Flawless second day on Mars for Curiosity, high-res pic (including R/B 3D)

I am probably jumping of the cliff here, but in the latest pictures I posted, it sure looks like pieces of old wood laying around.


Edit after some research.
Apparantly this is the reason.

What you’re seeing is a piece of flat, platy, layered sulfur-rich outcrop rock like we’ve seen almost everywhere the Opportunity rover has been in Meridiani Planum,” said Bell. “Sometimes, like in this case, those flat, platy rocks have been tilted or dislodged, this one probably from the forces associated with the huge impact crater that formed nearby.

www.universetoday.com...

This have been seen before as well.
2004 by the Mars Exploration Rover.
Here are the pictures from back then.



And the link below contains a pic that was to big to put in my post.
2004 high-res picture


But still, it looks strange... (cue x-files music)

reply to post by LiberalSceptic


I hate to break it to you, but pretty much all of the photos you posted on the previous page were from the MER's. You can see the solar panels in some of the pics. Plus the landscape doesn't look like Gale Crater and you can see wheel tread marks on the ground in some pics (Curiosity hasn't moved yet). Only the last pic is actually from Curiosity.

reply to post by jra


Well that was a surprise.
I did my best to Google for the newest pics from Curiosity, but seems like I have made a big mistake then.

Now when you mention it I recognize the solar panel on picture Nr3.
When I did my search I found a big archive, which to me seemed to be the latest from Curiosity, but I guess it must have been a mix from different rovers.
Unfortunately it is to late to edit the post.

I do apologize for this to all you who read my previous post.

I really hate to keep semi-off topic, or waste my time replying to all this money talk. I am no economist I just know how to use my brain and the internet at the same time.

2.5 billion/55 trillion = .0045% of our national debt
www.usdebtclock.org...

Cost of a US Virginia Class Submarine = $2.4 billion
en.wikipedia.org...
(wiki gives 2 numbers but that's not the point)

A report by the Space Foundation estimated that NASA contributed $180 billion to the economy in 2005. More than 60% of this came from commercial goods and services created by companies related from space techonology. This means that each dollar of NASA spending creates $10 of benefit in the economy.

useconomy.about.com...

edit on 083131p://upSunday by Mushroom Fields Forever because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Mushroom Fields Forever


Well, that should put an end to the money debate then.
Hopefully.

I am sorry , no , I cant beleive that ..
If we are done with money , there never was a single dollar that produced 10 others anywhere , while it got spent.
So
how is it going to drive up mount sharp ?
dont tell me - via remote control ...?

On a separate point I wanted to add - there is no such thing as a negative delusion -
if we cant beleive it - that does not make us deluded , and it will not . Not a cats chance ,
and even so , the sentiment is , it would be cool if this is really happening -
pretty uncool if its not .
The removal of delusions would leave a void - a hole that many others (moon) can disappear into . Thats why I think that IF this is untrue , its a really silly thing to do .

I agree I think that could be wood, and that open spot looks like old asphalt or something, hard to tell with black and white, the only thing I don't get is I know you only have 32mb to work with, but cmon, if you go all the way to Mars surely you can manifest a better and quicker way to get more quality photos in.

Originally posted by LiberalSceptic
reply to post by jra

 

Well that was a surprise.
I did my best to Google for the newest pics from Curiosity, but seems like I have made a big mistake then.

Now when you mention it I recognize the solar panel on picture Nr3.
When I did my search I found a big archive, which to me seemed to be the latest from Curiosity, but I guess it must have been a mix from different rovers.
Unfortunately it is to late to edit the post.

I do apologize for this to all you who read my previous post.

edit on 11-8-2012 by LiberalSceptic because: (no reason given)

The mark of a person that is truly in the pursuit of knowledge. Not being afraid to say " i was wrong ". I applaud your observation and reasoning skills. You have restored my faith in humanity that much more, keep doing what you do.

Originally posted by Mushroom Fields Forever
I really hate to keep semi-off topic, or waste my time replying to all this money talk. I am no economist I just know how to use my brain and the internet at the same time.

2.5 billion/55 trillion = .0045% of our national debt
www.usdebtclock.org...

Cost of a US Virginia Class Submarine = $2.4 billion
en.wikipedia.org...
(wiki gives 2 numbers but that's not the point)

A report by the Space Foundation estimated that NASA contributed $180 billion to the economy in 2005. More than 60% of this came from commercial goods and services created by companies related from space techonology. This means that each dollar of NASA spending creates $10 of benefit in the economy.

useconomy.about.com...

edit on 083131p://upSunday by Mushroom Fields Forever because: (no reason given)

I really do not understand the fuss about the money either. Even disregarding the contributions to the economy, the amount of money each tax payer had to put up is sooooo small.

$2.6 bil project/ 150,000,000 tax payers = $17.33 a piece.

$17.33/ 8 years program has been active so far = $2.16 a year

$17.33/ 20 or so years program will be active = $0.86 a year per tax payer.

Originally posted by homeslice
I really don't understand all these people who are winging about the 2 billion dollars they spent on this mission. That is really nothing at the end of the day, considering how many billions are wasted on other crap everyday.

And obviously the people who think we should be getting high res colour photos and video immediately, don't quite understand how it all works.

I'm really starting to get the idea that people think 2.5 billion dollars somehow vanished into space. It didn't. It went into the paychecks of scientists, technicians, laborers, manufacturers. Listen people, spending money on space is a GOOD THING! The only thing lost is the one ton of material now roaming Mars. That's it!

These new photos confirm everything I suspected. Practically ever square centimeter of Mars is covered with skulls and fossilized critters and plants and bits of machinery and mysterious writing, and all under a bright blue sky. Or at least that's what I'm gathering from other posters. All I see is a bunch of rocks and dust. I'm obviously not looking hard enough.

Originally posted by ZIPMATT
...there never was a single dollar that produced 10 others anywhere , while it got spent.

What!? Are you familiar with investments? advertising? stocks? There are tons of ways to make 1 dollar into 10 that's why the economy exists. If you couldn't turn one dollar into ten there would be no new businesses. Maybe I am misuderstanding? Most of the reasons the government spends money is because it translates to more money, that's why you have a road to drive on to go to work...

Originally posted by ZIPMATT
So
how is it going to drive up mount sharp ?
dont tell me - via remote control ...?

If we didn't need to tell you then why did you ask...? No, there is no driver...

Originally posted by Awen24
I don't understand how it is that $200 billion only buys you a black and white camera these days.
I really don't.

Yes, its quite a shock to me. They still play their silly games.

I am shocked out my of my tree that this our planet.

Originally posted by Blue Shift
These new photos confirm everything I suspected. Practically ever square centimeter of Mars is covered with skulls and fossilized critters and plants and bits of machinery and mysterious writing, and all under a bright blue sky. Or at least that's what I'm gathering from other posters. All I see is a bunch of rocks and dust. I'm obviously not looking hard enough.

You have to squint your eyes and tilt your head 23 degrees to the right or left depending on if you are east or west of the international date line.

reply to post by twistedlogic


2.5 billion is the cost of the rover. All the scientists salaries and upgrades in their equipment is separate in the coming years. Your figures do not allow for true costs. Also the 2.5 billion may not account for time spent by current scientists and administration to develop this. Total cost at the end of the project may exceed seven billion.

The cost of the rover is minute compared to overall costs. Never are we shown projected overall realistic costs as taxpayers. Look at the abandoned collider project in Texas where real costs caused it to be abandoned after costing twice as much as predicted and still only half finished. Sure it stimulated the local economy for a while but these projects are borrowed money. The present government borrows for infrastructure and wastes the real money on these overprice projects. Military projects being the biggest overcharged projects of all.

reply to post by rickymouse


Maybe with war money, but they are pretty good at letting us know where science money goes. Not as many trails to cover up.....

MSL’s cradle-to-grave price tag is now $2.5 billion — 56 percent higher than the initial estimate of $1.6 billion in 2006. The price tag, also known as the life cycle cost, includes five years of development, the nine months MSL will spend en route to Mars, and two years of surface operations plus data analysis.

www.spacenews.com...

nope, not true. $2.5 billion was er'thing, not just the rover. " cradle-to-grave "

And ok, lets forget about what they will do with the data in the future and focus on the 93 months that are part of the $2.5 bil ( I was generous in my calculations with an extra $100,000,000 to salary bonuses and what not, but we all know that amount would never go to the scientist.... )

$2.5 billion/ 150,000,000 tax payers= $16.67 (rounded from .66repeating)

$16.67/ 93 months = $0.18 a month ( rounded from 0.179) or $2.148 a year

Now lets be generous and say that some how, some way this project ended costing 4x the $2.5 billion ( $10 BILLION)

4 x $2.148 = $ 8.592 a year

I didn't even make enough money last year to have to pay taxes (did anyway, i wanted my $25 return!! ^_^), and you're telling me you can't even pay $2.15 a year to send a rover to mars???? I just don't get it.

reply to post by twistedlogic


Well I was wrong, the estimate made allowances that I was not able to find reference to. It isn't one of these things that is the problem, it's the thousands of similar and smaller projects all over the nation plus the money the USA is bribing other nations with to be our friends. It all is not paid for, it is charged to a big bar tab. My view is not personal against NASA, I am looking at rational cuts. Many more people are going to be effected by things here in America in the next five years, from hurricanes to tornadoes to droughts and wildfires. Include flooding and food shortages and we will need everything we can get. How can you borrow more money when your line of credit is near maxed. We still are no where clear of this depression yet, we can flop back in anytime. Nothing has been fixed permanently, just patched with weak money shoved in the cracks.

Beautiful, Nostalgic, Outstanding

wish they landed by the face

nice photos ... be a while before we get those amazing images as promised