It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Experience 7 mins of terror as the latests Mars Rover lands on Mars.

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain
Funny, it says 7 minutes of terror, yet the clip is only 5 minutes. Where did those other 2 minutes go? Censored?


lmao

If you watched the short 5 minute video, it would have educated you on what 7 minutes of terror are, genius.




posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain
Funny, it says 7 minutes of terror, yet the clip is only 5 minutes. Where did those other 2 minutes go? Censored?


The landing process is seven minutes not the video



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Woah thats badass.

I can't help but
at all the people in this thread commenting on its to complicated and what not.
Why don't you go to NASA and tell them your ideas and concerns im sure they would love your technical help.
edit on 17-7-2012 by Bixxi3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by aaron2209

Originally posted by NeoVain
Funny, it says 7 minutes of terror, yet the clip is only 5 minutes. Where did those other 2 minutes go? Censored?


The landing process is seven minutes not the video


Haha glad i gave you guys a laugh, that was the point =)

Yes i watched it and i know what they are referring to



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
 


Just saw a landing video simulation and the whole thing seems to be retarded.

seems to have designed by committee or management consultants or maybe the owner of this lame brain idea was doing sexual favors for Nasa Managers under the table for this moronic idea to get accepted and implemented.


way too complicated and unnecessarily risky

i mean the last part where a hovering frame lowers the lander on ropes using winches while it hovers firing retro rockets seems really thick and stupid.

once the curiosity rover is safely on the ground the frame will go up and sideways and crash!

why not just land the whole thing... the frame and the lander and have the lander detach and roll away?

seems to be really stupid introducing so many variables like a hovering crane with a rope lowering the lander.

think of all the things that go wrong..

cable tangled,one rocket not firing,winch not working,the frame flips over,the stabilizers fail,the rover not going down,the whole thing getting tangled up...

seems to be a really dumb idea.


i mean seriously it is just such a crazy way to land.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by nobodysavedme
 


The video explains why they can't land the whole thing, the amount of dust that would be kicked up would damage components - hence the lowering by rope part of it.

It does seem pretty complicated, but then again we're talking about a fairly complex situation to begin with... sending a rover to Mars. I doubt they had 5 different plans and picked this one out of a hat, obviously it's taken tons of planning and has been well thought out. That said, yes one thing could easily go wrong and ruin everything. Hopefully that doesn't happen though.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
 


Thank for the vid! That was fun to see.
Have to say that the parachute really impresses me. The force it has to withstand and if something goes wrong with it, well adios little rover. Such a critical part yet so simple.
Perhaps I should write "simple", because I would imagine that this parachute is total high-tech coolness when one looks closer at it.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Why not create a lander that acts like a giant drill and just plunge it into the martian surface creating a crater and diggin up the surface , that way the lander can then deploy safe from inside the protective , shell and into the crater and look around at the stuff its dug up! Like a giant impacter



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by sapien82
Why not create a lander that acts like a giant drill and just plunge it into the martian surface creating a crater and diggin up the surface , that way the lander can then deploy safe from inside the protective , shell and into the crater and look around at the stuff its dug up! Like a giant impacter


Cool idea, but the force from the impact would most likely destroy the Rover inside.
Unless some inner suspension or layer of energy absorbent is used. Though the drill would be rather large.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Well, maybe it impresses space nuts but to me it seems like a promotional video advertising for donations. I grew up with Star Trek and Lost in Space and loved all the fancy gadgets. I think fixing roads and learning to rejuvinate our burned out farmlands is more important than Mars exploration myself. I even think learning to steer the weather is much more important because it has a reason for being. This video may have impressed me twenty years ago but since I finally matured at over fifty it just seems like advertising. It's a free country, everyone has the right to think as they want. Apply my tax money to necessary projects please.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
It's amazing how complex the entire thing is, really remarkable engineering.

But all through that I kept thinking how amazing it is that we can do all of that, to get a little machine on another planet, but we still can't convert light into energy in an efficient way.

Even though we have the building blocks and evidence for the process on the planet all around us, we spend so much money, time and effort on going to another planet, with so much skill and talent involved, instead of developing affordable solar panels capable of turning light into usable energy in the most efficient way.

I definitely support the scientific adventure. But I still have to wonder what would happen if we kidnapped all of the scientist working on the LHC, the Mars missions, NASA and renewable energy proponents and put them all in a room together for a week - we'd probably solve all of Humanity's energy problems within those seven days.

Priorities...



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by LiberalSceptic
 


Yeh we would have to test this idea first here on earth and launch things and drop them to see if it was protected , we have done this rockets when we were younger we would put an egg inside and cover it in foam and protective bubble wrap and it often survived the landing !

Think of a much stronger durable metal shaped like a giant needle that would literally pierece the surface or drill the surface and slow down upon impact and then just reverse out and release the rover !



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual
It's amazing how complex the entire thing is, really remarkable engineering.

But all through that I kept thinking how amazing it is that we can do all of that, to get a little machine on another planet, but we still can't convert light into energy in an efficient way.

Even though we have the building blocks and evidence for the process on the planet all around us, we spend so much money, time and effort on going to another planet, with so much skill and talent involved, instead of developing affordable solar panels capable of turning light into usable energy in the most efficient way.

I definitely support the scientific adventure. But I still have to wonder what would happen if we kidnapped all of the scientist working on the LHC, the Mars missions, NASA and renewable energy proponents and put them all in a room together for a week - we'd probably solve all of Humanity's energy problems within those seven days.

Priorities...


That is actually a good idea!
Getting all the sharp minds together would most likely have a couple of sweet outcomes.
Though I personally do believe that the tech you are talking about is something that already exists, but being suppressed since it would solve to much and make allot of big corporations lose there power.

I would love to take a look at the DARPA basement and see what they have laying around.

Ten-hut!
Tinfoil hats on!



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by sapien82
 


Well as I said in posts before, carbon nanotubes will solve most of our present design issues.

A needle shaped lander which has a point of just a millimeter that will be able to withstand the impact without breaking.
With the hardness of CNT it should be able to break through the surface and dig down, thus lowering the impact speed.
Suspension made out of CNT used in several layers, each layer consisting of a different amount of absorbing ability should be able to take care of the energy. From the first fierce second of the impact to the last just before stop. Giving the Rover a nice end easy stop all the way.

Also when/if the lander brakes it will be very easy to fix it.
Carbon is all around.
edit on 18-7-2012 by LiberalSceptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by nobodysavedme

Just saw a landing video simulation and the whole thing seems to be retarded.

seems to have designed by committee or management consultants or maybe the owner of this lame brain idea was doing sexual favors for Nasa Managers under the table for this moronic idea to get accepted and implemented.


way too complicated and unnecessarily risky

i mean the last part where a hovering frame lowers the lander on ropes using winches while it hovers firing retro rockets seems really thick and stupid.

once the curiosity rover is safely on the ground the frame will go up and sideways and crash!

why not just land the whole thing... the frame and the lander and have the lander detach and roll away?


Because "landing the whole thing" means that BOTH the rover AND a platform carrying the rover would need to land. That's a lot of unnecessary weight at landing.

Also, the landing platform itself would in itself have its own level of complexity. The platform would need to have a protective covering to protect the rover from the dust being kicked up (far more dust than the "sky crane" method). That covering would be required to be motorized to open up to allow the Rover to leave. Also, the landing platform would need a ramp so the Rover could roll off the platform. This landing platform would probably be just as complex as the sky crane, not to mention being heavier.

With this "sky crane" method, the Rover is on the ground, and basically ready to go after landing -- no landing platform required.



edit on 7/18/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by blobby
interesting maybe the military can mass drop tanks like this on other planets or our own? or is the tech for this 7 mins of terror drop not able to be sized up for tanks of other vehicles?
edit on 17-7-2012 by blobby because: (no reason given)


Fast, instantly ready, deployment; with little dust to cloud sensitive tailor made suites of strategic "ewar" equipment...?
Bots on the ground before boots on the ground...?

Weaponization of space going to the next level?
Foreign surface deployment?

*insert sinister music here*



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
 


you should change your head line to experience an Animated 7 mins of terror of an example of the mars rover landing on mars with comentary !! i thought i was going to see the real thing but now i have to wait !!!



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
wow, seems extremely complex. Why did they abandon the bouncing landing technique with all the blown up balls...,to me that method seemed alot easier with alot more room for error. Plus it was funny as heck to watch the cgi animations of those landings, Bounce*, Bounce* bounce* ........ect, ect.

I'm sure there were good reasons they ditched that method, but to a laymen(sp?) like myself it just seemed easier.

I guess just letting the rover bounce for miles across the surface as it bounced way up into the air many times could have you ending up at the bottom of a massive crater with no way out? Longest Hole in one ever! heh.

Heck I'm so far behind on space tech, they probably haven't use the bounce land technique since 2000.


Either way cool video



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain
Funny, it says 7 minutes of terror, yet the clip is only 5 minutes. Where did those other 2 minutes go? Censored?


seriously? Please tell me you are joking.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Extralien
It seems way too complicated.. brilliant if it works, but still, why go to all that bother when the previous rovers bounced onto Mars with big air bags...

What's the deal? Why change the method unless it's an experiment for landing on another planet?
Or did they have to meet/exceed a budget in order to get more funding?


This one is as big a small car. THey other two are much smaller and could reasonably survive (which they did) the bouncing. This version is too big.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join