loudspeakers installed - blasting out Flight of the Valkyries on it's decent...now that would have been cool

You know who else like Wagner?


Kurt Wimmer?
 
2012-08-07 01:17:50 AM

EffervescingElephant: Right...
i did check wiki before i made my post for accuracy...
7 were sent
4 of OURS made it there successfully
the first one was awesome...i will always remember it like the day Kennedy was shot on the moon...
i still don't understand what the big friggin deal is...
alright i get it, it is a great human achievement...USA...USA and everything
but seriously...
is there something special about this one that i am not getting?


Yes, there is. It's way, way larger than the previous rovers and as a result, the landing procedure was far more complex, and involved a rocket hovering over the surface of Mars lowering the car-sized rover to the surface via cables, cutting the cables, and flying off, amongst other things. This would have been a difficult procedure on Earth, much less hundreds of millions of miles away. It's an engineering feat that we haven't accomplished before, and the fact that it went flawlessly on the first try is a Big Deal.
 
2012-08-07 01:23:03 AM

nmrsnr: EffervescingElephant: Can one of you Farkers please explain to me why this one is so friggin special, and why do i KNEED to watch the landing of another rover?

Hi, are you watching the Olympics? So far, we've had 30 of them, we have one every 4 years and the events are, more or less, the same ones every 4 years. Do you like watching people set world records? They are doing things marginally faster/higher/stronger than have ever been done before. Why do we care? Because it is something that people have planned and prepared for for years and have only one chance to succeed at. When they do, and they surpass what humanity has ever done before through sweat, blood, and tears, that is something worth getting excited about. If you don't get that, I really don't know what to tell you.



Hi..
and no i am not watching the Olympics either...thanks for the history lesson tho...having lived in a cave for the last few decades i wasn't aware they held those events every 4 years...but thanks none the less for the education.
No i don't particularly like watching people set world records, especially when it involves people running around in circles trying to edge out another by a millisecond or so - just not relevant to my interests.
Personally i would prefer to see humanity trying to surpass what has ever done before through sweat, blood, and tears by treating each other better and making this world a better place through education, development and kindness...but meh... that is just my opinion
you keep striving for that gold in beach volleyball tho...


/sorry i don't feed into what the mass media forces down our cultural throats...
 
2012-08-07 01:27:37 AM

anfrind: Harry_Seldon: You would think if they were going to fly all that way, they would spool out a couple of strands of fiber optic cable.

What about a really long stick?

[www.internetmemepics.com image 461x600]


sorry to burst your bubble, but when you push one end of the stick the atoms must propagate the wave so to speak, and it doesn't go faster than the speed of light.

Link
 
2012-08-07 01:27:42 AM

EffervescingElephant: nmrsnr: EffervescingElephant: Can one of you Farkers please explain to me why this one is so friggin special, and why do i KNEED to watch the landing of another rover?

Hi, are you watching the Olympics? So far, we've had 30 of them, we have one every 4 years and the events are, more or less, the same ones every 4 years. Do you like watching people set world records? They are doing things marginally faster/higher/stronger than have ever been done before. Why do we care? Because it is something that people have planned and prepared for for years and have only one chance to succeed at. When they do, and they surpass what humanity has ever done before through sweat, blood, and tears, that is something worth getting excited about. If you don't get that, I really don't know what to tell you.


Hi..
and no i am not watching the Olympics either...thanks for the history lesson tho...having lived in a cave for the last few decades i wasn't aware they held those events every 4 years...but thanks none the less for the education.
No i don't particularly like watching people set world records, especially when it involves people running around in circles trying to edge out another by a millisecond or so - just not relevant to my interests.
Personally i would prefer to see humanity trying to surpass what has ever done before through sweat, blood, and tears by treating each other better and making this world a better place through education, development and kindness...but meh... that is just my opinion
you keep striving for that gold in beach volleyball tho...


/sorry i don't feed into what the mass media forces down our cultural throats...


Facebook effect. More people are aware of shiat these days than before just because their friends are talking about it online.

Expect this to be a continued occurrence in various fields going forward.

Who would have even known wtf tahrir square was or some random guy called kony.
 
2012-08-07 01:28:07 AM

BigJake: EffervescingElephant: Right...
i did check wiki before i made my post for accuracy...
7 were sent
4 of OURS made it there successfully
the first one was awesome...i will always remember it like the day Kennedy was shot on the moon...
i still don't understand what the big friggin deal is...
alright i get it, it is a great human achievement...USA...USA and everything
but seriously...
is there something special about this one that i am not getting?

Yes, there is. It's way, way larger than the previous rovers and as a result, the landing procedure was far more complex, and involved a rocket hovering over the surface of Mars lowering the car-sized rover to the surface via cables, cutting the cables, and flying off, amongst other things. This would have been a difficult procedure on Earth, much less hundreds of millions of miles away. It's an engineering feat that we haven't accomplished before, and the fact that it went flawlessly on the first try is a Big Deal.



Cool...thanks
i did not know that...
thanks, that is the answer i was looking for
i should probably not try to get the majority of my news and current events here...lol
would certainly save on the amount of flaming i get for asking questions from my peers

/that would explain the Rube Goldberg references i was reading about tho...
 
2012-08-07 01:29:20 AM

Trapper439: You'd think that Curiousity would have been listening to some music on the way down in order to heighten the experience. What a dull individual it must be. I bet it's a real blast at parties.


Gustav Holst's Mars

Coincidentally 7 minutes long.

/OR IS IT??!
//Anyone remember playing Sierra's 'Outpost'?
 
2012-08-07 01:34:24 AM

Oznog: I turned my speakers all the way up, but CAN'T GET ANY SOUND. WTF NASA??

/sending an angry email to their admin right now


Maybe someone could mix something out of this Free falling

/:)
 
2012-08-07 01:36:53 AM
also, it has much more advanced capabilities than anything else before it.

it can analyze stuff, in more detail, it is basically a roving science lab, in comparison to its predecessor which was basically a scientist with a short poking stick.

Also, it's in a diff. spot altogether, so as far as exploring goes it also has that going for itself.
 
2012-08-07 01:41:24 AM

GungFu: I just saw this on the NASA website. Is that real?

[www.agoracosmopolitan.com image 500x412]


images1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-08-07 01:51:09 AM
FTFA:
Those thumbnail images have been put together into a stop-motion video that's just jaw-droppingly cool

Isn't it just video? What would NOT be stop-motion video by this criteria?
 
2012-08-07 01:55:58 AM

SevenizGud: FTFA:
Those thumbnail images have been put together into a stop-motion video that's just jaw-droppingly cool

Isn't it just video? What would NOT be stop-motion video by this criteria?


Where the human eye can no longer detect individual frames?
 
2012-08-07 02:08:43 AM
Maybe something from thisfor sound :)
 
2012-08-07 03:17:43 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: mjjt: Here's a story from Omni mag back in 1985 that suggested you shouldn't trust what cameras show of Mars

Gods of Mars

Were you an Omni reader? Seems there weren't a lot of us

/got a whole box full of them


Me too. First place I read about nanotechnology.
 
2012-08-07 03:20:39 AM

roughridersfan: See this page for the current distance from Mars and how long it takes a signal to reach Earth from that point.


and bookmarked. That's farking awesome.
 
2012-08-07 03:29:23 AM
When folks look back at 2012 one hundred years from now, this event that occurred today..... will be seen as the #1 OR #2 thing that happened this year.
 
2012-08-07 03:29:28 AM

Lordserb: Token Anarchist: ple bemoan the costs?!? farking savages.

I think it's more about spending the money on things that will have a greater effect on solving national problems. Don't get me wrong, this mars mission is beyond cool, but you can't tell someone he or she is wrong for wanting to have spent the money feeding the poor. Just a matter of perspective for some people I guess.


The problem is, the people bemoaning the spending on space exploration are the same people who don't want to see a penny of their tax dollars to go to the poor, quality education, or anything else that the talking heads who think for them dislike.
 
2012-08-07 03:37:25 AM

geezus: anfrind: Harry_Seldon: You would think if they were going to fly all that way, they would spool out a couple of strands of fiber optic cable.

What about a really long stick?

[www.internetmemepics.com image 461x600]

sorry to burst your bubble, but when you push one end of the stick the atoms must propagate the wave so to speak, and it doesn't go faster than the speed of light.

Link


Seriously? Someone suggests using a stick over a hundred million miles long being held at both ends by humans on two different planets to communicate, and the obvious thing you find to point out as being impossible is that the information can't travel faster than light?

If it'll make you happy, you can assume that the 'stick' is made of two quantum entangled photons, one at each planet, with little handles to hold onto so you can shake them.

/sheesh
 
2012-08-07 03:46:54 AM

skylabdown: When folks look back at 2012 one hundred years from now, this event that occurred today..... will be seen as the #1 OR #2 thing that happened this year.


I like that way of looking at it, I mean the technical achievements done in this mission already is a huge step towards a humans on Mars in a multiple phase mission. I mean landing within 250 meters from the target, such a big step. And that's with out any of the science the rover is going to be doing for years to come.

/mind boggling
 
2012-08-07 03:47:19 AM

Gyrfalcon: Lordserb: Token Anarchist: ple bemoan the costs?!? farking savages.

I think it's more about spending the money on things that will have a greater effect on solving national problems. Don't get me wrong, this mars mission is beyond cool, but you can't tell someone he or she is wrong for wanting to have spent the money feeding the poor. Just a matter of perspective for some people I guess.

We could take the money they're spending on the Osprey that can't fly and the Abrams upgrade the Army doesn't want, give door-to-door meal service to all those hungry people...and STILL have enough leftover to go to Mars.


Exactly. It's all about priorities. We could do all of that, and much more, and still be in the black without the wars.
 
2012-08-07 03:48:37 AM

Lordserb: roughridersfan: Lordserb: Token Anarchist: ple bemoan the costs?!? farking savages.

I think it's more about spending the money on things that will have a greater effect on solving national problems. Don't get me wrong, this mars mission is beyond cool, but you can't tell someone he or she is wrong for wanting to have spent the money feeding the poor. Just a matter of perspective for some people I guess.

Well, Americans could spend less than 50 billion dollars on pets, which includes 3.79 BILLION for various pet services. I'm willing to bet we could squeeze out 2.5 billion from there and give that to the poor instead.

Or, Americans could maybe not spend 60+ BILLION on weight-loss products. We could probably almost erase this entirely by eating healthier - go look up how much we spent on fast food in 2011. Never mind, we're talking around 160 BILLION DOLLARS!

Did you want more "perspective" from the 270 billion dollars above? Think we could squeeze out a 2.5 billion dollar Mars mission and give 2.5 billion dollars for your idea from that 270 billion?



Making the argument that americans waste money all the time is not relevant, I'm simply pointing out that it is your opinion that going to mars benefits us more than helping our poor, just as it is someone else's opinion that helping the poor is better than going to mars. All the stats in the world aren't going to make you right in this instance.


I think helping the poor is more important, but both could be done if we didn't have that one obvious money drain...
 
2012-08-07 03:49:45 AM
Every person I have heard complain about the spend drinks, maybe smokes, watches TV, drives needlessly, goes to the movies, buys fashion clothing and a host of other useless activity and consumption. Things that multiplied by the western population make something like this mission a simply drop in the ocean.

Hypocritical idiots are hypocritical.
 
2012-08-07 05:17:44 AM

space_cowgirl: PunGent: Afa feeding the poor, was the number of Americans that starved to death last year higher than zero? Frankly, most of us could eat LESS...

Anyway, serious question: why did we go all Rube Goldberg on this? I'm delighted it worked, but didn't we get the last rover down a little more simply?

The other rovers were much smaller and lighter than this guy. Air bags and parachutes alone wouldn't cut it.


Plus I'm guessing that it's a great test of the technology that might be needed to put a human mission safely on the surface.
 
2012-08-07 05:53:13 AM

the ham sap gwailo: space_cowgirl: PunGent: Afa feeding the poor, was the number of Americans that starved to death last year higher than zero? Frankly, most of us could eat LESS...

Anyway, serious question: why did we go all Rube Goldberg on this? I'm delighted it worked, but didn't we get the last rover down a little more simply?

The other rovers were much smaller and lighter than this guy. Air bags and parachutes alone wouldn't cut it.

Plus I'm guessing that it's a great test of the technology that might be needed to put a human mission safely on the surface.


Yep, what good is it if we preposition supplies for an expedition and they're all scattered over 150 KM, this proves we can do better and will do better again. I still want to see a craft go to Mars orbit drop things of and return, until we do that , no humans on Mars.
 
2012-08-07 05:57:49 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: cretinbob: I'm amazed at just how farking retarded most people are.

As long as you've been a Farker?

/I'm amazed you're still amazed
//at least your spirit hasn't been crushed into unquestioning acceptance of it yet


Long time. Sometimes I just have to say it out loud I guess.
 
2012-08-07 06:05:55 AM

cretinbob: MaudlinMutantMollusk: cretinbob: I'm amazed at just how farking retarded most people are.

As long as you've been a Farker?

/I'm amazed you're still amazed
//at least your spirit hasn't been crushed into unquestioning acceptance of it yet

Long time. Sometimes I just have to say it out loud I guess.


I haven't been farking as long as you but I'm glad someone can still be amazed at the general stupidity of people at times.
 
2012-08-07 06:51:51 AM

roughridersfan: trappedspirit: Cheesehead_Dave: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 499x354]

Just a 7 minute delay in seeing the automated results. It's a 14 minute round trip delay between triggering and action and getting the results. But the landing was all scripted and happened 7 minutes before the NASA JPL control room got their rocks off.

No, it's not a 14 minute round trip. It's currently 14 minutes for the signal to get from Mars, as noted in 7 Minutes of Terror. By the time they got the indication that the equipment had entered the atmosphere, the lander was either successfully landed or destroyed for at least seven minutes.

Also, they had stopped communicating with the equipment about a half hour before it entered the atmosphere. It was on its own because there was nothing Mission Control could do.

See this page for the current distance from Mars and how long it takes a signal to reach Earth from that point.


I love how that link says 'Not to be used for navigation'...

Space Cowgirl, et al, TY for the useful info.
 
2012-08-07 06:57:19 AM

the ham sap gwailo: space_cowgirl: PunGent: Afa feeding the poor, was the number of Americans that starved to death last year higher than zero? Frankly, most of us could eat LESS...

Anyway, serious question: why did we go all Rube Goldberg on this? I'm delighted it worked, but didn't we get the last rover down a little more simply?

The other rovers were much smaller and lighter than this guy. Air bags and parachutes alone wouldn't cut it.

Plus I'm guessing that it's a great test of the technology that might be needed to put a human mission safely on the surface.


Heh, it's impressive...but I think I'll wait for a few more successes before I strap myself into one of those...

Hmm. I guess I'd want at least a 90% shot at surviving to do something as cool as going to Mars.
 
2012-08-07 07:03:21 AM
I hate to bandwagon, but SCIENCE BIATCHES!!!
 
2012-08-07 07:11:40 AM

nmrsnr: Whenever I see awesome stuff like this I'm always reminded of the line from The Gladiator when they see the Coliseum "I did not know men could build such things."

Science!


"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?"
 
2012-08-07 07:24:06 AM

the_chief: Why the low resolution? Doesn't NASA have HD cameras now? I've seen better photos from a GD iPhone.


Yes, they have HD cameras - we'll be seeing lots of hi-res photos from Curiosity, just as we have from Spirit, Opportunity, Surveyor, etc. - but:

A) They're probably not going to mount one on the bottom of a rover just for one shot of the landing, especially when every ounce counts.
B) HD photos and video are huge files, and take more time to process and beam across space than what's essentially an animated gif.
C) More than likely, the "ooh, cool" factor for this shot is low for NASA/JPL; they probably only needed just enough video data to evaluate the landing, especially given that it's the first time the sky-crane was used.
D) On the other hand, maybe they did have an HD camera, too, but the video hasn't made it here yet, or the camera malfunctioned, or whatever.

The landing was awesome, but what I'm excited about is the data Curiosity (it's a rolling laboratory!) will be sending back. I anticipate some very exciting news from Mars.
 
2012-08-07 07:26:40 AM
Feed the poor.
Feed the poor.
Feed the poor.
Feed the poor.
Feed the poor.
Feed the poor.
Feed the poor.
Feed the poor.
Feed the poor.
Feed the poor.

...

Like it's going to make a difference.

This... makes a difference. The poor... well, they're always going to be there. Even in times of plenty, there are always those who just can't seem to get it together and be productive, contributing members of the society they continually expect to reap the rewards of being a part of. Kind of like they're the tonsils of humanity. The dirty little secret: you're not doing a damn thing to promote the "general welfare' by providing for them. In fact, you're hindering the general welfare by siphoning off funds that could better go towards actually benefiting the people who are providing those funds. Should there be any programs to benefit the poor? Of course there should. *But*- these programs should be centered around making them: pull their own weight, pay their share of taxes towards the costs of society, and become self-sufficient. A hand up, not a "hand-out". The government should be involved in the manufacture of a single commodity. Toilet paper, for example. A commodity that there is constant widespread demand for. Anybody who finds their selves "down on their luck" could work for the government manufacturing this commodity, until they can get back on their feet again. The work should be long, hard and uncomfortable, profitable enough to barely make a living, but not so profitable that it should be viewed as a potential career.
 
2012-08-07 07:57:46 AM

nmrsnr: Whenever I see awesome stuff like this I'm always reminded of the line from The Gladiator when they see the Coliseum "I did not know men could build such things."

Science!


encrypted-tbn3.google.com
Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?
 
2012-08-07 08:03:16 AM
farm9.staticflickr.com">
 
2012-08-07 08:04:59 AM
imgs.xkcd.com
This comic makes me sad.
 
2012-08-07 08:05:03 AM
SCIENTS!


This is very cool, if you dont get it you are a huge retard. Go hide in your cave and play your video game.

We (the folks of Earth, really doesnt matter which country does it) need to be exploring the solar system. We dont need to be hiding on our planet pretending that there isnt a rather large Universe out there to learn about.

We dont need to build more bombs or kill each other. It makes no sense to do that, when we could be doing this instead.

Staying on Earth will only make us more stupid in the long run.

This new technique could allow for even more/easier landings on Mars, with even better equipped machinery and maybe a means to allow humans to live/survive there too. That will benefit everyone.
 
2012-08-07 08:07:36 AM

elffster: SCIENTS!


This is very cool, if you dont get it you are a huge retard. Go hide in your cave and play your video game.

We (the folks of Earth, really doesnt matter which country does it) need to be exploring the solar system. We dont need to be hiding on our planet pretending that there isnt a rather large Universe out there to learn about.

We dont need to build more bombs or kill each other. It makes no sense to do that, when we could be doing this instead.

Staying on Earth will only make us more stupid in the long run.

This new technique could allow for even more/easier landings on Mars, with even better equipped machinery and maybe a means to allow humans to live/survive there too. That will benefit everyone.


What if I hope we settle other planets, so I can stay indoors and game there instead?
 
2012-08-07 08:11:48 AM

MythDragon: [imgs.xkcd.com image 639x862]
This comic makes me sad.


The ability of humans to anthropomorphize so that we feel sympathy for inanimate objects is really amazing, isn't it?
 
2012-08-07 08:13:51 AM

James F. Campbell: The ability of humans to anthropomorphize so that we feel sympathy for inanimate objects is really amazing, isn't it?


Though, uh, not as amazing, obviously, as the collaborative human effort necessary to land a one-ton robot safely on Mars.
 
2012-08-07 09:20:13 AM

Fubini:
The rover only has so much bandwidth available to transmit data back to Earth, so rather than transmitting the full, high-resolution version it has instead transmitted a highly compressed version (192x144 resolution). This compressed version will let scientists determine if they need to get the whole video right away, or if it can wait and be a low-priority task. It looks as though the landing went very smoothly, but if something unexpected had happened during landing these images would be very high priority, just to figure out what happened and why.

.


Probably has AT&T.
 
2012-08-07 09:27:32 AM

Trapper439: You'd think that Curiousity would have been listening to some music on the way down in order to heighten the experience. What a dull individual it must be. I bet it's a real blast at parties.


Pretty sure its first Tweet was all full of sexual innuendo, so I thinks its alright.
 
2012-08-07 10:46:12 AM

fragMasterFlash: Dadoody: Aperture science:
We do what me must
Because we can.

I'm not even AZN


That was awesome. I love that song.
 
2012-08-07 11:14:03 AM
Loved watching this live. Hail science. I can't wait to see what comes of curiosity.
 
2012-08-07 11:32:27 AM
blogs.discovermagazine.com

For anyone that talks about NASA's budget being too high, programs such as this being a waste of money, etc.

Here's a fact for you:

The American public perceives the NASA budget as commanding a much larger share of the federal budget than it in fact does. A 1997 poll reported that Americans had an average estimate of 20% for NASA's share of the federal budget, far higher than the actual 0.5% to under 1% that has been maintained throughout the late '90s and first decade of the 2000s.

This budget is being decreased further in 2013 with a 20 percent reduction in NASA's planetary science division.

Here's the kicker, the return on the investment:

The $25 billion in 1958 dollars spent on civilian space R & D during the 1958-1969 period has returned $52 billion through 1971 -- and will continue to produce pay offs through 1987, at which time the total pay off will have been $181 billion. The discounted rate of return for this investment will have been 33 percent.

As a country, we have the general sentiment that we want to maintain our ability to be on the forefront of technical development but the lack of understanding of the general public and forethought of those that represent us in cutting science and R&D budgets is in direct opposition to this.

Now; if we look at other federal budgets, and the waste involved . . . the priorities of our nation our seriously suspect.

We need to think long term.
 
2012-08-07 11:36:51 AM
Very cool group of pictures in the video.

I also think this image is as well.

www.nasa.gov

NASA's Curiosity rover and its parachute were spotted by NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter as Curiosity descended to the surface.

/hot
 
2012-08-07 03:54:49 PM
GungFu 2012-08-06 11:31:15 PM

I just saw this on the NASA website. Is that real?

[www.gulliblehoaglandfanboi.com]


I am going to cosmically biatchslap you SO HARD your nineteen-greats-grandchildren's ears will be afflicted with severe tinnitus.
 
2012-08-07 04:05:32 PM

nmrsnr: EffervescingElephant: Can one of you Farkers please explain to me why this one is so friggin special, and why do i KNEED to watch the landing of another rover?

Hi, are you watching the Olympics? So far, we've had 30 of them, we have one every 4 years and the events are, more or less, the same ones every 4 years. Do you like watching people set world records? They are doing things marginally faster/higher/stronger than have ever been done before. Why do we care? Because it is something that people have planned and prepared for for years and have only one chance to succeed at. When they do, and they surpass what humanity has ever done before through sweat, blood, and tears, that is something worth getting excited about. If you don't get that, I really don't know what to tell you.


No....

The Olympics are all about "The Olympic Family" and the profits they generate for themselves via the corporate money machine. The games and the athletes are not the primary players in all of this. It's been this way for decades now.

Ever since 1984 the Olympics are about focusing on the sponsors to generate income and profit for the Olympic Family.

Wonder why all those empty seats at the venues? It's not because they couldn't sell them -- they're reserved for insiders. If they decide to show up...meh.

If you think this is about sports and the spirit of competition, you've been duped.

I've not watched the Olympics since 1984 -- just not interested in the money whoring and sponsors like McD banning other vendors from serving french fries at the venues. Go fark yourself McD.
 
2012-08-07 04:28:28 PM

Dunkelstar: Very cool group of pictures in the video.

I also think this image is as well.

[www.nasa.gov image 516x387]

NASA's Curiosity rover and its parachute were spotted by NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter as Curiosity descended to the surface.

/hot


Check NASA's pages; they now discovered that in that same picture, there was also the heat shield, in flight! It's online, go check it out.
 
2012-08-07 07:23:32 PM
farm8.staticflickr.com

Call me crazy but I think I saw better images in 1969 when we landed on the moon.

WHAT THE fark AM I LOOKING AT?!

/looks like Daytona farking Beach
 
2012-08-07 09:08:49 PM

flexflint: Dunkelstar: Very cool group of pictures in the video.

I also think this image is as well.

[www.nasa.gov image 516x387]

NASA's Curiosity rover and its parachute were spotted by NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter as Curiosity descended to the surface.

/hot

Check NASA's pages; they now discovered that in that same picture, there was also the heat shield, in flight! It's online, go check it out.


Very cool . . . just found it!

www.nasa.gov
 
Displayed 158 of 158 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report