Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/28/2003 7:25:12 AM EDT
so i'm sitting here reloading and listening to ART Bell last night.... yea i know but that stuff cracks me up. They were talking about all the failed mars mission and the fact that apparently now the beagle probe has dissapeared as well. Anybody got any theories? The conspiracy crowd seems convinced it's a world wide government plot to keep us from finding out what is really on mars.

I think it's just problems trying to send something through space that was made by the lowest bidder.

mike
Link Posted: 12/28/2003 7:35:29 AM EDT
"...all the moons except Europa..."

WAIT.  WRONG PLANET...[;D]
Link Posted: 12/28/2003 7:37:37 AM EDT
I always thought it was the Martians shooting them down because they didn't want to be discovered.
Link Posted: 12/28/2003 7:45:34 AM EDT
It's just the odds....so much can go wrong during the journey, the the odds of making it are small. If you want success, try shotgunning 20 Beagles at Mars and hope one or two make it.
Link Posted: 12/28/2003 7:49:04 AM EDT
2/3 of the stuff sent to Mars never made it.  Some of the failures happened soon after they left Earth orbit.  Surviving takeoff and having nothing coming loose or getting displaced is a major problem, especially when shaving off weight and saving money.  Then you have to worry about heat and cold, power source reliability, computer hardware/ software doing it's thing once it gets there, assuming the trajectory to Mars was calculated properly.  Once you're there, alot of dormant systems will have to power back up (and work)to establish an orbit.  After that, re-entry (not much atmosphere, but still may be bumpy ride.)  Landing doesn't sound easy either.  Parachutes, thrusters, and airbags can fail.  You could land on the side of a mountain, roll down the side, then open up at such an angle that the antenna can't point upward, let alone not having anything jar loose during landing.

Overall, space travel is still a major feat of engineering, and it'll be awhile before every possible factor can be figured in or avoided.
Link Posted: 12/28/2003 7:50:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SWIRE:
I always thought it was the Martians shooting them down because they didn't want to be discovered.
View Quote




and to day on the mars news channel :
1.
in what "watt range" do you set your plasma gun to.. when shooting down mars landers...?

2. and what gun did that earthling use in "HEAT"?





Link Posted: 12/28/2003 9:20:12 AM EDT
If you were a Martian...wouldn't you be pissed off about all this junk that keeps showing up
[(:|)]
Link Posted: 12/28/2003 9:37:58 AM EDT
I think the low atmospheric pressure (1% of earth's) is one of the chief problems. You can't use a parachute to land on Mars. So far descent rockets and airbags have been tried. Both can work but are much more difficult to set up than parachutes.

Shameless plug: you can see the Rube Goldberg landing system on NASA's Mars Rovers (parachute, then rockets, then airbags) in my video of the mission at [url]http://www.maasdigital.com/gallery.html[/url]
Link Posted: 12/28/2003 9:48:49 AM EDT
the more i think about it the more i am thinking that Elvis and his army of bigfoot clones are responsible.

mike
Link Posted: 12/28/2003 10:06:20 AM EDT
I say we nuke the site from orbit.....

It's the only way to be sure.
Link Posted: 12/28/2003 10:16:45 AM EDT
We did 2 successful Mars landings in the 70s, the 2 Viking landers.  I'm sure they were very simple compared to today's sophisticated efforts, but they worked.  We need to get rid of computers and CAD programs and go back to using slide rules. [:)]
Link Posted: 12/28/2003 10:17:28 AM EDT
Club Med took over Mars years ago, and they don't want the riff raff to know.
I've had my trip booked since 99.
Link Posted: 12/28/2003 10:17:34 AM EDT
From what I've heard the Beagle was sent specifically to find proof of life on Mars...

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I can't stand a majority of the Aholes on this planet.  Why does Nasa or anyone feel the need to dredge up more??? Do we really need to find new enemies?

If there is life out there, and if it's highly intelligent, it would not surprise me that they wouldn't want to be found by those "nasty earthlings".

Just my .02, exploration and discovery is a b*tch, just as any native American...

Sly
Link Posted: 12/28/2003 10:34:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By dmaas:
I think the low atmospheric pressure (1% of earth's) is one of the chief problems. You can't use a parachute to land on Mars. So far descent rockets and airbags have been tried. Both can work but are much more difficult to set up than parachutes.

Shameless plug: you can see the Rube Goldberg landing system on NASA's Mars Rovers (parachute, then rockets, then airbags) in my video of the mission at [url]http://www.maasdigital.com/gallery.html[/url]
View Quote


Really nice job. What platform / software did you use?
Link Posted: 12/28/2003 10:42:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By dmaas:
I think the low atmospheric pressure (1% of earth's) is one of the chief problems. You can't use a parachute to land on Mars. So far descent rockets and airbags have been tried. Both can work but are much more difficult to set up than parachutes.

Shameless plug: you can see the Rube Goldberg landing system on NASA's Mars Rovers (parachute, then rockets, then airbags) in my video of the mission at [url]http://www.maasdigital.com/gallery.html[/url]
View Quote


Dan, what the hell are you doing on this site? I thought guns were banned inyour neck of the woods. Sent IM.

CW
Link Posted: 12/28/2003 10:53:49 AM EDT
Originally Posted By dmaas:
I think the low atmospheric pressure (1% of earth's) is one of the chief problems. You can't use a parachute to land on Mars. So far descent rockets and airbags have been tried. Both can work but are much more difficult to set up than parachutes.

Shameless plug: you can see the Rube Goldberg landing system on NASA's Mars Rovers (parachute, then rockets, then airbags) in my video of the mission at [url]
http://www.maasdigital.com/gallery.html[/url]
View Quote




Dont listen to this nut.  He thinks he works for nasa.  And his flash hider sucks.  [:D]
Link Posted: 12/28/2003 10:57:05 AM EDT
... From Voyager to Mars Pathfinder Mission and its rover "Sojourner" there have certainly been successes on and to the planet.
Link Posted: 12/28/2003 4:35:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/28/2003 4:37:30 PM EDT by dmaas]
Strats, there is a tech info page here [url]http://www.maasdigital.com/mervideo-tech.html[/url]. Email me via the link if you have any questions.

Keep in mind NASA spent more than three times the cost of MER on Viking, for a less ambitious mission... (less than $1 billion for MER vs. over $3 billion for Viking, after adjusting for inflation)
Link Posted: 12/28/2003 4:51:29 PM EDT
Why the hell even try to go there?  Life?  Give me a break.  Exotic minerals, maybe.  Who gives a rat's ass.  Spend billions to find out there is frozen water miles under the surface?  WTF?  It's a dead planet.  Spend money on Hubbel, that makes sense.  This whole thing is goofy.  If we're all part of the "Big Bang" then the same elements are on every planet.  
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 2:50:32 AM EDT
That vid is badass!!  I love space exploration!!

We really leave a lot of trash in space don't we?  More targets later.  [:D]
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 2:57:39 AM EDT
Maybey Ben Lawden is on Mars?Or maybey it is the Martians using gigawatt,nuclear pumped lasers to down our robots.Who wants to go see?
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 3:06:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By dmaas:
I think the low atmospheric pressure (1% of earth's) is one of the chief problems. You can't use a parachute to land on Mars. So far descent rockets and airbags have been tried. Both can work but are much more difficult to set up than parachutes.

Shameless plug: you can see the Rube Goldberg landing system on NASA's Mars Rovers (parachute, then rockets, then airbags) in my video of the mission at [url]http://www.maasdigital.com/gallery.html[/url]
View Quote


Mr Mass, you, Sir are an artist! Outstanding! Thans for sharing!
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 3:56:23 AM EDT
With some of the attitudes offered already, we would still be riding horses and hunting for food everyday.  Lot of our everyday technology is gleened from the space program.  From computers to velcro.  It will make our lives better.  Not to mention it would really cool to get a preban 10 gigawatt pulse laser at the martian gunshow.  I am sure its not listed on the import ban list.
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 5:09:38 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 5:35:03 AM EDT
NASA is ok but it is still government.
They should let the private sector go when it comes to space.
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 5:40:10 AM EDT
It is going to look bad for the Brits when our two rovers land shortly and WORK!
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 5:41:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2003 5:51:42 AM EDT by glimmerman68]
Originally Posted By MickeyMouse:
OUTSTANDING!  The video is very good and no doubt represents several man-years of work.

The complexity of these robotic explorers is unbelievable.  With limited knowledge of landing areas and the like, it is somewhat of a crapshoot, until greater knowledge is obtained withwhich to improve the landers.  NASA can do some pretty dumb things at times but they also do spectacular things as well.

Better NASA spend 100 billion on programs that benefit the entire human race - than HUD spend 100 million building houses fro trash that trash them in six months.  America is different from the knats that bug us at the moment - we explore, learn, build, improve.  They destroy.  They live in mud huts, we build earthquake tolerant structures.  NASA is an example of why we are better.  HUD, welfare and social programs are an example of weakness and failure.  I might want to change NASA but it is still a powerful force for good.  First change should be a 10 fold increase in funding!
View Quote


Ten fold increase in NASA spending? Sounds good to me.

This could easily be done if we cut useless foreign aid.



Link Posted: 12/29/2003 5:44:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sherrick13:
It is going to look bad for the Brits when our two rovers land shortly and WORK!
View Quote


Q. Why didn't the Limey rover work when it got to Mars?

A. It leaked all the oil out before it got there.

Link Posted: 12/29/2003 5:49:46 AM EDT
Because this is what is waiting for any of your Earth vessels when it lands:

[img]http://www.angelfire.com/pa/lkmarvin/images/marvk9.gif[/img]

Signed,

Marvin and Commander K-9
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 5:53:07 AM EDT
Is that a 235 space modulator?
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 6:06:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By glimmerman68:
Is that a 235 space modulator?
View Quote


No, silly Earthing.  The Illudium PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator is much larger and was designed to blow up the Earth because it blocks my view of Venus.  This was the gun Al Pacino used in the Earth Movie - HEAT.

Marvin
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 6:11:44 AM EDT
no, you got it all wrong.
the Illudium PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator was a small part of a much larger weapon.  

"Stop!  the creature has stolen the Space Modulator "
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 6:18:25 AM EDT
maybe it's those "DAMN DIRTY APES" that charelston heston was always bitching about.
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 6:28:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 308wood:
no, you got it all wrong.
the Illudium PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator was a small part of a much larger weapon.  

"Stop!  the creature has stolen the Space Modulator "
View Quote


I stand corrected.  It was the device that Bugs unscrewed at the end of the larger weapon.
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 7:00:09 AM EDT
... They were talking about all the failed mars mission and the fact that apparently now the beagle probe has dissapeared as well. Anybody got any theories? The conspiracy crowd seems convinced it's a world wide government plot to keep us from finding out what is really on mars.
View Quote


This is from my brother, who posts here but will remain nameless because he doesn't know I'm relaying this.  Bear in mind he was in full tin-foil hat mode when he said this.

A thousand or so years ago, a starship for one reason or another crash landed on Mars.  It lay in ruins in the middle of an impact crater unnoticed by telescopes and later orbital probes because the resolution required to see it was beyond the technologies of the day.  More recent developments in computers brought better resolution to the images of one of the latter probes which found the broken hulk and remains of this starship.

The two budget-minded probes sent by NASA, which failed according to the news, actually worked flawlessly, sampling hull alloys and other debris.  Beagle 2 is the UK's attempt to get in on the research of these starship remains.

The highly-puplicized failures of the two US probes and Beagle 2 are a result of an agreement between the UK and US governments because the common human can't handle the truth about extra-terrestrial civilization.  Those "in the know" believe such a discovery would blow holes in Genesis, which would be bad news for Religion.

Now that my brother's opinion has been stated, you may now remove your tin-foil hats. :)

... Some of the failures happened soon after they left Earth orbit. Surviving takeoff and having nothing coming loose or getting displaced is a major problem, especially when shaving off weight and saving money. Then you have to worry about heat and cold, power source reliability, computer hardware/ software doing it's thing once it gets there, assuming the trajectory to Mars was calculated properly. Once you're there, alot of dormant systems will have to power back up (and work)to establish an orbit. After that, re-entry (not much atmosphere, but still may be bumpy ride.) Landing doesn't sound easy either. Parachutes, thrusters, and airbags can fail. You could land on the side of a mountain, roll down the side, then open up at such an angle that the antenna can't point upward, let alone not having anything jar loose during landing.
View Quote


Moondog's assessment is closer to the truth.

Link Posted: 12/29/2003 7:08:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By FLGreg:
Originally Posted By glimmerman68:
Is that a 235 space modulator?
View Quote


No, silly Earthing.  The Illudium PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator is much larger and was designed to blow up the Earth because it blocks my view of Venus.  This was the gun Al Pacino used in the Earth Movie - HEAT.

Marvin
View Quote


[LOLabove][ROFL][LOL][ROFL2]

Link Posted: 12/29/2003 7:12:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SWIRE:
I always thought it was the Martians shooting them down because they didn't want to be discovered.
View Quote


Yep. That's it!

Their primary SAM battery is hidden under that face they found... [rolleyes]

The funny (and SCARY) thing about Art Bell (who I like, BTW) is that there is just enough truth weaved into the paranoia that there comes a point where you can't tell one from the other anymore.
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 7:13:28 AM EDT
I heard that from space at a certain place you can see something that spells "O.J is guilty" on the moutains [(:|)][(:|)][(:|)][(:|)][(:|)][(:|)][(:|)][(:|)][(:|)][(:|)][(:|)][(:|)][(:|)][(:|)][(:|)][(:|)][(:|)][(:|)][(:|)][(:|)][(:|)][(:|)][(:|)][(:|)][(:|)][(:|)]
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 9:54:46 AM EDT
Watch for Dan's animations on CNN. They will be the only pics you will see of the rovers as there is no camera on the lander. (Besides, we really didn't send anything to Mars, the videos and pics were all Dan's doing... [(:|)])

CW
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 2:35:48 PM EDT
Yeah, that's a major problem with modern special effects technology. The better a job we do, the more credence we give to the conspiracy theorists. I doubt we could have faked a moon landing in 1969, but we sure can today.

If you're at all interested in aerospace engineering, definitely check out "Mars: Dead or Alive" on PBS January 4 and 6 at 8PM. It covers the surprisingly tough design challenges of the rover and landing system. (including about 6 minutes of new 3D animation by your truly :)
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 2:38:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Hpl:
I say we nuke the site from orbit.....

It's the only way to be sure.
View Quote


Good one... [lol]

Dirk
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 3:05:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By dmaas:
Yeah, that's a major problem with modern special effects technology. The better a job we do, the more credence we give to the conspiracy theorists. I doubt we could have faked a moon landing in 1969, but we sure can today.

If you're at all interested in aerospace engineering, definitely check out "Mars: Dead or Alive" on PBS January 4 and 6 at 8PM. It covers the [red]surprisingly tough design challenges of the rover and landing system.[/red] (including about 6 minutes of new 3D animation by your truly :)
View Quote


Ah hell, that design was a piece of cake. By definition it was supposed to be "just like Pathfinder".[:D]

CW
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 3:06:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
the more i think about it the more i am thinking that Elvis and his army of bigfoot clones are responsible.

mike
View Quote


Hey now, we are not all clones...
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 3:14:52 PM EDT
Ack Ack Ack Ack ack !

[img]http://www.globaleffects.com/Creatures/marsatth.JPG[/img]
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 4:07:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2003 4:11:56 PM EDT by Phased_Plasma]
Originally Posted By dmaas:


Shameless plug: you can see the Rube Goldberg landing system on NASA's Mars Rovers (parachute, then rockets, then airbags) in my video of the mission at [url]http://www.maasdigital.com/gallery.html[/url]
View Quote


Cool video.  Having worked in the space business and on Mars Observer (the first big failure), that felt very real.  My only question is 'did you get all the launch staging timing from the DELTA people?'  The shroud jettison seemed very late.  You could have used a nice cold piece of Pink Floyd Music for the cruse to Mars, but no one cares about the
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 4:17:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Bigfeet:
Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
the more i think about it the more i am thinking that Elvis and his army of bigfoot clones are responsible.

mike
View Quote


Hey now, we are not all clones...
View Quote



AHHHHHHHHH!!!!  ALIEN!!!!!!!

Link Posted: 12/29/2003 4:54:57 PM EDT
there is no light switch, therefore tb will not be there.
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 5:01:35 PM EDT
I think the private sector should take more interest in space exploitation.  NASA has really dropped the ball in providing leadership and incentive for private enterprise to follow.  I know it's not cheap putting anything in orbit, but maybe this is where corporate competition can help.  The Chinese space program will be able to launch satellites cheaply and reliably in a few more years.  The US will lose alot of business.  In about 10 years, the Chinese will be the second nation to put a man on the moon, and will probably be the first to establish a colony.
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 5:10:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Phased_Plasma:
Originally Posted By dmaas:


Shameless plug: you can see the Rube Goldberg landing system on NASA's Mars Rovers (parachute, then rockets, then airbags) in my video of the mission at [url]http://www.maasdigital.com/gallery.html[/url]
View Quote


Cool video.  Having worked in the space business and on Mars Observer (the first big failure), that felt very real.  My only question is 'did you get all the launch staging timing from the DELTA people?'  The shroud jettison seemed very late.  You could have used a nice cold piece of Pink Floyd Music for the cruse to Mars, but no one cares about the
View Quote


Wow that is cool!  I just saw parts of it on a show aired on the Discovery channel (they just showed the landing, and the part where it examines a rock).
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 5:12:27 PM EDT
based on the "city vs country" thread, I'm guessing that Mars is populated by country folk.
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 5:29:09 PM EDT
ARDOC
Don't get me wrong.  I'll never say the spin-offs from science haven't helped us.  Of course they have!  And, they will continue to help.  All I'm saying is going to Mars to look for water is crazy. There is no life on that planet.  There is no life as we know it on any planet in our solar system.  Travel throughout the galaxy is impossible.  Our first rocket into deep space it was said would take 10,000 years to reach the first star.  And, that's accepting it won't be hit by asteriods.  Grand ideas but it's impossible.  Next, you'll be telling me it's possible to surpass the speed of light.  At the speed of light, it would take 100 years to traverse the Milky Way.  I know, now you will say prior to 1903 it was impossible to fly...
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top