What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
146 Comments
- PatBlankenship, on 05/27/2008, -2/+85Imagine all that had to go right for that picture of the lander to be taken by the orbiter. That's some precision pointing - or some incredible luck! Here is an animation that shows how the picture of Phoenix descending was taken by MRO:
< http://www.nasa.gov/mov/230220main_9247_web2.mov > - inactive, on 05/27/2008, -14/+79Where did we go wrong in space? Between 1960-69 we went from nowhere to the moon in less than a decade. Then the moon landings became old hat and people complained to their television affiliates that their Gulligan's Island reruns were being pre-empted and the last few planned Apollo moonshots were canceled.
Then we sat on our ass through the seventies waiting for the damned space shuttle to give us a quick turn-around reliable orbital entry vehicle and found out in the eighties when it finally arrived that it wasn't exactly a turkey but more like an Edsel.
Sure- we've had some great success stories: Voyager, the Hubbell, Galieo, Cassini. We're putting most of the space programs budget into manned missions but that's NOT where the science payoff is coming from.
It's not that they aren't doing great work, BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT MISSIONS NASA IS DOING FROM A SCIENCE STANDPOINT ARE BEING DONE BY ROBOTIC PROBES AT A FRACTION OF THE MANNED SPACE BUDGET. The space program has been whored out as a welfare for aerospce contractors.
PS- Viking landed on Mars in 1975 - RogerStrong, on 05/27/2008, -0/+44>> Where did we go wrong in space?
Public interest disappeared. That made funding from Congress disappear.
The big space budgets of the early 1960s were a knee-jerk reaction to Soviet firsts in space: First satellite, first man in space, first space walk, etc.
Once the Americans had visibly pulled ahead with the Gemini program, funding was chopped and Saturn V production capped - even before the first moon landing. Apollo coasted through the moon landings with what hardware was already in the pipeline.
Apollo 13 couldn't even get air time on TV until the crisis. No public demand means no funding from Congress.
>> the damned space shuttle
The shuttle's primary mission was always to keep the standing army of Apollo technicians employed. Any plan that involved massive layoffs wouldn't be approved by Congress. Ares/Constellation inherits this problem.
And it was a couple X-vehicles too early - meaning it WAS an X-vehicle. Thankfully, it appears that Ares/Constellation do not have this problem.
>> THE MOST IMPORTANT MISSIONS NASA
>> IS DOING FROM A SCIENCE STANDPOINT
>> ARE BEING DONE BY ROBOTIC PROBES
Robots are good for taking pictures or merely scratching the surface. Beyond that, humans become more cost effective. The Apollo 17 astronauts covered more territory and did more science on their first afternoon than the Mars Rovers did in two years. Even the folks who operate the Mars Rovers say this. - twiztidsinz, on 05/27/2008, -2/+33...One giant leap for Machinekind.
- thexray, on 05/27/2008, -0/+29This is mindblowing...
- Jsmuli2, on 05/27/2008, -0/+21We have the technology, we can rebuild him, but I don't want to spend a lot of money.
- Chalks777, on 05/27/2008, -0/+17the word you're looking for is "please".
- DeviantDragon, on 05/27/2008, -3/+18To infinity...and beyond!
- tmay102436, on 05/27/2008, -3/+17I can agree with the frustration of the NASA program from all concerned. But, at least we're getting some good stuff now. This last mission to Mars is what man should be all about. Exploration-both inward and outward. Congrat's to the whole team that made those photo's possible, and the USA for still trying a little bit at least.
- Gogf, on 05/27/2008, -5/+17jamessavik: I, as well, am disappointed that we have not continued to push the boundaries with our manned space program. But you can't fault NASA for the robotic programs. They're much less expensive (meaning we can do them more often), no lives are risked, and we don't have to worry about getting the robots back. The two Mars rovers have been running for seventeen times as long as expected -- that's amazing by any standard.
I want to see a man on Mars by the end of the next decade, and I think we can do it, but let's not forget that Mars is 200 times as far away as the moon! - RogerStrong, on 05/27/2008, -1/+11No doubt some idiot similarly dismissed electrical research 130 years ago with "Oh look, another make-a-wire-glow experiment."
- gordoncam1, on 05/27/2008, -2/+12What goes up must go higher. We're going to the stars.
- DiggMeTo42, on 05/27/2008, -0/+9Science is an investment. Exploration and discovery are investments. What may presently seem useless, may not be so in future years. Somehow people have a harder time understanding this with mathematics. Advances in mathematics, no matter how worthlessly abstract they may seem, are useful. Was not Pythagoras horrified at the existence of irrational numbers?
- Cheddar79, on 05/27/2008, -0/+9I'm impressed by both images but the one on the left is what makes me want to get out there! The capturing of something happening so many miles away...its just awe inspiring.
- IphtashuFitz, on 05/27/2008, -2/+10Getting a man to the moon wasn't about public interest. It was about politics. It was the height of the cold war with the former Soviet Union. They beat the US in putting a satellite in orbit, in putting people in orbit, etc. President Kennedy saw the moon race as a strategic political fight against the Soviet threat. We never would have gone in the first place if it was just for "public interest".
- RogerStrong, on 05/27/2008, -0/+8It's the same thing. The public was VERY interested, BECAUSE they saw it as a strategic threat. They could look up and see a soviet machine passing overhead, which was totally unprecidented.
(And btw, the space program was also was VP Lyndon Johnson's way of dragging the US south into the 20th century. Rocket design in Alabama. Rocket construction on New Orleans. Solid engine contruction in Utah. Engine testing in New Mexico. Launching in Florida. Mission control in Texas. Etc.
It worked. Think of the stereotypes of Alabama. Now consider that Huntsville has the highest number of engineers per capita in the world. Thank the space program.) - Dopeness, on 05/27/2008, -7/+14What a sexy leg! lol
- allengeer, on 05/27/2008, -2/+9I think the steady progress that NASA has been making over the last 20 years has been nothing short of phenomenal (minus one devistating disaster). We have a permanant habitat in orbit. We have built robots that roam around on foreign planets millions of miles away and last for 30x's their expected life span. We have landed and taken pictures from the surface of a satellite nearly 1 BILLION miles away. We've photographed the CMBR, further helping to understand the creation of the universe. The list goes on and on.
The fact is, NASA has contributed a great wealth of information to a whole slew of fields for people of all nations with an extremely limited budget. It will continue to do so as long as the greatest of the worlds minds peruse its ranks. - romistrub, on 05/27/2008, -0/+7It has an atmosphere you moron.
- Herkguy, on 05/27/2008, -0/+7Too bad there isn't a microphone, would be cool to hear what Mars sounds like.
- Matt2k, on 05/27/2008, -0/+6I think people like discussing the photos. This is a reasonable idea.
- listrophy, on 05/27/2008, -3/+9As an aerospace engineer working for an aerospace company that frequently subcontracts from NASA, I take offense to jamessavik's comments. Specifically, he said "The space program has been whored out as a welfare for aerospce [sic] contractors."
On what basis does jamessavik claim this? Our company, for example, pays out salaries a few percent below the mechanical engineering industry median. Is this "whoring?" We scrap for every subcontract we get and a whole bunch we don't get. We've had to turn to the private space industry (not that I'm complaining) to stay afloat due to the volatility of NASA's funding. Is that "whoring?"
And what's your beef with the Space Shuttle? It was designed in the seventies and has a fairly impressive success rate. The losses are unfortunate, but I'd like to see you design and build a reusable semi-truck-to-Low-Earth-Orbit. Two failures in over a hundred launches is a mind-blowing achievement.
And finally, with regards to manned exploration, you can hardly beat the mobility and panache of a human walking around on another celestial body. Yes, it's more expensive to support humans, but frankly, it's cheaper than building a robot with similar capabilities. Until we need the abilities of a human, robots work fine... but to believe that an exploration robot is as good as a human at this point in history is foolish. - chudgoo, on 05/27/2008, -2/+8If I could punch you in the ***** nose over TCP/IP I would.
- tenbosch, on 05/27/2008, -0/+6Yeahz, we needs to spend more monies on the war in Iraq. Cuz, this science stuffs is stupidz.
- MiddleOfNowhere, on 05/27/2008, -0/+5"We need to get our crap together down here before we can go up there."
-
Assuming you're from the United States:
If the same attitude had existed 500 years ago in Europe, your country wouldn't exist today.
You see, there is always "crap": Hunger, war, poverty, stupidity. If this alone were reason to stop exploration, why did we leave our caves in Africa in the first place? - newstart, on 05/27/2008, -1/+6Images such as these makes me feel good to be human!
- Morphinity, on 05/27/2008, -0/+5The only reason we went to the moon was because of the Cold War and the constant "need" to one up the Soviet Union. That's the only reason that funding was there for such a huge undertaking. We don't have a Cold War or an arms race to motivate people and encourage Congress to do it again.
- Mossman85, on 05/27/2008, -0/+5How lonely that robot must be :(
- zeebo, on 05/27/2008, -1/+6Mars has an atmosphere, just not that much of one. Really though, you could get the same experience as hearing mars by going to the middle of a desert and listening to the wind.
- didgital, on 05/27/2008, -1/+6Uh, that's what rehearsals are, they are testing. The flight ops crew (the people running the flight operations software and communication systems) tests the flight engineers (the people that are experts on the subsystems) for how to respond when something goes wrong. Rehearsals don't go well, in hopes that the real thing will.
- RogerStrong, on 05/27/2008, -0/+4Mar's atmosphere may be thin, but it exists. Landing in a cloud of dust is a problem. Which is why they waited a bit before unfolding the solar panels.
The moon doesn't have an atmosphere to support a cloud of dust. The dust gets blasted outward from the LEM, and doesn't come back. Plus the LEM engines get shut off before the footpads even hit the soil.
One of the Surveyor landers *did* get blasted with high-speed dust from Apollo 12. - JorgeGT, on 05/27/2008, -1/+5A high-res camera capable of withstand the incredible amount of g forces of launch and landing and a nice share of space radiation? More than you, dumbass.
- Logicexe, on 05/27/2008, -0/+4This picture was taken by HiRISE. That's the camera that took this picture of the Earth while in orbit around Mars:
http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/earthmoon.php
It's a really really good camera.
The reason this picture has such low quality is probably because it had to be blown up digitally and in order to capture the lander as anything more than a white smudge probably had to have a very short exposure time. Considering the size, speed, distance of all the components I think it did a really good job. - secrity, on 05/27/2008, -0/+4LOTS of good stuff on the NASA web site.
- budshonda, on 05/27/2008, -1/+5for god knows how many millions (billions?) of dollars this is costing NASA, do you think they could afford a camera that takes color photographs??
- reisrocks, on 05/27/2008, -0/+4FAKE.
Alright, just kidding ;) - kevincupp, on 05/27/2008, -0/+4"Amazingly, the left panel image is of the spacecraft during its descent phase, captured by the HiRISE camera onboard Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter -- the first image ever of a spacecraft descending to the surface of another planet." Sweet!
- tushyd, on 05/27/2008, -1/+5That's a lot of "*****".
- tushyd, on 05/27/2008, -0/+3I think they're testing to see if it's in the soil
- petrikigor, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3The mars sunset is pretty cool, too.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/117989main_imag ... - luckyguy2000, on 05/27/2008, -5/+8the descent image is incredible. *****, what awaits humankind in the future? i wish i could watch it. ***** the 80years lifespan humans have. ***** it.
- Qumahlin, on 05/27/2008, -0/+3Thats just the thing, while its fine to draw that comparison given the basic details of Earth and Mars, the statement is still flawed as you could be 100% wrong. Just because we would expect something to sound one way does not make it sound that way.
- AnalogCamera, on 05/27/2008, -0/+3It would sound like: "Kill... All... Humans..."
or something like that. - moletimer, on 05/27/2008, -0/+3Lots more images here: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/main/ind ...
- ICSU, on 05/27/2008, -0/+3We are ***** retards and spend money on dog food, bottled water and gadgets we never needed.
- twiztidsinz, on 05/27/2008, -2/+5I shat space bricks.
- secrity, on 05/27/2008, -0/+3A manned mission makes things MANY times more complicated. Carrying atmosphere, water, food, and fuel would be a major pain in the ass for a mission that long. The people who go to Mars are likely to want to go back to Earth some day, which is another pain in the ass; and will require even more food, water, and fuel.
- bella2k, on 05/27/2008, -1/+4They'll have color pictures, just be patient. The first ones were "postcards" akin to a "I'm here, this is what everything looks like right now" message. They're highly-compressed b&w shots. High-res color pictures will be taken next, as well as 3D (I think there's already one 3D available)
More info on how they'll take color pics here:
http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/UCF_Invention_Onb ... - theOster, on 05/27/2008, -1/+3i don't mind the PLZ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryr977yjdr0
this was posted a few years back, but i think it gives a decent impression of the amazing-ness of landing something on another planet (and this is using the simpler airbag landing...)
the "7 months later..." always boggles my mind - secrity, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2The Russians did copy it, they called it Buran. Buran made a few successful flights but it was canned due to budget cuts.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 150 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 