# Mars Rover launched successfully



## PomfretPlunge (Nov 26, 2011)

Hey peeps, watched the Mars Rover get launched today on NASA TV.  Beautiful, smooth launch on an Atlas-Centaur rocket.  It took off from Cape Canaveral, headed southeast over the Atlantic, Centaur separated and fired twice.  First Centaur burn put the ship in parking orbit at 101 miles altitude, 16,000 mph speed.  Down across Africa, second Centaur burn over the Indian Ocean for eight minutes accelerating at 4.5G to 25,000 mph.  Clean spacecraft separation and out she goes into the deep black.  Godspeed, and good landing to her on Mars in August 2012.

:flag:

Here's some of the mission commentary from the launch.

---------------------------------------------

This is Atlas Launch Control.

Launch team, this is the NLM on the NLM net with our final launch poll, continuing the launch countdown at T minus four minutes.

NAM?  NAM’s ready.
NASA CE?  NASA CE, Go.
SMA?  SMA is Go.
SMD?  SMD is Go.
Mission Manager?  Mission Manager is Go.
Copy that.  The team’s ready to release the hold at T minus four minutes.
Status check to proceed with Terminal Count.  Atlas systems:
Propulsion? Go.
Hydraulics? Go.
Pneumatics? Go.
L O2? Go.
Water? Go.

Centaur systems:
Propulsion? Go.
Pneumatics? Go.
LO2? Go.
LH2? Go.
AS Gas? Go.

Electrical systems:
Airborne? Go.
Ground? Go.
Facility? Go.
RF FTS? Go.
Flight Control? Go.
Instrumentation? Go.
Comm? Go.
GCQ? Go.
Umbilicals? Go.
UCS? Go.
Redline Monitor? Go.
Quality? Go.
OSM? Go.
ULA Safety Officer?
Range, Weather, and Clear to Proceed? Go.

LC, this is the LD on Channel One.  LC, you have permission to launch.

Roger, proceeding with the count.

NLM, this is SMD on NLM net.
Go ahead, SMD.
SMD would like to report that the spacecraft is on internal power and it’s configured for launch for a T-zero of 15:02:00.
Copy, SMD.  MSL is configured for launch.  While I have your attention, I want to wish the entire team that supported MSL – Good Luck and Godspeed. It’s been a long, challenging journey getting here, and we are proud to start you on the way to Mars shortly.  NLM Out.

Thank you very much, NLM.  We really appreciate the thought. 

This is Atlas Launch Control, 90 seconds before coming out of this planned, built-in hold at T minus four minutes. Once we lift off, we’ll be hearing our telemetry manager Rob Gagnon from United Launch Alliance calling the flight events as the vehicle heads downrange.  At T minus four minutes and holding, with a minute and a quarter remaining in this planned built-in hold, this is Atlas Launch Control.


----------



## PomfretPlunge (Nov 26, 2011)

T minus fifteen seconds.

T minus ten.
Nine
Eight
Seven
Six
Five
Four
Three
Two
One
Main Engine start.
Zero.  And Liftoff! Of the Atlas V with Curiousity, seeking clues to the planetary puzzle about life on Mars.

<Rocket noise>

Program is in, right on time.
RD-180 operating with thrust as expected.
And throttling down to 76%.
Roll program complete.
And MSL is now breaking the sound barrier.
SRB chamber pressures, following the nominal curve.  Everything looks good.
And we’ve passed through Max Q.

Closed loop on Atlas BU

SRB profile continues to look nominal.
Throttling back up to 100% thrust on the RD-180.  Engine parameters looking good.
Coming up on SRB burnout, we have burnout of the SRB’s.  Everything is looking good.
Ten seconds to SRB jet.

<Boosters fly off>

And we have first pair, and second pair.  Both sets of SRB’s have successfully jettisoned the vehicle.  We have re-enabled guidance.

Vehicle is now 32 nautical miles in altitude, 54 miles downrange, travelling at 4900 miles per hour.
And we’ve throttled down, to hold a constant 2.5G level for Payload Fairing Jettison.
Approximately ten seconds.
<Fairing flies off>
Fairing jet! And we have also have a successful CFLR jettison, throttling up on the RD-180, everything looks good.  Coming up to 89% thrust.


----------



## PomfretPlunge (Nov 26, 2011)

Five seconds to Spacecraft Sep.  Achieved our targeted roll rate.
We have spacecraft separation!
<Yeah!> 

Mars Science Laboratory is on its way to Mars.


----------



## bigbog (Nov 26, 2011)

Will be interesting to see(literally?) a successful landing and deployment...and lastly, pics....


----------



## speden (Nov 27, 2011)

I hope the rover has a soft landing.  Something like two thirds of all missions to Mars have failed.  The Martians don't take kindly to outsiders landing on their planet.


----------



## andyzee (Nov 27, 2011)

I hope it crashes. These economic times and we're wasting all this money, pathetic.


----------



## ctenidae (Nov 27, 2011)

andyzee said:


> I hope it crashes. These economic times and we're wasting all this money, pathetic.



I hope your tongue is planted firmly in your cheek.


----------



## riverc0il (Nov 27, 2011)

andyzee said:


> I hope it crashes. These economic times and we're wasting all this money, pathetic.


LOL. Knew it was only a matter of time before that comment happened! 

Lots of people (both private and public) are employed by this project. Completely cutting space programs would have a negative impact on the economy. And economic gains are often made be advances in technology. No doubt the fat needs to be cut. But science is important and we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.


----------



## andyzee (Nov 27, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> LOL. Knew it was only a matter of time before that comment happened!
> 
> Lots of people (both private and public) are employed by this project. Completely cutting space programs would have a negative impact on the economy. And economic gains are often made be advances in technology. No doubt the fat needs to be cut. But science is important and we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.




Provided you could afford it. Right now who would the technological advances benefit? Sure, may be "American" companies, but they would just export all technology anyway. No argument from me that technology is important, just don't believe this to be the time to pay for it.


----------



## riverc0il (Nov 27, 2011)

andyzee said:


> Provided you could afford it. Right now who would the technological advances benefit? Sure, may be "American" companies, but they would just export all technology anyway. No argument from me that technology is important, just don't believe this to be the time to pay for it.


If it makes you feel any better, they aren't launching the Shuttles any more.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 27, 2011)

I'm with Andy on this one.  I think the space program should be private business.  Let the Richard Branson's of the world pay for it if they're into that sort of thing.


----------



## speden (Nov 27, 2011)

Basic science like this is an excellent long term investment for the economy.  As the U.S. gets more technologically behind the world technology leaders, missions like this help keep us in the game.

If the 2 billion they spent on this rover project was instead diverted to a jobs program, or extending unemployment benefits, etc. it would make almost no difference to the economy.  But the loss to science would be huge.  Just my opinion.


----------



## andyzee (Nov 27, 2011)

speden said:


> Basic science like this is an excellent long term investment for the economy.  As the U.S. gets more technologically behind the world technology leaders, missions like this help keep us in the game.
> 
> If the 2 billion they spent on this rover project was instead diverted to a jobs program, or extending unemployment benefits, etc. it would make almost no difference to the economy.  But the loss to science would be huge.  Just my opinion.




You are correct 2 billion would be nothing in the grand scheme of things. However, 2 billion here 2 billion there starts adding up. It's more a matter of getting in the "save" state of mind. Now, what happens if this is put of let's say 10 years?



speden said:


> Basic science like this is an excellent long term investment for the economy.  As the U.S. gets more technologically behind the world technology leaders, missions like this help keep us in the game.
> .



And let me repeat, who benefits from this? The United States? Please tell me how? With all the jobs and manufacturing being sent overseas.



deadheadskier said:


> I think the space program should be private business.  Let the Richard Branson's of the world pay for it if they're into that sort of thing.


 I agree with above statement, the private sector benefits, let the private sector pay for this.


----------



## speden (Nov 27, 2011)

andyzee said:


> You are correct 2 billion would be nothing in the grand scheme of things. However, 2 billion here 2 billion there starts adding up. It's more a matter of getting in the "save" state of mind. Now, what happens if this is put of let's say 10 years?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well if you want to go to Mars, it costs 2 billion.  Other countries have tried to half ass it, and they ended up with failed missions.  Russia just put a 163 million dollar piece of junk in orbit that will not make it to Mars.  Putting it off ten years just means you lose the know how and infrastructure to do it, and you gain nothing.

The biggest benefit of big science is that it inspires the next generation of U.S. scientists and engineers.  You won't inspire kids by fixing a few rusty bridges, but sending a ground breaking probe to Mars will generate a lot of interest in the schools.  It also seeds a lot of research money into U.S. universities.  If the U.S. doesn't want to lead, other countries will be happy to take over while we bicker over how much to eviscerate our budgets.

The private sector is the wrong place to do big science.  There is no short term profit for sending a lander to Mars, so the private sector would never do it.  One of the things that has been so successful about NASA is that it is open to industry with the technologies it develops.  Private companies want to compete with each other and are not open.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 27, 2011)

speden said:


> Well if you want to go to Mars, it costs 2 billion.  Other countries have tried to half ass it, and they ended up with failed missions.  Russia just put a 163 million dollar piece of junk in orbit that will not make it to Mars.  Putting it off ten years just means you lose the know how and infrastructure to do it, and you gain nothing.
> 
> The biggest benefit of big science is that it inspires the next generation of U.S. scientists and engineers.  You won't inspire kids by fixing a few rusty bridges, but sending a ground breaking probe to Mars will generate a lot of interest in the schools.  It also seeds a lot of research money into U.S. universities.  If the U.S. doesn't want to lead, other countries will be happy to take over while we bicker over how much to eviscerate our budgets.
> 
> The private sector is the wrong place to do big science.  There is no short term profit for sending a lander to Mars, so the private sector would never do it.  One of the things that has been so successful about NASA is that it is open to industry with the technologies it develops.  Private companies want to compete with each other and are not open.



Guess I just want to see a hard number.  What's the ROI on that $2B.  

I look at the whole picture over time and with NASA, I'm not so certain that allocating 35% of money earmarked for scientific research is the best investment in advancing science and technology in this country.

from wiki:



> Seen in the year-by-year breakdown listed below, the total amounts (in nominal dollars) that NASA has been budgeted from 1958 to 2008 amounts to $471.23 billion dollars—an average of $9.06 billion per year. By way of comparison, total spending over this period by the National Science Foundation was roughly one-fourth of NASA's expenditures: $101.5 billion, or $2 billion a year.[2] NASA's FY 2008 budget of $17.318 billion represents about 0.6% of the $2.9 trillion United States federal budget during the year, or about 35% of total spending on academic scientific research in the United States.[3]



It would seem to me that most of the major advances in science right now are happening in private business.


----------



## riverc0il (Nov 27, 2011)

andyzee said:


> I agree with above statement, the private sector benefits, let the private sector pay for this.


The problem is that there is some science that the private sector is not going to invest in because it doesn't have ROI.  It might be important science but the private sector might not believe it has a good enough ROI to invest the R&D budget.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 27, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> The problem is that there is some science that the private sector is not going to invest in because it doesn't have ROI.  It might be important science but the private sector might not believe it has a good enough ROI to invest the R&D budget.



If a private business won't invest because they won't make any money at it, then explain to me why it's a good long term investment for the national economy as speden said and many who support NASA seem to suggest?

What products wouldn't exist today if we hadn't spent nearly a half a trillion dollars on the space program over the past 53 years?  What is the overall economic benefit to the economy of those products?  If the science is so important, but doesn't produce an economic benefit, then what humanitarian / life science benefit has investment in the space program created?


----------



## andyzee (Nov 27, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> LOL. Knew it was only a matter of time before that comment happened!
> 
> Lots of people (both private and public) are employed by this project. Completely cutting space programs would have a negative impact on the economy.* And economic gains are often made be advances in technology.* No doubt the fat needs to be cut. But science is important and we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.



Can someone name 10  advances in technology that came out of the space program that have benefited mankind?


----------



## Nick (Nov 27, 2011)

Velcro


----------



## riverc0il (Nov 27, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> If a private business won't invest because they won't make any money at it, then explain to me why it's a good long term investment for the national economy as speden said and many who support NASA seem to suggest?


That is my point, it is not a good long term investment for the national economy which is the very reason why private companies and corporations won't investigate in many scientific pursuits (and let's not limit ourselves to NASA here, let's include all higher education research including stuff like cancer research). Much of science is not profitable. Look at vaccines. Vaccines are often not profitable so private sector doesn't want much to do with them yet they do good for humanity. 

I'm speaking on very broad terms here. As noted above, of course there is fat to be trimmed. And given the expense of the program, those projects that could be better managed by the private sector should be explored. But the bottom line is there is a lot of good that is done for education, science, and research that private sector wouldn't fund. Just because an idea is not profitable does not mean it should be abandoned. You've gotta be a pretty hard core libertarian to not accept that. 

Might as well toss out public education, public health efforts, public works projects, national transportation, and public safety. Outsourcing any of those doesn't matter as it is still tax payer supported projects that do good that no private business is going to take up (unless being paid by tax payers, excepting higher ed... a case could be made there as public is almost as expensive as low cost private now). 

And DHS, I am surprised you against NASA but against leasing Cannon. Two sides of the very same coin, IMO.


----------



## riverc0il (Nov 27, 2011)

Also, just for the record here, I am somewhat undecided if $2 Billion for a rover trip to Mars is good use of our national expenditures even in the name of science. I don't know enough about what the project goals are to form an opinion. I am simply arguing against the knee jerk reaction that government shouldn't fund science.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 27, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> And DHS, I am surprised you against NASA but against leasing Cannon. Two sides of the very same coin, IMO.



Not really.  

State/National park expenditures I can reap the benefits of right away.  Space travel?  Not sure what benefit I or any American citizen receives from a 2B investment in determining if mico-organisms existed on Mars at some point in time.  That's what this study is about.  

To put this further in perspective, the entire National Park Budget for 2011 is $3B. http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/budget.htm   Think about that.  NASA is spending $2B to determine if microbial life existed on Mars and our entire National Park system has an annual budget that is only 50% higher.  

National parks received 281M visits in 2010.  

Imagine the benefit to the National parks if that $2B was invested in it instead?  Think about all of the private businesses that thrive off of the National Park system and their benefit to the economy.

If someone can give me hard numbers as to why NASA expenditures are good for the economy, I'm happy to listen.  Otherwise it's just a theory that NASA is good for the economy.  With the national parks, you can probably sum up a fairly accurate estimate of what benefit they give towards US GDP.  Not sure you can say the same about NASA.


----------



## PomfretPlunge (Nov 27, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> What products wouldn't exist today if we hadn't spent nearly a half a trillion dollars on the space program over the past 53 years?  What is the overall economic benefit to the economy of those products?  If the science is so important, but doesn't produce an economic benefit, then what humanitarian / life science benefit has investment in the space program created?



> "Dark Star" is a song released as a single by the Grateful Dead. It was written by lyricist Robert Hunter 
> and composed by lead guitarist Jerry Garcia. "Dark Star" was an early Grateful Dead classic and 
> became one of their most loved and anticipated numbers, often with the group using it as a vehicle for 
> musical improvisation sessions that extended beyond the original structure of the song. 
> The song is included in The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's 500 Songs that Shaped Rock and Roll list.

> Dark Star was the epitome of Grateful Dead's approach to live music and group think. 
> Their most exploratory renditions have never been equaled or copied within context of a rock n' roll performance 
> or recording. Using improvisation techniques, such as playing without meter, 
> let the band to work with ideas that no other rock band would explore, let alone exploit. 
> Jerry Garcia's playing, was often the catalyst to many musical themes...

Also, Mountains of The Moon...  ???


----------



## speden (Nov 27, 2011)

I'd say this faith in the private sector doing great things for the economy and national interests is misplaced.  If the banking crisis showed anything, it's that the private sector cares about one thing, and that's maximizing how many millions are paid out to the CEO and top executives.

Corporations don't care about U.S. jobs.  If the exec's can get bigger bonuses by moving production to China, they'll do it in a heartbeat.  They'll do the same with design and engineering work too.  They see the U.S. as a stagnant mature economy and places like the far east and middle east as growth markets, and they'll happily boost those economies if it means bigger short term gains for them.  This has been going on for many years now, and you can see how it's beginning to fundamentally weaken the U.S.

NASA and basic science research are not about making short term profits; it's about taking big risks and figuring out the big stuff.  Not every project is going to work.  But we're living in a golden age of discovery about the nature of the universe, and the U.S. should be a part of that.  Would the private sector have put up the Hubble telescope?  Of course not.  That one device was a home run and has taught us things that have shaken our basic understanding of the universe.  Now we're looking at concepts like infinite expansion and considering that we may be living in a gigantic multiverse instead of a single universe.  I consider knowledge like that to be worth the price of admission, even if it hasn't turned a profit yet.

NASA isn't always as efficient as it could be.  Each shuttle launch was about a billion dollars, so clearly that was not cost effective to keep going.  But robotic planetary missions are cheap by comparison, and 2 billion spent over many years to do a groundbreaking mission to Mars is much more valuable than letting the military blow through it in about 2 seconds.  If you want to save big money, that would be a better place to look than basic science.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 27, 2011)

PomfretPlunge said:


> > "Dark Star" is a song released as a single by the Grateful Dead. It was written by lyricist Robert Hunter
> > and composed by lead guitarist Jerry Garcia. "Dark Star" was an early Grateful Dead classic and
> > became one of their most loved and anticipated numbers, often with the group using it as a vehicle for
> > musical improvisation sessions that extended beyond the original structure of the song.
> ...



:lol:

Thank god for the bible, lol.  I'm a big fan of the tune Greatest Story Ever Told.  :lol:


----------



## PomfretPlunge (Nov 27, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> What products wouldn't exist today if we hadn't spent nearly a half a trillion dollars on the space program over the past 53 years?  What is the overall economic benefit to the economy of those products?





> Meteorological satellites represent one of the most important technological advances 
> in the history of weather analysis and prediction. The launching of TIROS I 
> (Television and Infrared Observation Satellite) on April 1, 1960 
> revolutionized weather observation methods. TIROS I demonstrated the effectiveness 
> of meteorological satellites in overcoming limitations of conventional observation techniques. 
> For example, radar, weather reconnaissance aircraft, weather ships, and 
> weather balloons supplied information on less than one-fifth of the Earth's surface; 
> TIROS I encompassed almost the entire globe.

> NASA has served as the R&D organization with the National Meteorological Satellite Program, 
> exercising the responsibility for designing, building, launching, and testing satellites...

> Meteorological satellites have greatly enhanced the accuracy of storm warnings and forecasts...

Think Snow


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 27, 2011)

speden said:


> I'd say this faith in the private sector doing great things for the economy and national interests is misplaced.



What national interest do we have in figuring out whether Mars once supported microbial life forms?



speden said:


> If the banking crisis showed anything, it's that the private sector cares about one thing, and that's maximizing how many millions are paid out to the CEO and top executives.



Agree with you 100% here.  Except when I brought up private business, it was a comment regarding where the innovation in science and technology is occurring most right now.  We just celebrated the death of a private businessman, college drop out in Steve Jobs that many consider a top 5 innovator of modern times.




speden said:


> Corporations don't care about U.S. jobs.  If the exec's can get bigger bonuses by moving production to China, they'll do it in a heartbeat.  They'll do the same with design and engineering work too.  They see the U.S. as a stagnant mature economy and places like the far east and middle east as growth markets, and they'll happily boost those economies if it means bigger short term gains for them.  This has been going on for many years now, and you can see how it's beginning to fundamentally weaken the U.S.



Agree with you again, but does NASA have a great concern in creating jobs?  



speden said:


> NASA and basic science research are not about making short term profits; it's about taking big risks and figuring out the big stuff.  Not every project is going to work.  But we're living in a golden age of discovery about the nature of the universe, and the U.S. should be a part of that.  Would the private sector have put up the Hubble telescope?  Of course not.  That one device was a home run and has taught us things that have shaken our basic understanding of the universe.  Now we're looking at concepts like infinite expansion and considering that we may be living in a gigantic multiverse instead of a single universe.  I consider knowledge like that to be worth the price of admission, even if it hasn't turned a profit yet.
> .



It's great to learn new things, but the simple question remains, how does discovering whether or not Mars once supported microbial life directly benefit US National interests?  The same cost to figure that out could put 133K kids through college for a year.



speden said:


> NASA isn't always as efficient as it could be.  Each shuttle launch was about a billion dollars, so clearly that was not cost effective to keep going.  But robotic planetary missions are cheap by comparison, and 2 billion spent over many years to do a groundbreaking mission to Mars is much more valuable than letting the military blow through it in about 2 seconds.  If you want to save big money, that would be a better place to look than basic science.



You'll get no argument from me that the Defense Budget is a much easier place to target savings, but that's a separate discussion.

All I'm asking is how does NASA directly benefit our nation?  I've asked that question a few times and I've been given the answers

Velcro

A couple of tunes my favorite band wrote might have been inspired by space travel

and your statement the knowledge that we are living in a gigantic multi-universe.

I guess I'd just prefer to see federal funds committed towards science that has tangible benefits on our lives.  I'd rather $2B go towards something like Cancer research than figuring out if Mars once supported life.


----------



## Geoff (Nov 27, 2011)

Nick said:


> Velcro



Velcro pre-dates the space program.  It dates back to 1948.

The Hubble was the true home run.

Going to the moon was pretty much a waste of time and money.   An artifact of the cold war.


----------



## speden (Nov 28, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> What national interest do we have in figuring out whether Mars once supported microbial life forms?
> 
> Agree with you 100% here.  Except when I brought up private business, it was a comment regarding where the innovation in science and technology is occurring most right now.  We just celebrated the death of a private businessman, college drop out in Steve Jobs that many consider a top 5 innovator of modern times.
> 
> ...



I find the questions being answered by space science compelling and in the national interest.  As I mentioned earlier, there is a cascade effect of inspiring our youth, and invigorating research at our universities.  It also spurs technology development to carry out these missions.  Paying the tuition for 133K kids doesn't help the country if those kids are looking to get high paying Wall street jobs instead of careers in science and engineering.

One of the main questions in planetary science now is where did life come from.  Did it arise on Earth, do planets exchange the building blocks of life with each other, or did it come from asteroids.  Answering questions like this is basic science.  It's not about making hubcaps or curing cancer.  Other parts of the economy and government deal with that.

Jobs stood on the shoulders of those that came before him.  Part of that foundation is due to space science done by NASA.  Take NASA away and I wonder if there would have been a Steve Jobs.  As we lose our commitment to basic science, I wonder if the next Jobs will be from another country.

NASA does not focus on creating jobs, but they work on U.S. interests, unlike multi-national corporations, which work on their own interests.


----------



## ctenidae (Nov 28, 2011)

andyzee said:


> Can someone name 10  advances in technology that came out of the space program that have benefited mankind?



1: Appllo mission's flight computer design was the basis for the development of integrated circuits- only a benefit if you like computers smaller than a fridge
2: Fuel cells used in the Apollo program were the first viable fuel cells
3: Smoke Detectors- developed for Skylab
4: Cordless drill and the DustBuster- developed by Black and Decker under a program with NASA
5: CATScans and MRI- use digital image processing developed by the JPL to map Moon landing sites- then became the basis for the Landsat satellites
6: Weather forecasts- satellites are handy for that
7: Digital cameras- developed by NASA



I'm tired of looking (and hearing the argument that NASA is a waste). Here's 49 more- http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2010/pdf/Brochure_10_web.pdf; and 20 more: http://ipp.nasa.gov/pdf/spinoff_top_20a.pdf

Knock yourself out looking at the breadth and depth of NASA research- http://technology.nasa.gov/ 
Over 1200 patents, over 2500 technologies

And spinoffs from NASA research: http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/index.html


----------



## ctenidae (Nov 28, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> It's great to learn new things, but the simple question remains, how does discovering whether or not Mars once supported microbial life directly benefit US National interests?  The same cost to figure that out could put 133K kids through college for a year.



And without basic science research, what would you teach them?


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 28, 2011)

Well, if that $2B was pumped into cancer research you could teach them that.

We'll just have to agree to disagree that spending $2B to determine if there was ever life on Mars is a good investment.  I don't think it is.

I put that right up there with putting a man on the moon.  It's a waste of money.


----------



## Geoff (Nov 28, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> 1: Appllo mission's flight computer design was the basis for the development of integrated circuits- only a benefit if you like computers smaller than a fridge
> 2: Fuel cells used in the Apollo program were the first viable fuel cells
> 3: Smoke Detectors- developed for Skylab
> 4: Cordless drill and the DustBuster- developed by Black and Decker under a program with NASA
> ...



Most of your list is NASA adaptations of existing technology to their specific application.   Fuel cells, for example, have been around for almost 200 years.   Integrated circuits came out of the telecom industry (Bell Labs).  In US technology, the military has always funded the basic research.   NASA has always paid private contractors to adapt existing technology (engineering vs pure science).

There has been a ton of pure science done in the Shuttle era.   I cited the Hubble earlier in this thread as the true home run.   There's nothing else you  can point to that is groundbreaking.


----------



## bigbog (Nov 28, 2011)

speden said:


> I hope the rover has a soft landing.  Something like two thirds of all missions to Mars have failed.  The Martians don't take kindly to outsiders landing on their planet.



HA HA great one speden!, leave it to a link from Houston to the CIA's Warehouse in VA to find future fertile ground for future conflict....  Should be interesting...Russia's on their way as well...aren't they?  The lust for the Cold War budgets dies hard....


----------



## ctenidae (Nov 28, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Well, if that $2B was pumped into cancer research you could teach them that.
> 
> We'll just have to agree to disagree that spending $2B to determine if there was ever life on Mars is a good investment.  I don't think it is.
> 
> I put that right up there with putting a man on the moon.  It's a waste of money.



For every dollar NASA spends, there's $8 of benefit to the economy. NASA gets royalties on all of their patents- money that goes to the US Treasury, not to NASA (some think NASA would be self-funding if they got to keep the royalties. Kind of like MiB, I suppose).

Interesting discussion here:
http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/01/11/is-space-exploration-worth-the-cost-a-freakonomics-quorum/


----------



## bigbog (Nov 28, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> For every dollar NASA spends, there's $8 of benefit to the economy....



Can't disagree with that...and compared with the $10B that in 04' Bush proposed, to start with...while keeping a tight lip on his wars & healthcare unfunding...$2B is meager..compared with the $500M he gave the crooked, sinking Sol***tra (name?).


----------



## andyzee (Nov 28, 2011)

My response in red



ctenidae said:


> 1: Appllo mission's flight computer design was the basis for the development of integrated circuits- only a benefit if you like computers smaller than a fridge (How many of these circuits are now made in the United States?)
> 2: Fuel cells used in the Apollo program were the first viable fuel cells (What are said fuel cells used for here? Street lights?)
> 3: Smoke Detectors- developed for Skylab (We needed to go into space to detect smoke?)
> 4: Cordless drill and the DustBuster- developed by Black and Decker under a program with NASA (Once again, we needed to go into space to develop somethng that works on DC instead of AC?)
> ...


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 28, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> For every dollar NASA spends, there's $8 of benefit to the economy. NASA gets royalties on all of their patents- money that goes to the US Treasury, not to NASA (some think NASA would be self-funding if they got to keep the royalties. Kind of like MiB, I suppose).
> 
> Interesting discussion here:
> http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/01/11/is-space-exploration-worth-the-cost-a-freakonomics-quorum/



SWEET

then we should have NASA spend $125B and the deficit goes away.  :beer:


----------



## ctenidae (Nov 28, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> SWEET
> 
> then we should have NASA spend $125B and the deficit goes away.  :beer:



Well, probably more than that, since the revenue only comes back through taxes to the gov't. Still, a hell of a lot better ratio than from a lot of other government programs. Somehow I doubt farm subsidies get anywhere near that kind of impact.

The long term negative impact of not spending $2B on NASA is greater than the short term positive ompact (if any).

How much would Columbus' voyage cost today?


----------



## ctenidae (Nov 28, 2011)

andyzee said:


> My response in red



Fine. We should probably end all government funding of basic and applied sciences. We really don't need anything that the DoD, DARPA, NASA, NIH, CDCP, or any other research arm has ever, or will ever, concieve of. It is clearly better to live in this exact moment, without thinking of the longer term. There is no reason to plan for or invest in the future when it's so much easier to do what feels good right this instant. 

A lot of people took money that shouldn't have been given to them to buy houses and other things they couldn't actually afford, and so the economy is in trouble. We should clearly stop spending money on research and development, hole up in our caves, and hope that someone else figures something out for us. Guess what- China is spending a shit ton of money on research. Bet it'll be them who figures things out.

It is my extremely strongly held belief that the funding of research without immediate commercial applications may be one of the greatest functions of a modern government. There are certianly a whole host of other things the government spends a whole lot more money on that are much less useful, no matter your time horizon. 

It is also my extremely strongly held belief that people who disgree with me are wrong.


----------



## andyzee (Nov 28, 2011)

:lol:





ctenidae said:


> Fine. We should probably end all government funding of basic and applied sciences. We really don't need anything that the DoD, DARPA, NASA, NIH, CDCP, or any other research arm has ever, or will ever, concieve of. It is clearly better to live in this exact moment, without thinking of the longer term. There is no reason to plan for or invest in the future when it's so much easier to do what feels good right this instant.
> 
> A lot of people took money that shouldn't have been given to them to buy houses and other things they couldn't actually afford, and so the economy is in trouble. We shoudl clearly stop spending money on research and development, hole up in our caves, and hope that someone else figures something out for us. Guess what- China is spending a shit ton of money on research. Bet it'll be them who figures things out.
> 
> ...



From previous page:



andyzee said:


> Provided you could afford it. Right now who would the technological advances benefit? Sure, may be "American" companies, but they would just export all technology anyway. No argument from me that technology is important, just don't believe this to be the time to pay for it.




Also, if it makes you feel better, send me your address and I'll be happy to send you a cute red rock with a certificate of authenticity that it's from Mars. If anyone argues with you that it's not from Mars just say: "It is also my extremely strongly held belief that people who disgree with me are wrong." This will shut them up.


----------



## ctenidae (Nov 28, 2011)

andyzee said:


> From previous page:
> 
> 
> Also, if it makes you feel better, send me your address and I'll be happy to send you a cute red rock with a certificate of authenticity that it's from Mars. If anyone argues with you that it's not from Mars just say: "It is also my extremely strongly held belief that people who disgree with me are wrong." This will shut them up.



I submit that never is the right time to stop paying for research.

The belief that others are wrong is a bit of levity- If I thought people with different beliefs were right, then I'd change my beliefs. I think my opinions are correct. That's why they're my opinions.

I will trade you my tiger repelling rock for your Mars rock, though.


----------



## andyzee (Nov 28, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> I submit that never is the right time to stop paying for research.
> 
> The belief that others are wrong is a bit of levity- If I thought people with different beliefs were right, then I'd change my beliefs. I think my opinions are correct. That's why they're my opinions.
> 
> I will trade you my tiger repelling rock for your Mars rock, though.



I say we get a research project to prove that cow manure is indeed slippery, what say you?



Is your tiger repelling rock for: Bengal, Indochinese, Sumatran, or Siberian tiger?


----------



## ctenidae (Nov 29, 2011)

andyzee said:


> I say we get a research project to prove that cow manure is indeed slippery, what say you?
> 
> 
> 
> Is your tiger repelling rock for: Bengal, Indochinese, Sumatran, or Siberian tiger?



It's not as slick as the goose variety.

Not sure on the tiger rock. SInce I haven't been attacked by a tiger at all, I have to assume it's a broad-spectrum repellent. If we could just go ahead and finish wiping out all tigers, I wouldn't have to carry it around any more.


----------



## Cannon Gray (Nov 18, 2020)

NASA has already sent the fifth rover to explore Mars - Perseverance. For building it NASA used the previous rover details. Perseverance is equipped with a special apparatus MOXIE, which will try to generate oxygen from carbon dioxide present in the Martian atmosphere, as well as microphones and sensors for meteorological observations.


----------



## ScottySkis (Feb 18, 2021)

Cannon Gray said:


> NASA has already sent the fifth rover to explore Mars - Perseverance. For building it NASA used the previous rover details. Perseverance is equipped with a special apparatus MOXIE, which will try to generate oxygen from carbon dioxide present in the Martian atmosphere, as well as microphones and sensors for meteorological observations.


Done successfully

Congratulations NASA we landed on Mars well done peace and love peace and love.  #NASA
This is good about Mars lol my home planet


----------



## ctenidae (Feb 22, 2021)

The rocket powered sky crane idea is cool, and the rover itself is remarkable, and it even has a helicopter, which is amazing. Incredible that it all worked correctly. Nice work.


----------



## ScottySkis (Sep 15, 2021)

Talk about Mars and human hard work lol

"Building bases on Mars will literally require blood, sweat, and tears of astronauts, according to scientists developing a cheaper way to use Mars rock and soil to form a concrete-strength structure."








						Building Mars Bases to Require Astronauts' Blood, Sweat, Tears
					

Building bases on Mars will literally require blood, sweat, and tears of astronauts, according to scientists developing a cheaper way to use Mars rock and soil to form a concrete-strength structure...




					www.newsmax.com


----------



## ScottySkis (Sep 17, 2021)

Flight 14 by the #MarsHelicopter is coming up to help scout areas I may visit in the future. 

More on that flight and the challenges of flying on Mars: http://go.nasa.gov/3ErNyRW


----------



## jimk (Oct 14, 2021)

William Shatner went into near space yesterday on Jeff Bezo's Blue Origin spacecraft.  Not bad for a 90 year old.  The guy looks good.  I gotta find out who does his hair 





Article and videos:  https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/13/tech...in-everything-you-need-to-know-scn/index.html

He said the view out the spacecraft was a lot better than the last time he had a window seat:


----------

