What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
You and You and You. view!
youtube.com - You don't need to get a phone. You need a phone that gets you.
49 Comments
- michaelpinto, on 11/13/2009, -4/+28You wanna unstick that damn rover? Send over some damn astronauts! It's pathetic that in the year 2009 stupid humans don't have the technology to travel to Mars. In the 60s we were landing on the moon and today we can't even keep a simple space shuttle fleet together. Unless we get serious about this we're looking a serious long term decline of civilization in our lifetime.
- novenator, on 11/13/2009, -0/+22This is what is called planning your moves VERY carefully. Let's hope this little critter gets set free.
- Joshper85, on 11/13/2009, -1/+16get er done
sorry...but it fit - mohrt, on 11/13/2009, -0/+15"Bell said Opportunity is still making cool discoveries. Just the other day it came across a large rock."
Just. Wow. - superkendall, on 11/13/2009, -0/+11This is exactly why I get AAA, so I don't have to come up with complex plans just to get unstuck.
- FritoPendejo, on 11/13/2009, -0/+7We should mount a manned mission to have some astronauts put a 2x4 under the wheels and push down the back end until they can get it out of there.
- MaxxusFlamus, on 11/13/2009, -0/+6With the money we ***** away going to Iraq, we could've bombarded mars with these things.
- mobilebond, on 11/13/2009, -0/+5And that is where technology comes to help! Need a better technology to make it faster!
- BotaXero, on 11/13/2009, -0/+5Those NASA guys have never been offroading. First of all stop spinning your wheels. Second, rock slowly back and forth.
- awinters, on 11/13/2009, -1/+5Have to admit I'm really happy to hear this. Everyone thought I was such a dork for giving a damn. After all, it has worked longer than expected, but I want it to keep going until we get there.
I agree that we have to focus on getting humans there. I'm glad the group the president put together has recommended skipping a return to the moon in favor of Mars. - L0NER, on 11/13/2009, -0/+4Go little buddy go!
- FXNGLAS, on 11/13/2009, -1/+4I don't think it's the technology, but rather just the distance to travel. It takes a lot of fuel just to get into orbit, and then you're still very far away, then to come back. That is also roughly one year in space.
- indyGuy, on 11/13/2009, -0/+3They've dug these rovers out several times. There's some great documentaries about these two little guys. Huge props to the engineers.
- bigbadgoat, on 11/13/2009, -0/+3Well I wasn't. I wasn't yet born. But Neal Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were.
Try telling Buzz Aldrin he never. - Culyt, on 11/13/2009, -0/+3There is nothing stopping us from using present day technology from getting to Mars. Hell the 1960's tech would probably work.
With that said, it would be much better to invent new technology. If it takes 6 months to get to Mars, is highly dangerous and so on, then chances are after its done once, that would be it (like the Moon, although even then we had several manned missions since it was only a few days to get there).
If however we invented a new kind of engine that could get us there in 39 days with 1g constant acceleration (plasma rocket, and maybe an EmDrive provided its not bollocks), giving Earth gravity so we don't have to worry about mussel/bone problems, some kind of electromagnetic shield to protect from cosmic rays, a reusable/modular platform, new landers, habitats, rovers, orbiting interplanetary Internet router, and so on, then it becomes something repeatable.
They have had 50 years with almost no improvements, reusing 1960's era technology. Even the new line of stuff is looking more like 1980's level technology.
It took so long for anything to happen, that other countries are starting to get onto the same level, most of the cool stuff I have seen recently is coming from the ESA and they are partnering with NASA on quite a few missions. Quite a bit from Japan. China, India, Russia are all reaching to about the same level as NASA with plans to get people to Moon/Mars and launching things like Lunar orbiters and so on. Heaps of other countries are starting to get their own satellite launch programs up, Estonia, Israel, Iran.
More of it seems to be coming from the private sector, or rich hobbyists, SpaceX, The space elevator teams, Armadillo aerospace. Virgin galactic. The space hotel people.
By now, we should have a new mission to the moon every 6 month if not more, like the ISS is getting. We should be setting up a real base that is financially self sustaining by harvesting helium3, putting it into an orbital fuel depo. Sending up things like reprap style fabricators that work using material that are found on the Moon to build structures up there. Need another rover? Print one off, send up an engine on the next rocket.
We should have money going into carbon nanotubes with the intent of making a space elevator, real money, not a few million as a prize but a billion or so. Each shuttle launch costs something like that, some decent financing could have heaps in the long run. - DiggCrusher, on 11/13/2009, -0/+3The greatest line in this article:
"Bell said Opportunity is still making cool discoveries. Just the other day it came across a large rock." - matthewf01, on 11/13/2009, -0/+3Heard this on NPR last night; in the radio segment I heard they kinda oversimplified it down: "The robot got stuck heading south. Engineers spent [x] months working on a solution, and they have decided to tell the robot to head north instead."
Sooo NPR, what you're saying is, NASA spent months figuring out that they should back up?
Dont get me wrong, I love NASA and NPR but this was funny. - Skalizar, on 11/13/2009, -0/+3There was a related link at the bottom.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story ...
Basically, the problem is coming back (radiation and cost prohibitive) and they were discussing the possibility of one way missions. Not necessarily suicide either, more like colonization.
I know that if I were still a young single man, I would go in heartbeat. Even if there was no conceivable way to return in my life time, or even if my life expectancy there was very limited. And I sincerely doubt I would be alone, the line to go would be long and widely varied in backgrounds, culture and talent. - taibo, on 11/14/2009, -0/+2After miles and miles of sand, a rock is like a friggin U2 concert.
- robbiedo, on 11/14/2009, -0/+2Finally a good reason for a manned mission.
- FXNGLAS, on 11/13/2009, -0/+2Yes, technology is the answer, but it comes with a price. The people of the U.S. are quite tired of government spending as is. Something like astronauts to mars and back would not be cheap to fund.
- TheBlueVulcan, on 11/14/2009, -0/+2I seriously laughed at loud when I read that line. Freakin' awesome.
That aside, reading articles about the two little bots always makes me feel happy for some reason. - jmcenanly, on 11/14/2009, -0/+2One small step for a man, one giant leap for AAA
- skcolb, on 11/13/2009, -1/+3Yes.
- mega-volt, on 11/14/2009, -0/+2It's good to keep conspiracy theory's going, it makes it easier to pick out the idiots in a crowd.
- AttackGypsy, on 11/13/2009, -0/+2The Rovers have been NASA's great success since the first Space Shuttle flight, or maybe even further back. They have gone so far beyond what they were expected on intended. NASA has had to go back for more funding 5 times for these things. They've succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. 90 day was their expected lifetime. And now they've been there 5 years. That's over 20 lifetimes.
- Feldoh, on 11/13/2009, -1/+2So how well is YOUR space program going?
Just think about all the difficulties in sending people to Mars. New materials have to be made, new fuels, new ways to preserve food, how to survive on Mars just to name a few.
Bottom line is: It takes time. - cuoops, on 11/13/2009, -0/+1http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/ ...
- L0NER, on 11/13/2009, -0/+1Even Interplanetary off-roading sounds boring in the NPR voice.
- AttackGypsy, on 11/13/2009, -1/+2I agree with you there. I think our National Space Program has become a disgrace. It's been 40 years since we first went to the moon, and it will be 50 before we get back there. Hell, China will be there first. That's disgusting. We should already have a base there by now, up and running.
- BossKey, on 11/13/2009, -0/+1"Jawas… Never around when you need them."
―Kyle Katarn - JamesWjRose, on 11/13/2009, -0/+1AAA? In this case would that stand for "Astro-Asistance-Agency"?
- cuoops, on 11/13/2009, -0/+1http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/ ...
- rawnnie, on 11/13/2009, -1/+2That's not fair.. we did bomb the moon.
- nurbsenvi, on 11/13/2009, -0/+1damn right!
by now we should have a galaxy class starship. - mobilebond, on 11/13/2009, -1/+2FIXNGLAS - some fields just need to be worthless now, to be worthy in the future. Americans, Chinese, Russians, Europeans.... no difference
America wouldn't be discovered if some Spanish queen didn't fund some Columbus voyage. :) - visionviper, on 11/13/2009, -0/+1Free Spirit!!
- CIAVT, on 11/14/2009, -0/+1Why send a human when a rover can do so much more? (and is expendable)
- endform, on 11/13/2009, -0/+1It's pathetic that in this day and age it is seen that humans are somehow going to do more for the money and time than a robot for these space missions. The return on investment for science in the cases of spirit and opportunity has been outstanding.
P.S. the space shuttle was a crock of ***** designed to make it look like the astronauts had control, which they really don't. - Nothlit, on 11/13/2009, -0/+1"Because then you would be burying the weight of the rover on the belly pan and not on the wheels, where you need the traction."
Pretty sure he probably said "bearing," not "burying." - Rodik, on 11/13/2009, -0/+1lol i noticed that too...
funniest line in the article. - flaflashr, on 11/13/2009, -0/+1"Even worse, Howard won't get the credit that the Mars Rover he crashed inadvertently found proof of previous life on Mars. "
Big Bang Theory
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1256039/synopsis - copypastry, on 11/14/2009, -0/+1Now that's what I call a sticky situation.
- duewydo, on 11/13/2009, -0/+1Although there is truth to what you say for most surfaces, it sounds like they are on fine loose dry sand. That technique doesn't work as well there. The rocking compacts the riding surface and opens up the rut you are in for an easy exit. This surface doesn't compact or stick, think quick sand. The more you move at all, the quicker you sink.
I believe that the only thing to get them out here is a dune buggy burn out. Spin the wheels as fast as you can to get momentum by kicking the sand. Since they cant get that torque and rotational speed they are SOL. The design should have been a tracked design that could shed the track upon failure for wheel redundancy or a pivoting axle design, much like the newer rovers, where if they get stuck they can move the axle's position so they can walk.
I wonder, they have 1 wheel dead and 1 possibly other dead. So are they just dragging? because if so then forget it, they are done. - 01110011, on 11/13/2009, -1/+1Hey, you don't make boatloads of cash (contractors) by doing things efficiently, on time and -god forbid- with improvements.
- mobilebond, on 11/13/2009, -2/+2I'm just suggesting, but many asked, and many know the answer, but the conspiracy stays. :)
i wasn't yet born by the way. - Testies, on 11/13/2009, -1/+1Kitty litter?
Shift it into reverse and drop the clutch?
They can take some pointers from us Canadians and the way we deal with winter driving. - FritoPendejo, on 11/13/2009, -1/+1STILL NO WATER.... for all you Onion fans.
- mobilebond, on 11/13/2009, -25/+2Here comes up a big question! Were we actually landing on the moon in the 60s?
Reply! :)
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is