Curiosity's Countdown to Mars

[Sgt Beavis]

Man, I'm impressed that they pulled it off. The entire SkyCrane concept was just nuts but I'll be damn, it worked like a champ. Pretty damn awesome. Great work NASA. Good to see that someone in our government can actually do their jobs to an extremely high degree of precision.

[Sgt Beavis]

Money. It costs us something like $10,000 per pound to lift cargo into space, and 80,000 per pound to land it on the moon.

That is one reason Elon Musk created SpaceX. He is already driving those costs down. The Falcon9 Heavy is targeting a price of under $1000 per pound. Which is something the Space Shuttle was supposed to do.

[Sgt Beavis]

... this isn't the first mars landing or the first mars rover.

True. But it is, by far, the largest thing we've put there. Additionally, the method of landing added greatly to the suspense. Then there is the fact that NASA never actually tested the landing method before sending it over to Mars. Oh, and this bad boy is nuclear powered too. It should last more than a decade.

[momo]

True. But it is, by far, the largest thing we've put there. Additionally, the method of landing added greatly to the suspense. Then there is the fact that NASA never actually tested the landing method before sending it over to Mars. Oh, and this bad boy is nuclear powered too. It should last more than a decade.

ya, the method to land is a lot more impressive then the airbag crash method.

[71chevellejohn]

new pic:

[jakesford]

They were able to get the satellites lined up correctly to capture the decent:

[roliath]

[BERNIE MOSFET]

They were able to get the satellites lined up correctly to capture the decent:

Sweaty hot.

The last two minutes of the descent were also filmed by Curiosity. I can't wait until we get to see that footage.

[2165 Turbo Rail]

cool but I still think its money that could be better used here

[A_A_G]

cool but I still think its money that could be better used here

Id rather go to something "productive" than to some inbreds with 6 kids who live better than others who actually work.

[bcoop]

Id rather go to something "productive" than to some inbreds with 6 kids who live better than others who actually work.

Agreed. I'd much rather my money go to NASA and defense, than failing social programs. Let the weak weed themselves out. Not my problem, not a single fuck is given.

[2165 Turbo Rail]

I was thinking more along the lines of less taxes for the people that actually work.. .not feeding the homeless

[bcoop]

I was thinking more along the lines of less taxes for the people that actually work.. .not feeding the homeless

Scrap the welfare programs, and taxes will be lower.

Taxes are necessary for the country to continue to survive. I agree, I want lower taxes as well. But space exploration, in my opinion, is necessary for the future generations of this planet. I'm not against feeding the homeless, either. I spend my own time and money (outside of taxes) doing just that, but I don't want to be forced to do it.

[Sgt Beavis]

cool but I still think its money that could be better used here

There are two things that you can do to make this world a better place. One is to reduce the SUCK in the world. Things like reduce poverty, feed the hungry, cure disease.

The other thing you can do is to increase the AWESOME in this world. It inspires people. We learn more. We change our thinking. We change our world. If we discovered that life exists or used to exist on Mars, it would be a huge shift in how we look at the rest of the universe because we will know with absolute certainty that life is not a trait exclusive to Earth.

No matter what you do, there will always be SUCK in the world. You can't eliminate SUCK entirely, it is always there. Increasing the AWESOME inspires people in ways that reduces the SUCK by default.

[Strychnine]

cool but I still think its money that could be better used here

The other thing you can do is to increase the AWESOME in this world. It inspires people. We learn more. We change our thinking. We change our world.

Exactly.

http://www.dfwmustangs.net/forums/showthread.php?t=27147

THIS is why we invest in science. This.

By Phil Plait



Every day — every single day, it seems — I see a note on Twitter, or get email, or hear someone on TV asking why we bother spending so much money on NASA. Billions of dollars! We should be spending that money right here on Earth!

This argument is wrong in every conceivable way. Ignoring that we do spend that money here on Earth, ignoring that NASA’s budget is far less than 1% of the national budget, ignoring that the amount we spend on NASA in a year is less than we spend on air conditioning tents in Afghanistan, ignoring that we spend five times as much on tobacco in a year than we do on space exploration… this argument is still dead wrong.

Why?

Because when we invest in science, when we invest in space, when we invest in exploration, we always, always get far more back in return than we put in. And not just in dollars and cents.





See that picture above? It shows a new type of rocket engine design. Usually, fuel is pumped into a chamber where the chemicals ignite and are blown out the other end, creating thrust. The design pictured above does this in a new way: as the fuel is pumped into the chamber, it’s spun up, creating a vortex. This focuses the flow, keeping it closer to the center of the chamber. In this way, when the fuel ignite, it keeps the walls of the chamber cooler.

So what, right?

Here’s what: using this technology — developed for rockets for NASA, remember — engineers designed a way to pump water more quickly and efficiently for fire suppression. The result is nothing short of astonishing:

One series of tests using empty houses at Vandenberg Air Force Base compared [this new] system with a 20-gallon-per-minute, 1,400 pound-per-square-inch (psi) discharge capability (at the pump) versus a standard 100-gallon-per-minute, 125 psi standard hand line—the kind that typically takes a few firemen to control. The standard line extinguished a set fire in a living room in 1 minute and 45 seconds using 220 gallons of water. The [new] system extinguished an identical fire in 17.3 seconds using 13.6 gallons—with a hose requiring only one person to manage.

In other words, this new system put out a fire more quickly, using less water, and — critically — with fewer firefighters needed to operate the hose. This frees up needed firefighters to do other important tasks on the job, and therefore makes fighting fires faster and safer.

There is no way you could’ve predicted beforehand that investing in NASA would have led to the creation of this specific innovation in life-saving technology. But it’s a rock-solid guarantee that investing in science always leads to innovations that have far-ranging and critical benefits to our lives.

If for no other reason that’s why we need to invest in science: in NASA, in NSF, in NOAA, and all the other agencies that explore the world around us. It’s for our own good. And it always pays off.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...-science-this/