Last week NASA released a report saying how far behind stuff was and that they need another $70mil to meet the 2011 deadline.
This very nice animation shows the mission sequence really well from Earth orbit to landing on mars and a couple of experiments.
If you haven't seen the platform, it's really surprising how big the thing is!
Here is a comparison to the other Mars rovers:
I love this stuff. Can't wait until the beast is on the surface sending back awesome info.
Have to say though, as an engineer, the landing sequence looks awfully complex. I guess it's a necessity because of the atmosphere (i.e., they can't just rely on parachute). There is a lot in that sequence that can go wrong. Hovering by jet while lowering the rover by whinch....eesh.
thats pretty cool.
but i'd imagine the chance of mission success isnt the highest... So much to go wrong to get it to the surface. I imagine they have calculated exactly where they want it to land? would be shit to land it in a ravine or on a mountain and it tumbles down
very cool animation. yeh it does seem weird that they have chosen this type of landing for the rover rather than the previous parachute + bouncy-ball approach... but i assume they know what they are doing ;) i'll have a read about this a bit later today when i have some more free time... looks cool.
I imagine they have calculated exactly where they want it to land? would be shit to land it in a ravine or on a mountain and it tumbles down
Yeah they have chosen a landing spot. They were really lucky last time with Opportunity - they landed right on the lip of a big crater.
From Wikipedia:
Opportunity landed in Meridiani Planum at 1°57′S 354°28′E / 1.95°S 354.47°E / -1.95; 354.47, about 25 km downrange (east) of its intended target.[12] Although Meridiani is a flat plain, without the rock fields seen at previous Mars landing sites, Opportunity rolled into an impact crater 22 meters in diameter, with the rim of the crater approximately 10 meters (32 ft) from the rover.
^ lol. did faceman pay you to give that site props!?
i honestly can't believe people would spend their time doctoring nasa's images to try & make a case that rocks that looks like something recognisable are in fact the thing they kinda look like. what an utter waste of time & effort. the main dude is obviously just trying to pimp his fictional book.
can't be bothered tbh. i don't even have time right now to read the full nasa report of what this thread is about... but i will when i get home from work tonight. i will not spend time reading a site that says there are demon face images in the sands of mars!@#!! if they had something serious to say about the mars data... why are they putting it in the same site as a whole lot of bullshit?
can you at least tell me what part of the site you thought was worthwhile? coz i read 2 articles... both preposterous.
demon, yes when i read the articles similar to the the demon face I really do think he is crackers. However then i see imagery like this.
And...
Classic pareidolia - just because it looks like a tree doesn't mean it is a tree. Particularly at those resolutions. To conclude there is even a single forest complete with lake on Mars is to ignore a massive amount of scientific knowledge of the planet. I'm not talking about imagery from rovers - they might have missed such things - I'm talking about basics like atmosphere and habitat.
I imagine they have calculated exactly where they want it to land?
I'm sure JPL and NASA will have it covered, they've done it a few times now.
It's not like sending an exploration rover to Mars is rocket science or anything either... oh wait
Haha short circuit... if you haven't watched that recently I urge you to watch it. There is this hilariously racist character which is an Indian played by a white actor (it's Fisher Stevens from 'Lost' and 'Hackers'), and he has some lines about 'sporting a tremendous woody', virgins, and enemas and shit really inappropriate for the movie.
What the LOL Caveboy?! What's your criterion for determining what is crap on that site vs what is "interesting". I look at the pictures you posted and think "I have nfi what those are." Are you telling me you think they're water and trees, seriously?
From what i've seen on marsanomlyreasearch, Mars looks much more alive than the boring pictures we get from the rovers. Maybe im just a sucker and am squinting at blurred pixels and photoshopped images but if anyone can give me an explanation to what im looking at in images two and three other than dry lakes and weird alien vegetation that would be great.
if anyone can give me an explanation to what im looking at in images two and three other than dry lakes and weird alien vegetation that would be great.
fly to Perth and look out the window when you're over Lake Eyre. then imagine that landscape from 209 million miles away. you'll notice a striking similarity.
Possibly. There is a theory and some evidence that Mars was not unlike Earth at one stage, so lake beds are certainly possible. However, there is no water there (yet, as known) other than what is frozen in the ice caps, which I believe is mostly carbon dioxide actually.
and weird alien vegetation.
No.
Why does it have to be weird alien vegetation? It's the most unlikely explanation. The most likely explanation is dunes and rocky crags carved by very regular and abrasive dust storms (known to occur - the rovers experienced several).
but if anyone can give me an explanation to what im looking at in images two and three other than dry lakes and weird alien vegetation that would be great.
You've got it backwards. You first have to demonstrate why we shouldn't think the explanation is the first part of your sentence:
Maybe im just a sucker and am squinting at blurred pixels and photoshopped images
Also, please tell us what conspiracy you subscribe to that explains why NASA hasn't made this worldwide news, like they did when they thought they found bacteria on earth that they thought could survive on arsenic.
Would religion not become obsolete if we found out that we are not special and life is in fact everywhere?
c'mon dude.... listen to your own explanations... nasa covered up vegetation on mars because they thought it would make religion obsolete? like seriously?!?
if the scientists from nasa... or even the european space union.. thought there was something worth examining on the surface of mars as ground-breaking as a forest of vegetation they would be all over that. they would be using the mars recon orbitor to get more definite images of the area. if there was liquid water then how is it staying liquid & not evaporating or freezing? if there was vegetation why is there no chemical signature in the atmosphere?
i assume nasa scientists viewed the images & decided they were rock formations or dunes because all the evidence to date supports that conclusion.
Just to add to this thread they have narrowed down the choice of landing location for Curiosity to two places.
One, somewhere near this 5km tall crater/mountain called Gale crater.
The advantage is that it will have a large cross-section of Mars on show, much like canyons on the Earth do. If you can see the sedimentary layers you can learn a lot about the history of the planet.
The other thing is there are clays and sulfates there which need water to be able to generate the compound, so that would strengthen to confirm with the on-board lab the hypothesis that Mars was once more like Earth.
The other site, Eberswalde crater, is for the layers as well - but they are expected to be much more defined than at Gale crater.
I love the stuff/models they have done with LiDAR would be very cool for me to be involved with that part of it all.
I do the exact same work with ALS data over Logan, but doing it for Mars would just seem so much cooler.
NASA knows we are not alone.
Their Astronauts have seen evidence on The Moon that we are not alone.
One instance is the claim that a crashed SpaceShip is on The Moon.
A secret Apollo Mission involving US and Soviet Astronauts went to investigate a wrecked SpaceShip on The Moon in the late '70s.
The Site had been recently visited due to other evidence they found.
Clearly not from Earth.
The Ship was estimated to be 1.5 Billion years old.
There are a few videos around the internet claiming to be footage of the Ship taken from a low orbit.
We should have Bases on The Moon and have been off to Mars by now.
Is there some other reason why we are not on the Moon ?
Is someone else already using it ?
The fuck FaceMan!? Have you ever heard of pareidolia? The reality is that most of what we do as humans with our vision system is pattern recognition. How else do you look at something and think, "Yeah, that's MatchFixah's mum." - pattern recognition.
In this particular case your pattern recognition system is borken.
Even looking further afield, demon, if you assume that at least one Earth-like planet in the universe has supported sustained life then the sheer number of Earth-like planets leads a lot of credence to the theory that we are not alone.
TBH this is just as bad as claiming the opposite. The 'proof' you use for this statement is that it hasn't been all over the TV? lol.
Yeah, like totally bro. It's also the reason I don't believe in the dildo monster from dimension X - because I haven't seen any 'proof' of it on TV. (insert mom joke here)
TBH this is just as bad as claiming the opposite. The 'proof' you use for this statement is that it hasn't been all over the TV? lol.
Nah, that's not how science works.
You accept the most simple and reasonable explanation (i.e., no aliens on the moon and no aliens visiting Earth).
Then if you want you have a hypothesis that there are aliens on the moon and visiting Earth and you test that. The burden of proof is on the whoever is trying to claim this.
Because it is a very large claim the amount of proof required is substantially large - e.g., multiple bodies of said aliens perhaps, something like that.
Because it is a very large claim the amount of proof required is substantially large - e.g., multiple bodies of said aliens perhaps, something like that.
The thing is we can't even get a single image that isn't completely ambiguous or doesn't have several indications it was faked. But like I said, the lack of real evidence is just evidence that there's a conspiracy.
The thing is we can't even get a single image that isn't completely ambiguous or doesn't have several indications it was faked. But like I said, the lack of real evidence is just evidence that there's a conspiracy.
Or some person uneducated in geology, or anything remotely of that nature, re-interprets satellite geo data and says, "This is a lake with trees." while another multi-million dollar project is being planned around scientific experiments that can determine if there is even any water or life on said planet - much less any lakes or trees.
Conspiracy theorists are so delusional they don't even stop to think about the massive amount of evidence that HAS been collected in an effort to test other hypotheses which severely impedes their own theories. They just ignore it completely - a clear warning that you should discount anything they are saying because of lack of due dilligence in their approach at all (and you can do all this regardless of what their theory even is).
PM
WWW
