|
Keep Nation bragging and the political debate out. |
Deleting this post, apparently mods are on the case.
|
i don't think we'll find anything significant on mars, we know there is frozen water locked in the ice caps, and some of the surface terrain looks like it may have been carved by smooth flowing channels of water or some liquid in the past. also mars being low density and having no atmosphere while we know that outgassing of carbon dioxide or whatever occured in the past, everything points to mars having had the all the right ingredients for life such as microorganisms or prokaryotic cells or whatever....in the past, but not now or possibly ever in the future
|
I attended a lecture that's part of the Von Karman lecture series which is hosted here in California once a month ( For Californians: It's free for admission and it's usually at both CalTech/PCC or JPL. )
It's a really cool lecture series about ongoing projects at NASA/JPL. Their home page is:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/events/lectures.cfm
Anyway, they had a lecture series back in 2011 about Curiosity and its many features. It's a great lecture for learning about what the rover is actually capable of and the general workings of it. Check it out!!
Lecture!
|
NASA is heavily focused on high profile mars missions compared to the lesser counterpart ESA, in terms of budget, which are constructing producing low cost but high scientific probes. But i feel like the high profile missions are taking away resources from general questions of how the universe works. Why aren't NASA building more probes to study black holes and gravitational waves? The knowledge to the inner workings of the universe is far more important than the quest for life in the long run. That's why I feel that NASA to some extent is trying to boost american nationalism through big rover missions to Mars. Isn't the understanding of our physical realm better for america and the world as a whole than the unavoidable confirmation of life at some distant moon or planet?
|
On August 09 2012 01:20 stratmatt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 01:18 Vega62a wrote:On August 09 2012 01:03 m4inbrain wrote:On August 09 2012 00:33 EchOne wrote:On August 08 2012 22:26 Hider wrote:On August 08 2012 22:17 Medrea wrote:
NASA is dirt cheap and has always been worth the cost. People are seriously questioning whether the landing was worth the money?
That's just straight ignorant.
We spent 7 billion this year on potato chips. Lets see a complaint about those. 3 times the complaints please. Nice post: 1) No sources (needed for that kind post). 2) You think subjective values can be rationalized as objective values. http://www.pepsico.com/Download/Frito-Lay_Quick_Facts.pdfApparently just this one company makes at least $13 billion in annual sales. .. Frito‐Lay products are exported to 79 countries around the globe, including military destinations. Rings a bell? Edit: again, dont get me wrong, im excited for the pictures - but thats mainly because i dont have to pay for them. If it were my taxmoney, i would like to see them spending it on different things (actually, we in [west]germany have such a thing, called "solidarity surcharge" for [east]germany and im pissed off about that as well). You'd like to see them spending your tax money on something other than amazing innovations for the future and creating entirely new industries out of basically thin air? Like what? dude, just ignore him. this isnt even a discussion worth having.
Eh, I always just thought it would be nice if taxpayers could choose where their money went.
(I guarantee you more people would check off roads and bike lanes than looking at rocks on Mars)
|
On August 09 2012 06:33 xrapture wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 01:20 stratmatt wrote:On August 09 2012 01:18 Vega62a wrote:On August 09 2012 01:03 m4inbrain wrote:On August 09 2012 00:33 EchOne wrote:On August 08 2012 22:26 Hider wrote:On August 08 2012 22:17 Medrea wrote:
NASA is dirt cheap and has always been worth the cost. People are seriously questioning whether the landing was worth the money?
That's just straight ignorant.
We spent 7 billion this year on potato chips. Lets see a complaint about those. 3 times the complaints please. Nice post: 1) No sources (needed for that kind post). 2) You think subjective values can be rationalized as objective values. http://www.pepsico.com/Download/Frito-Lay_Quick_Facts.pdfApparently just this one company makes at least $13 billion in annual sales. .. Frito‐Lay products are exported to 79 countries around the globe, including military destinations. Rings a bell? Edit: again, dont get me wrong, im excited for the pictures - but thats mainly because i dont have to pay for them. If it were my taxmoney, i would like to see them spending it on different things (actually, we in [west]germany have such a thing, called "solidarity surcharge" for [east]germany and im pissed off about that as well). You'd like to see them spending your tax money on something other than amazing innovations for the future and creating entirely new industries out of basically thin air? Like what? dude, just ignore him. this isnt even a discussion worth having. Eh, I always just thought it would be nice if taxpayers could choose where their money went. (I guarantee you more people would check off roads and bike lanes than looking at rocks on Mars)
Sounds like a great plan.. I'll just be over on the sidelines watching as society collapses because nobody wants to pay for shit - ever. As has been discussed and mentioned, the budget for NASA is minuscule in comparison to the overall federal budget. If you want to complain about government spending; NASA is not the proper target and this isn't the proper thread for it.
|
On August 09 2012 07:07 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 06:33 xrapture wrote:On August 09 2012 01:20 stratmatt wrote:On August 09 2012 01:18 Vega62a wrote:On August 09 2012 01:03 m4inbrain wrote:On August 09 2012 00:33 EchOne wrote:On August 08 2012 22:26 Hider wrote:On August 08 2012 22:17 Medrea wrote:
NASA is dirt cheap and has always been worth the cost. People are seriously questioning whether the landing was worth the money?
That's just straight ignorant.
We spent 7 billion this year on potato chips. Lets see a complaint about those. 3 times the complaints please. Nice post: 1) No sources (needed for that kind post). 2) You think subjective values can be rationalized as objective values. http://www.pepsico.com/Download/Frito-Lay_Quick_Facts.pdfApparently just this one company makes at least $13 billion in annual sales. .. Frito‐Lay products are exported to 79 countries around the globe, including military destinations. Rings a bell? Edit: again, dont get me wrong, im excited for the pictures - but thats mainly because i dont have to pay for them. If it were my taxmoney, i would like to see them spending it on different things (actually, we in [west]germany have such a thing, called "solidarity surcharge" for [east]germany and im pissed off about that as well). You'd like to see them spending your tax money on something other than amazing innovations for the future and creating entirely new industries out of basically thin air? Like what? dude, just ignore him. this isnt even a discussion worth having. Eh, I always just thought it would be nice if taxpayers could choose where their money went. (I guarantee you more people would check off roads and bike lanes than looking at rocks on Mars) Sounds like a great plan.. I'll just be over on the sidelines watching as society collapses because nobody wants to pay for shit - ever. As has been discussed and mentioned, the budget for NASA is minuscule in comparison to the overall federal budget. If you want to complain about government spending; NASA is not the proper target and this isn't the proper thread for it.
I am getting so sick and tired of these AWFUL arguments. I'm talking about NASA, yet you point the finger to something else. Sounds like a logical fallacy, yea? I don't care about NASA's budget in comparison to the overall federal budget. I'm not talking about anything other than NASA and I'm saying it's an utter waste of money.
Keep pointing the finger with the inability to form a coherent sentence. Whatever you do, peace, I'm out of this horrible thread.
|
On August 09 2012 07:12 xrapture wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 07:07 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On August 09 2012 06:33 xrapture wrote:On August 09 2012 01:20 stratmatt wrote:On August 09 2012 01:18 Vega62a wrote:On August 09 2012 01:03 m4inbrain wrote:On August 09 2012 00:33 EchOne wrote:On August 08 2012 22:26 Hider wrote:On August 08 2012 22:17 Medrea wrote:
NASA is dirt cheap and has always been worth the cost. People are seriously questioning whether the landing was worth the money?
That's just straight ignorant.
We spent 7 billion this year on potato chips. Lets see a complaint about those. 3 times the complaints please. Nice post: 1) No sources (needed for that kind post). 2) You think subjective values can be rationalized as objective values. http://www.pepsico.com/Download/Frito-Lay_Quick_Facts.pdfApparently just this one company makes at least $13 billion in annual sales. .. Frito‐Lay products are exported to 79 countries around the globe, including military destinations. Rings a bell? Edit: again, dont get me wrong, im excited for the pictures - but thats mainly because i dont have to pay for them. If it were my taxmoney, i would like to see them spending it on different things (actually, we in [west]germany have such a thing, called "solidarity surcharge" for [east]germany and im pissed off about that as well). You'd like to see them spending your tax money on something other than amazing innovations for the future and creating entirely new industries out of basically thin air? Like what? dude, just ignore him. this isnt even a discussion worth having. Eh, I always just thought it would be nice if taxpayers could choose where their money went. (I guarantee you more people would check off roads and bike lanes than looking at rocks on Mars) Sounds like a great plan.. I'll just be over on the sidelines watching as society collapses because nobody wants to pay for shit - ever. As has been discussed and mentioned, the budget for NASA is minuscule in comparison to the overall federal budget. If you want to complain about government spending; NASA is not the proper target and this isn't the proper thread for it. I am getting so sick and tired of these AWFUL arguments. I'm talking about NASA, yet you point the finger to something else. Sounds like a logical fallacy, yea? I don't care about NASA's budget in comparison to the overall federal budget. I'm not talking about anything other than NASA and I'm saying it's an utter waste of money. Keep pointing the finger with the inability to form a coherent sentence. Whatever you do, peace, I'm out of this horrible thread.
good riddance
|
On August 09 2012 07:12 xrapture wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 07:07 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On August 09 2012 06:33 xrapture wrote:On August 09 2012 01:20 stratmatt wrote:On August 09 2012 01:18 Vega62a wrote:On August 09 2012 01:03 m4inbrain wrote:On August 09 2012 00:33 EchOne wrote:On August 08 2012 22:26 Hider wrote:On August 08 2012 22:17 Medrea wrote:
NASA is dirt cheap and has always been worth the cost. People are seriously questioning whether the landing was worth the money?
That's just straight ignorant.
We spent 7 billion this year on potato chips. Lets see a complaint about those. 3 times the complaints please. Nice post: 1) No sources (needed for that kind post). 2) You think subjective values can be rationalized as objective values. http://www.pepsico.com/Download/Frito-Lay_Quick_Facts.pdfApparently just this one company makes at least $13 billion in annual sales. .. Frito‐Lay products are exported to 79 countries around the globe, including military destinations. Rings a bell? Edit: again, dont get me wrong, im excited for the pictures - but thats mainly because i dont have to pay for them. If it were my taxmoney, i would like to see them spending it on different things (actually, we in [west]germany have such a thing, called "solidarity surcharge" for [east]germany and im pissed off about that as well). You'd like to see them spending your tax money on something other than amazing innovations for the future and creating entirely new industries out of basically thin air? Like what? dude, just ignore him. this isnt even a discussion worth having. Eh, I always just thought it would be nice if taxpayers could choose where their money went. (I guarantee you more people would check off roads and bike lanes than looking at rocks on Mars) Sounds like a great plan.. I'll just be over on the sidelines watching as society collapses because nobody wants to pay for shit - ever. As has been discussed and mentioned, the budget for NASA is minuscule in comparison to the overall federal budget. If you want to complain about government spending; NASA is not the proper target and this isn't the proper thread for it. I am getting so sick and tired of these AWFUL arguments. I'm talking about NASA, yet you point the finger to something else. Sounds like a logical fallacy, yea? I don't care about NASA's budget in comparison to the overall federal budget. I'm not talking about anything other than NASA and I'm saying it's an utter waste of money. Keep pointing the finger with the inability to form a coherent sentence. Whatever you do, peace, I'm out of this horrible thread.
Checkmate, atheists.
|
On August 08 2012 22:37 Medrea wrote:
For a nuclear powered device you'd think it would be more capable than .2 MPH heh. Can't wait till it starts drilling. Im expecting us to find salt, a ton of salt.
Hm, missed this post when reading yesterday, and i thought i would explain for those who might have wondered about it.
There are different flavors of nuclear power, and the RTG powering the rover utilizes the most simple, safe, and reliable one. The RTG is essentially a chunk of plutonium that is generating heat due to natural decay, and the heat differential between the plutonium and the atmosphere is what generates the power, via a thermocouple. No fusion or fission is occuring, which is where the real energy comes into play with nuclear. This specific RTG produces only 115 watts, which isnt even enough to power the rover for the entire day, which is one of the reasons why they let it sleep at night.
There are more practical reasons why you dont want it going fast, but that is the technical reason.
|
On August 09 2012 07:12 xrapture wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 07:07 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On August 09 2012 06:33 xrapture wrote:On August 09 2012 01:20 stratmatt wrote:On August 09 2012 01:18 Vega62a wrote:On August 09 2012 01:03 m4inbrain wrote:On August 09 2012 00:33 EchOne wrote:On August 08 2012 22:26 Hider wrote:On August 08 2012 22:17 Medrea wrote:
NASA is dirt cheap and has always been worth the cost. People are seriously questioning whether the landing was worth the money?
That's just straight ignorant.
We spent 7 billion this year on potato chips. Lets see a complaint about those. 3 times the complaints please. Nice post: 1) No sources (needed for that kind post). 2) You think subjective values can be rationalized as objective values. http://www.pepsico.com/Download/Frito-Lay_Quick_Facts.pdfApparently just this one company makes at least $13 billion in annual sales. .. Frito‐Lay products are exported to 79 countries around the globe, including military destinations. Rings a bell? Edit: again, dont get me wrong, im excited for the pictures - but thats mainly because i dont have to pay for them. If it were my taxmoney, i would like to see them spending it on different things (actually, we in [west]germany have such a thing, called "solidarity surcharge" for [east]germany and im pissed off about that as well). You'd like to see them spending your tax money on something other than amazing innovations for the future and creating entirely new industries out of basically thin air? Like what? dude, just ignore him. this isnt even a discussion worth having. Eh, I always just thought it would be nice if taxpayers could choose where their money went. (I guarantee you more people would check off roads and bike lanes than looking at rocks on Mars) Sounds like a great plan.. I'll just be over on the sidelines watching as society collapses because nobody wants to pay for shit - ever. As has been discussed and mentioned, the budget for NASA is minuscule in comparison to the overall federal budget. If you want to complain about government spending; NASA is not the proper target and this isn't the proper thread for it. I am getting so sick and tired of these AWFUL arguments. I'm talking about NASA, yet you point the finger to something else. Sounds like a logical fallacy, yea? I don't care about NASA's budget in comparison to the overall federal budget. I'm not talking about anything other than NASA and I'm saying it's an utter waste of money. Keep pointing the finger with the inability to form a coherent sentence. Whatever you do, peace, I'm out of this horrible thread.
Has anyone here ever dropped a penny, and not bothered to pick it back up... because it's a damn penny. That's kind of what this "wasted money" on NASA is like...
Except this time we dropped half a penny.
Edit: The poster I'm responding to doesn't need to just get out of this thread... he needs to get out of this country. We waste much more money on oversees military presence (I think the euphemism used is "Defense spending").
|
Getting this trash thread back on track:
NASA - Image Gallery
Here is a link to all the pictures that have come down so far. It is being updated daily. There are quite a few full res images (greater than 1600x1200) down at this point. I personally find the MARDI image of the heatshield falling away (#2) super impressive.
There is a panorama of the landscape around the rover (#10) and some color images of the surface. The numbering is being changed as new pics are added so apologies if these are wrong when you view the page.
|
On August 09 2012 08:37 Rayeth wrote:Getting this trash thread back on track: NASA - Image GalleryHere is a link to all the pictures that have come down so far. It is being updated daily. There are quite a few full res images (greater than 1600x1200) down at this point. I personally find the MARDI image of the heatshield falling away (#2) super impressive. There is a panorama of the landscape around the rover (#10) and some color images of the surface. The numbering is being changed as new pics are added so apologies if these are wrong when you view the page.
Cool pix, thanks for posting. I wish they would have landed near the supposed "faces of mars", i mean, may as well right? No matter what the anomalies are they would have been cool to see in high res.
|
On August 09 2012 08:42 Soulstice wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 08:37 Rayeth wrote:Getting this trash thread back on track: NASA - Image GalleryHere is a link to all the pictures that have come down so far. It is being updated daily. There are quite a few full res images (greater than 1600x1200) down at this point. I personally find the MARDI image of the heatshield falling away (#2) super impressive. There is a panorama of the landscape around the rover (#10) and some color images of the surface. The numbering is being changed as new pics are added so apologies if these are wrong when you view the page. Cool pix, thanks for posting. I wish they would have landed near the supposed "faces of mars", i mean, may as well right? No matter what the anomalies are they would have been cool to see in high res.
There already is a high res image of the "face on mars"
![[image loading]](http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2001/05/22/ast24may_1_resources/trailmap.gif)
alien on mars conspiracy theories are much more exciting with grainy photos in terrible lighting 
|
Legit question: Why are you concerned what America spends a tiny percentage of its tax dollars on?
If you would actually read instead of just talking bs, you would have seen that i explicitly said "im excited for curiousity, because i dont have to pay for it" - and i was asked what i would like to see my taxmoney spend on, if it were. Get it? Its not too hard, stop being butthurt and read what people write. I actually quoted the guy in the posting you "thrashed", so dont tell me you didnt see that.
Guess its just too hard to read at least the same frikkin page if you respond to something.
Edit: wow, after reading it again: everything you wrote in that posting is utter bs, thats an accomplishment - seriously. Maybe try to follow something before you write such a huge pile.
|
On August 09 2012 07:12 xrapture wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 07:07 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On August 09 2012 06:33 xrapture wrote:On August 09 2012 01:20 stratmatt wrote:On August 09 2012 01:18 Vega62a wrote:On August 09 2012 01:03 m4inbrain wrote:On August 09 2012 00:33 EchOne wrote:On August 08 2012 22:26 Hider wrote:On August 08 2012 22:17 Medrea wrote:
NASA is dirt cheap and has always been worth the cost. People are seriously questioning whether the landing was worth the money?
That's just straight ignorant.
We spent 7 billion this year on potato chips. Lets see a complaint about those. 3 times the complaints please. Nice post: 1) No sources (needed for that kind post). 2) You think subjective values can be rationalized as objective values. http://www.pepsico.com/Download/Frito-Lay_Quick_Facts.pdfApparently just this one company makes at least $13 billion in annual sales. .. Frito‐Lay products are exported to 79 countries around the globe, including military destinations. Rings a bell? Edit: again, dont get me wrong, im excited for the pictures - but thats mainly because i dont have to pay for them. If it were my taxmoney, i would like to see them spending it on different things (actually, we in [west]germany have such a thing, called "solidarity surcharge" for [east]germany and im pissed off about that as well). You'd like to see them spending your tax money on something other than amazing innovations for the future and creating entirely new industries out of basically thin air? Like what? dude, just ignore him. this isnt even a discussion worth having. Eh, I always just thought it would be nice if taxpayers could choose where their money went. (I guarantee you more people would check off roads and bike lanes than looking at rocks on Mars) Sounds like a great plan.. I'll just be over on the sidelines watching as society collapses because nobody wants to pay for shit - ever. As has been discussed and mentioned, the budget for NASA is minuscule in comparison to the overall federal budget. If you want to complain about government spending; NASA is not the proper target and this isn't the proper thread for it. I am getting so sick and tired of these AWFUL arguments. I'm talking about NASA, yet you point the finger to something else. Sounds like a logical fallacy, yea? I don't care about NASA's budget in comparison to the overall federal budget. I'm not talking about anything other than NASA and I'm saying it's an utter waste of money. Keep pointing the finger with the inability to form a coherent sentence. Whatever you do, peace, I'm out of this horrible thread.
Actually you said that it would be nice if taxpayers could choose where their money went, so the hypothetical trip into what would happen if everyone stopped paying for things was of your making.
Few complain about spending billions on new aircraft carriers and jets and a slew of other inefficiencies. But when it comes down to learning something about our world and therefore investing in the future, we're all in penny-pinching mode. I am a bit surprised at some of the misunderstanding that goes on in the public perception of science.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
How about this: let's get back on topic. If you people don't like Curious and NASA, go make a topic about how it's a waste of money and talk about it there.
|
On August 09 2012 07:12 xrapture wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 07:07 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On August 09 2012 06:33 xrapture wrote:On August 09 2012 01:20 stratmatt wrote:On August 09 2012 01:18 Vega62a wrote:On August 09 2012 01:03 m4inbrain wrote:On August 09 2012 00:33 EchOne wrote:On August 08 2012 22:26 Hider wrote:On August 08 2012 22:17 Medrea wrote:
NASA is dirt cheap and has always been worth the cost. People are seriously questioning whether the landing was worth the money?
That's just straight ignorant.
We spent 7 billion this year on potato chips. Lets see a complaint about those. 3 times the complaints please. Nice post: 1) No sources (needed for that kind post). 2) You think subjective values can be rationalized as objective values. http://www.pepsico.com/Download/Frito-Lay_Quick_Facts.pdfApparently just this one company makes at least $13 billion in annual sales. .. Frito‐Lay products are exported to 79 countries around the globe, including military destinations. Rings a bell? Edit: again, dont get me wrong, im excited for the pictures - but thats mainly because i dont have to pay for them. If it were my taxmoney, i would like to see them spending it on different things (actually, we in [west]germany have such a thing, called "solidarity surcharge" for [east]germany and im pissed off about that as well). You'd like to see them spending your tax money on something other than amazing innovations for the future and creating entirely new industries out of basically thin air? Like what? dude, just ignore him. this isnt even a discussion worth having. Eh, I always just thought it would be nice if taxpayers could choose where their money went. (I guarantee you more people would check off roads and bike lanes than looking at rocks on Mars) Sounds like a great plan.. I'll just be over on the sidelines watching as society collapses because nobody wants to pay for shit - ever. As has been discussed and mentioned, the budget for NASA is minuscule in comparison to the overall federal budget. If you want to complain about government spending; NASA is not the proper target and this isn't the proper thread for it. I am getting so sick and tired of these AWFUL arguments. I'm talking about NASA, yet you point the finger to something else. Sounds like a logical fallacy, yea? I don't care about NASA's budget in comparison to the overall federal budget. I'm not talking about anything other than NASA and I'm saying it's an utter waste of money. Keep pointing the finger with the inability to form a coherent sentence. Whatever you do, peace, I'm out of this horrible thread.
Lol nobody wanted you here in the first place, not sure why we should feel sorry losing one person making terrible arguments as to why this is a waste of money 
|
On August 09 2012 07:46 Mandini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 22:37 Medrea wrote:
For a nuclear powered device you'd think it would be more capable than .2 MPH heh. Can't wait till it starts drilling. Im expecting us to find salt, a ton of salt. Hm, missed this post when reading yesterday, and i thought i would explain for those who might have wondered about it. There are different flavors of nuclear power, and the RTG powering the rover utilizes the most simple, safe, and reliable one. The RTG is essentially a chunk of plutonium that is generating heat due to natural decay, and the heat differential between the plutonium and the atmosphere is what generates the power, via a thermocouple. No fusion or fission is occuring, which is where the real energy comes into play with nuclear. This specific RTG produces only 115 watts, which isnt even enough to power the rover for the entire day, which is one of the reasons why they let it sleep at night. There are more practical reasons why you dont want it going fast, but that is the technical reason.
You took my post too seriously. Nuclear energy has never been about explosive power.
Unless its a Nuclear explosive.
>.>
|
On August 09 2012 14:00 Medrea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 07:46 Mandini wrote:On August 08 2012 22:37 Medrea wrote:
For a nuclear powered device you'd think it would be more capable than .2 MPH heh. Can't wait till it starts drilling. Im expecting us to find salt, a ton of salt. Hm, missed this post when reading yesterday, and i thought i would explain for those who might have wondered about it. There are different flavors of nuclear power, and the RTG powering the rover utilizes the most simple, safe, and reliable one. The RTG is essentially a chunk of plutonium that is generating heat due to natural decay, and the heat differential between the plutonium and the atmosphere is what generates the power, via a thermocouple. No fusion or fission is occuring, which is where the real energy comes into play with nuclear. This specific RTG produces only 115 watts, which isnt even enough to power the rover for the entire day, which is one of the reasons why they let it sleep at night. There are more practical reasons why you dont want it going fast, but that is the technical reason. You took my post too seriously. Nuclear energy has never been about explosive power. Unless its a Nuclear explosive. >.>
I knew it wasnt a super serious question, but i gave it a serious answer because i knew at least someone might be interested :p
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
