4,346 views
5:07
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
29 Comments
articianThat's a lot of bullshit over-dramatization for information that seems interesting enough on its own.
dagComment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)
I've been following this for a while - and I'm seriously rooting for this mission, but count me as one of the people who thinks this is crazy, hubristic and over-engineered with too many points of failure.
Mars is a graveyard of failed missions. The most successful method of getting a rover on Mars to date has been the bouncing cushion balls method. Why wouldn't you try and improve on that method instead of going with a completely, untested extremely complicated new method? I suspect personalities and nerd egos are involved.
I understand that the sheer size of this rover (small car) makes it too big for a single bouncing-ball drop, but why not then, do two and let them come together and connect on landing?
If this mission succeeds, I promise to post a Sift Talk post saying sorry for being a dick about this mission and lacking faith in our scientists. *promote.
siftbotPromoting this video back to the front page; last published Friday, June 22nd, 2012 5:28pm PDT - promote requested by dag.
iL0VmyDrsays...>> ^artician:
That's a lot of bullshit over-dramatization for information that seems interesting enough on its own.
One of my main issues with Discovery, History, National Geographic channels, etc... Do the people producing this stuff really have that little faith in the content they're presenting or are so oblivious to what good content is to think it needs all this shaky-cam cgi, mood lighted talking heads, dramatic music and whatnot to stay interesting?
Regarding the video... What a wild way to get a rover on the surface! Can't wait to see some rover-eye view video of the landing!
articianThe modern entertainment industry has made me bitter, but I'm pretty certain it's as simple as:
Ratings begin to drop for the networks.
The networks try different approaches to improve amount of viewers.
One approach, making every production cinematic and dramatically themed, seems to spark a rise in viewership.
The network bosses take it as a sign as the right way to go, and the rest is... the History channel. (see what I did there?!)
I still hate it.
And yeah, I've been waiting for this mission and watching it progress the whole time as well. Despite the awkward approach to the decent, I hope they have great success and find lots of science.
siftbot2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.
marinarathis has nothing to do with cable tv. Tax dollars paid for this drama, because the mission isn't interesting, nor does it have scientific value, besides, what's the best way to spend 4 billion dollars?
Rambaldisays...>> ^artician:
That's a lot of bullshit over-dramatization for information that seems interesting enough on its own.
I find it interesting enough on its own too, but I can see why you have to dramatize it for people who aren't as interested in science. Also, it seems like NASA is a bit desperate in its efforts to make the mission seem interesting.
>> ^marinara:
this has nothing to do with cable tv. Tax dollars paid for this drama, because the mission isn't interesting, nor does it have scientific value, besides, what's the best way to spend 4 billion dollars?
Let's forget about the landing for a second. How is finding out if Mars could sustain life not interesting?
deathcow>> ^dag:
I've been following this for a while - and I'm seriously rooting for this mission, but count me as one of the people who thinks this is crazy, hubristic and over-engineered with too many points of failure.
Mars is a graveyard of failed missions. The most successful method of getting a rover on Mars to date has been the bouncing cushion balls method. Why wouldn't you try and improve on that method instead of going with a completely, untested extremely complicated new method? I suspect personalities and nerd egos are involved.
I understand that the sheer size of this rover (small car) makes it too big for a single bouncing-ball drop, but why not then, do two and let them come together and connect on landing?
If this mission succeeds, I promise to post a Sift Talk post saying sorry for being a dick about this mission and lacking faith in our scientists. promote.
I hope they send two JPL scientists over to kick your ass for this little morale building exercise. They do it too.. I've heard Sagan was actually killed while kicking ass. For planetary science. I'll assume you know that Hawking is a gangster.
dagComment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)
If the mission is a success, I will submit willingly. >> ^deathcow:
>> ^dag:
I've been following this for a while - and I'm seriously rooting for this mission, but count me as one of the people who thinks this is crazy, hubristic and over-engineered with too many points of failure.
Mars is a graveyard of failed missions. The most successful method of getting a rover on Mars to date has been the bouncing cushion balls method. Why wouldn't you try and improve on that method instead of going with a completely, untested extremely complicated new method? I suspect personalities and nerd egos are involved.
I understand that the sheer size of this rover (small car) makes it too big for a single bouncing-ball drop, but why not then, do two and let them come together and connect on landing?
If this mission succeeds, I promise to post a Sift Talk post saying sorry for being a dick about this mission and lacking faith in our scientists. promote.
I hope they send two JPL scientists over to kick your ass for this little morale building exercise. They do it too.. I've heard Sagan was actually killed while kicking ass. For planetary science.
saber2x*engineering *science
siftbotAdding video to channels (Engineering, Science) - requested by saber2x.
deathcowI gotta agree that wow, that is one hell of a sequence of events. And I have never seen video of real Earth tests of the various pieces of this.. you'd think there'd be cool video of at least some segments of this?
I'll be a bit heartbroken if this one dies. A car sized lander powered by the decay of 10+ pounds of plutonium. On top of that, it's nicely built: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Arm_and_Mast_of_NASA_Mars_Rover_Curiosity_533976main_pia13981-43_full.jpg
Not your typical Hobbycraft RC quality.
I am off now to wrap everything in kapton tape, good day.
Fletch>> ^marinara:
besides, what's the best way to spend 4 billion dollars?
How about two weeks in Iraq? That's Iraq... just Iraq. Doesn't, of course, include the human toll, and the cost of disability paid out over the next 60 years, not to mention the cost to our reputation around the world.
Only four billion to get a car-sized rover to Mars? A fucking bargain. NASA should get 10 times the budget they are currently working with. Hell, a hundred times. Four billion is a drop in the bucket.
Fletch@dag
Are humans supposed to bounce across the surface in a balloon when/if we ever send a manned mission? Do you think that success or failure of this landing precludes learning anything from it? We don't get to send landers to Mars very often, so the opportunity for testing new procedures and techniques has to be taken when it can. Every little thing is done for a reason. If you think it's the result of "personalities and nerd egos", there are hundreds of books, TV specials, and documentaries out there that detail just about everything NASA has ever done, from inception to success or failure, as well as the people and personalities involved, that I think will change your mind. Here's a good place to start. Great book.
Assuming you are serious...
The success rate of Mars missions is not good. On top of that are budget and launch window considerations. Are you really suggesting that TWO separate pieces be launched, have them both fly 150 million miles to Mars, enter orbit, BOTH successfully land (and land close enough they can find each other), find each other, and then connect somehow to make one rover just so they can use ballons? Really? Talk about complicated... It would take an incredibly huge nerd ego to even ATTEMPT to sell that idea. Even a single launch with two pieces on board would rely on the success of two completely separate and complicated landings and a meet-up before the rover mission could even begin. This also means the weight of each half of the rover would have to be reduced so two separate landing systems can be included. Less room for instruments. Less science. Anyhoo, this system is not so different from the previous rovers. They weren't just dropped from a parachute. The atmosphere is too thin for a parachute alone. RAD (rocket assisted descent) motors brought the rovers to a near dead stop about 50 feet above the surface and they were released. This landing also calls for more precision, as the landing zone is much more specific.
dagComment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)
Yep, that's what I'm suggesting. Though I guess by the way you've framed your questions you think I'm insane. The success rate of the balloon method is not bad. And getting two rovers down from a single launch is also something that's been successful. I don't think it's that unreasonable to consider that two rovers like Spirit and Opportunity could carry complementary gear, meet up and connect.
You're right that we don't send landers to Mars very often - that's why it's important to build on successful technologies with a proven track record of success to maximise our chances.
Thanks for the link - I've reviewed a lot of this stuff too though I appreciate more information even if it is delivered with a heavy dose of condescension.
Egos and personalities involved in science? Why would I ever think that - everything we do or say or write comes from a completely rational base right?
>> ^Fletch:
@dag
Are humans supposed to bounce across the surface in a balloon when/if we ever send a manned mission? Do you think that success or failure of this landing precludes learning anything from it? We don't get to send landers to Mars very often, so the opportunity for testing new procedures and techniques has to be taken when it can. Every little thing is done for a reason. If you think it's the result of "personalities and nerd egos", there are hundreds of books, TV specials, and documentaries out there that detail just about everything NASA has ever done, from inception to success or failure, as well as the people and personalities involved, that I think will change your mind. Here's a good place to start. Great book.
Assuming you are serious...
The success rate of Mars missions is not good. On top of that are budget and launch window considerations. Are you really suggesting that TWO separate pieces be launched, have them both fly 150 million miles to Mars, enter orbit, BOTH successfully land (and land close enough they can find each other), find each other, and then connect somehow to make one rover just so they can use ballons? Really? Talk about complicated... It would take an incredibly huge nerd ego to even ATTEMPT to sell that idea. Even a single launch with two pieces on board would rely on the success of two completely separate and complicated landings and a meet-up before the rover mission could even begin. This also means the weight of each half of the rover would have to be reduced so two separate landing systems can be included. Less room for instruments. Less science. Anyhoo, this system is not so different from the previous rovers. They weren't just dropped from a parachute. The atmosphere is too thin for a parachute alone. RAD (rocket assisted descent) motors brought the rovers to a near dead stop about 50 feet above the surface and they were released. This landing also calls for more precision, as the landing zone is much more specific.
Fletch@dag
Disagreement is not condescension. I don't think you're insane. I just think you're wrong.
[Here's a link for you. Be sure and attach your idea for Dual Unit Mars Balloons to your resumé. I'm sure they will be very interested in your ideas.]
^THAT'S condescension (just an example, of course).
We are talking about NASA, not science in general, although I'm sure there are egos aplenty at NASA as well. But I find it very unlikely, ridiculous even, that a mission that has been purposely over-complicated just to satisfy said ego(s), in the face of budget constraints and time considerations, would even make it off the drawing board, much less all the way to Mars. That's just not the way missions are conceived, planned, and realized there.
As I mentioned, the only major difference between this landing and the previous rover landings is the winch instead of the balloon due to the size of Curiosity. I don't see the over-engineering. It's Mars. It's far away and it has little atmosphere for braking. If NASA could just hire some miners, retrofit the Shuttle with indestructable skin and gravity, and then send them to Mars with minimal training, they wouldn't need the winch.
BicycleRepairMan>> ^artician:
That's a lot of bullshit over-dramatization for information that seems interesting enough on its own.
I see what you mean, but I actually disagree somewhat. Yeah, this was all inceptionolized with the cool music and all, but so was Inception, and inception was a pretty cool movie, visually. Sure, it was only awesome actors hanging in wires in elaborate sets and greenscreens, but did it NEED the music to look cool? Probably not. But the music added to it, it helped tell the story, build the excitement and so forth. And even tho this is a real-life mission, there is a story to tell, and its even important that people understand it, understand the drama, the risks, and so on, and fancy music can help you tell the story. Would this have even been sifted if it was just a couple of scientists listing facts against a neutral background? Maybe, maybe not. But audio and visual presentation matters, and it works. It can go overboard and get silly ( like nearly everything on the discovery networks), but in this case, I actually think it helped emphasizing the drama involved.
oohlalasassoonThe most impressive aspect of this mission, if successful, will be if the tether doesn't get twisted all to hell. This shows a test of that drop. Kudos to them if they can pull that off for real.
dagComment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)
Dual Unit Mars Balloons - that's gold. >> ^Fletch:
@dag
Disagreement is not condescension. I don't think you're insane. I just think you're wrong.
[Here's a link for you. Be sure and attach your idea for Dual Unit Mars Balloons to your resumé. I'm sure they will be very interested in your ideas.]
^THAT'S condescension (just an example, of course).
We are talking about NASA, not science in general, although I'm sure there are egos aplenty at NASA as well. But I find it very unlikely, ridiculous even, that a mission that has been purposely over-complicated just to satisfy said ego(s), in the face of budget constraints and time considerations, would even make it off the drawing board, much less all the way to Mars. That's just not the way missions are conceived, planned, and realized there.
As I mentioned, the only major difference between this landing and the previous rover landings is the winch instead of the balloon due to the size of Curiosity. I don't see the over-engineering. It's Mars. It's far away and it has little atmosphere for braking. If NASA could just hire some miners, retrofit the Shuttle with indestructable skin and gravity, and then send them to Mars with minimal training, they wouldn't need the winch.
renatojjsays...@Fletch a stupid use for 4 billion taxpayer dollars doesn't make a less stupid use for 4 billion any more justifiable, specially now that we have so much cash lying around.
deathcowAnyone who thinks this money is stupidly spent should be keelhauled. Defense and petroleum sucks those kind of funds from Americans in hours.
dagComment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)
I definitely don't think the money is stupidly spent. Even if it fails I'm sure they will learn a lot. I just think it's got too many moving parts. Self-assembling nano-bots or the D.U.M.B. rovers FTW!
>> ^deathcow:
Anyone who thinks this money is stupidly spent should be keelhauled. Defense and petroleum sucks those kind of funds from Americans in hours.
renatojjsays...>> ^deathcow:
Anyone who thinks this money is stupidly spent should be keelhauled. Defense and petroleum sucks those kind of funds from Americans in hours.
Huh, look at that. It seems "less stupid than X" passes as smart these days.
I guess in times of record high unemployment is when we need space exploration spending the most. You know, to boost morale!
renatojjsays...Besides, it's not like Mars is going anywhere, we don't have a Cold War going on, so there's no rush to send expensive crap flying into space.
How about we let technology bring costs down and worry about burning space dollars some other time, like when we have an actual economy?
deathcow>> ^renatojj:
>> ^deathcow:
Anyone who thinks this money is stupidly spent should be keelhauled. Defense and petroleum sucks those kind of funds from Americans in hours.
Huh, look at that. It seems "less stupid than X" passes as smart these days.
I guess in times of record high unemployment is when we need space exploration spending the most. You know, to boost morale!
"Passes as smart?" thanks
The USA defense budget could pay for this entire Mars mission.... in LESS THAN ONE day. The USA annual defense budget is more than the next 15 highest spending countries combined, and many of those countries are USA allies.
Yet... not the right time to spend any money on scientific efforts. We should probably cancel these stupid Mars programs and give Lockheed/Haliburton another TWELVE HOURS of defense budget. Understood... thanks for schooling me on what smart is. Go Romney?
renatojjsays...@deathcow I have to admit your personal attacks do make a fantastic point. Space missions seem pretty smart when you compare them to our defense budget...
Yet, two wrongs don't make a right. Just throwing some smartness your way, you're welcome.
Good thing we have NASA to do space research and exploration for us, petty humans aren't curious or forward-thinking enough to risk their own money on that kind of stuff. Just take their money and if they question your motives, keelhaul them, right?
siftbot4 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.
GeeSussFreeKSo stoked!
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.