Good to see him again. I enjoyed his "Cuckoo's Egg" book and TV special years ago.

> but these people seem slightly brain dead

I have to give them the benefit of the doubt.... 1) maybe their tv news doesn't focus on death and destruction like ours does, where tsunami = horror = death = let's make a TV special. And 2) like they said "they've never seen this."

Everyone who I have shown it to here in Alaska says the same thing "omg the water is going out I am RUNNING immediately"

Comment 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

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.

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.

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?

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.

@dag

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.

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.

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?

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.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'osmonds, donny, marie, kris kristofferson, tv special' to 'osmonds, donny, marie, kris kristofferson, tv special, 70s, tv' - edited by Issykitty

There may be a reason Gallagher does not have tv specials any more...

haha, this is more like it: http://videosift.com/video/Frank-Sinatra-Bing-Cosby-Christmas-TV-special
In reply to this comment by eric3579:
Hmmmm, Frank Sinatra sure looks a lot like David Bowie.

In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
'tis fixed, good sir! I forgot that it was I who posted that video! lol
In reply to this comment by eric3579:
*dead

Haha, that's hilarious. I must have been tired this morning. I'll see if I can fix it

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
Hmmmm, Frank Sinatra sure looks a lot like David Bowie.

In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
'tis fixed, good sir! I forgot that it was I who posted that video! lol
In reply to this comment by eric3579:
*dead

Hmmmm, Frank Sinatra sure looks a lot like David Bowie.

In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
'tis fixed, good sir! I forgot that it was I who posted that video! lol
In reply to this comment by eric3579:
*dead

'tis fixed, good sir! I forgot that it was I who posted that video! lol
In reply to this comment by eric3579:
*dead

Ah okay, I was wondering why I could find barely reviews for the second and third ...>> ^Zyrxil:

>> ^RedSky:
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was a great movie, but the sequels felt more like direct to TV specials or a miniseries.

That's because...they were. They were smaller budget TV films with different directors, but then released in theaters because of the first's popularity.

>> ^RedSky:

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was a great movie, but the sequels felt more like direct to TV specials or a miniseries.


That's because...they were. They were smaller budget TV films with different directors, but then released in theaters because of the first's popularity.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was a great movie, but the sequels felt more like direct to TV specials or a miniseries. Still great, but nowhere as good as the first.

But yeah, it's going to be hilarious to see how badly they butcher this and the other Swedish moving they're ripping off, Let the Right One In.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Green Screen, ChromaKey, Fake, TV, Special Effects' to 'green screen, chromakey, compositing, fake, tv, special effects' - edited by Stingray

I think a more descriptive title might attract more attention.
Video info from YT: William F. Buckley on cigarettes, illegal drugs and hypocrisy, excerpt from 1988 ABC TV special hosted by Ted Koppel