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.

 

NASA's Success

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Now this little gem has been in development for some time. It has a simple mission: to land 1,000lbs of cargo on the moon. That's it. Now watch this video:

youtu.be...

Now, how many test flights where done for Curiosities EXTREMELY complex "Sky-Crane"?

Here's one of only a few cable guided, crane suspended, indoor, and outdoor tests:

www.youtube.com...

Now does any of the above inspire any kind of confidence in landing a $2.5BILLION dollar rover in probably one of the least revealing and most boring places on Mars within the confines of what NASA said the Curiosity Rover would have to go through upon entry?

Here's a few places I would have aimed for:

www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

NASA wanted to learn about rock strata and the planets past...how the hell is that information MORE relevant than verifying liquid H2O and CO2/O2 reactant botanical processes? How is rock, dust, and proving once and again that Mars has huge deserts relevant in today's science?

Wouldn't it make more sense to land near or in one or many of these lakes/rivers/deltas/ponds/forests/algae beds?

Instead of a hugely complex sky crane delivery system, etc etc, why not apply PROVEN Earth technologies like ICBM guidance and drop GPS guided sensors to land directly in these questionable locations? Within seconds testing and sending data back to Earth to be analyzed and verified?

To me, this entire mission says one thing. TPTB know that they have FAR too much to loose if we as a people know there's life elsewhere and our governments are not as needed as we might otherwise think. Spending billions a couple of times to prove to the average Joe with an attention span of a corn flake, that Mars is once again red, dusty, and lifeless is a point they WANT to prove so Joe can go back to his sheep pen and stop wondering about what could be out there, and start refocusing on what IS right here.

What a bunch of horse#. For those of you who like Curiosity and think the red planet is an interesting geological point of reference for modern day science. Get a clue. It's call Curiosity because it "Kills the Cat." In other words, your thoughts that life might be out there are squashed quite adequately now.

Now's the time to wake up and OBSERVE and just LOOK at the pictures above. Obvious evidence of liquid and some kind of biological process(es).




posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   


since nasa claim they landed on the moon, wouldnt this type of craft be perfectly capable?

i mean landing and taking off should be almost too easy

that failed attempt is unacceptable since they perfected it in the late 60s

oh thats right they lost the bluprints for the lunar lander

makes me laugh.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   
How likely is it that NASA, as seen by the public, is a farce and humanity is engaging in secret space exploration?

I'd say there's a decent chance.

Any opinion on the effect that some privatization could have on space exploration? Deception Point by Dan Brown provided some insight on the issues there...



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Xterrain
 


I'm not sure what your point is with regard to the crash of the experimental lander. Was I confident? I was neither confident or pessimistic. Why? Because I don't get to work day in, day out with that stuff, and can only go by what information NASA gives me. I guess they were pretty confident (although I am sure they were aware of the risks) and it seems their confidence was well placed this time.

Boring place? Why is it boring?


I'm not sure NASA knows about mars anomaly dot com. I think you should e-mail them and let them know. It seems as though NASA can't read their own images and neither can the team behind the MRO programme and it's affiliates. This guy at mars anomaly dot com, who is probably a mechanic or bar tender (nothing wrong with either job btw) or something in his full time job, clearly knows more about this kind of thing, and I feel it is high time NASA were put in their place.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Xterrain
 



Instead of a hugely complex sky crane delivery system, etc etc, why not apply PROVEN Earth technologies like ICBM guidance and drop GPS guided sensors to land directly in these questionable locations?


Because the proven Earth technologies you cite exist on Earth?

I could be mistaken, but I don't think Mars has a GPS system.

I think they have DirecTV, though.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xterrain
Wouldn't it make more sense to land near or in one or many of these lakes/rivers/deltas/ponds/forests/algae beds?


There are no lakes/rivers/deltas/ponds/forests/algae beds to land near!

Try visiting proper websites instead of ones hosted by crackpots.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xterrain

Now does any of the above inspire any kind of confidence in landing a $2.5BILLION dollar rover in probably one of the least revealing and most boring places on Mars within the confines of what NASA said the Curiosity Rover would have to go through upon entry?

Here's a few places I would have aimed for:

www.marsanomalyresearch.com...



Facepalm squared to infinity..

So you are suggesting that Gale Crater and Mt. Sharp, one of the most geological interesting sites on Mars which reveals millions/billions of years of Mars history in one single location and LIKELY location of a forner Martian ocean with water...is a "bad" and "boring" place...and suggest that NASA would make their decisions on sites like "marsanomalyresearch" instead?

Because, you read somewhere that "someone" "analysed" some images and found some paredoilia faces and "structures" after staring at it for several hours.....and THIS, in your opinion, would be billions wisely spent?



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by jazzguy
 


You understand there is a huge difference between manned flight and automated right? even US drones are still flown by a human.

They still have problems with computers being able to fly things with out our assistance, it was why the mars landing is a big deal.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jazzguy
 





makes me laugh.


I don't think that laugh is the first thing that cams to mind. It wasn't only the lander there seems to have been a large number of "lost" tech that needs to be reinvented (and the US citizen has to pay for it again), without anyone being called to justice or even a simple discovery process to avoid a repetition.

I'm mostly interested in how radiation shielding will be different in any future craft that takes humans elsewhere beyond low Earth orbit. I still do not understand why we do not have a permanent even self maintained robotic presence on the moon, no AI required use simple telepresence like the Russians did, send up some versatile robots and the resources to maintain a produce more robots up there, no human presence required in the first stages of habitat construction and exploration. I always believed that Japan would be first on that aspect of space exploration, their space program beyond components is a joke and it shouldn't be...



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Xterrain
 





Instead of a hugely complex sky crane delivery system, etc etc, why not apply PROVEN Earth technologies like ICBM guidance and drop GPS guided sensors to land directly in these questionable locations? Within seconds testing and sending data back to Earth to be analyzed and verified?



hmmm..... last time I looked, there were 31 satellites in the earth GPS constellation .... do you mean we should first send another 30 or so satellites to Mars (with all the GPS hardware/software) in it before trying to land on it??? Heck, nothing that is PROVEN on earth will work on Mars ... temperatures, etc, etc, etc .....

To have a proven technology that works on earth means nothing. First you have to get it to Mars, on a rocket, having very high acceleration, vibration, then through outer space in which the temperatures can be -270C, heavy radiation from solar storms, etc, etc, etc. ....



edit on 15/8/2012 by Hellhound604 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
LOL....GPS on Mars and the Moon....I just laughed heartily.
2nd



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by flexy123
 





Because, you read somewhere that "someone" "analysed" some images and found some paredoilia faces and "structures" after staring at it for several hours.....and THIS, in your opinion, would be billions wisely spent?



Are they not the least bit interesting to you? Looks interesting to me.
edit on 15-8-2012 by MightyPenfriend because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Uhh Ohh Mod's - The Sheep are beginning to " wake up " and see the flaws in this Curiosity Mars Landing.

Even though I agree with the op, I am wondering how long the Mod's will leave this New Topic in Space Exploration before Moving it to Skunk Works like they did the thread I started below and placed it in Space Exploration 1st too.


Curiosity Has Not Landed - But Is Good Entertainment For The TV Brain Washed Masses,


There you go op, you can go to the thread above and read the real bottom line on this whole subject.

BTW - Although you have pointed out the " Obvious " problems with the "so called curiosity landing" don't expect much support from the " brain washed TV Arm Chair Scientific Community " on your pointing out the obvious.

Everyone begins to see the light of the facts eventually, they just do not all see it at the same time...
edit on 8/15/2012 by chrisb9 because: typo's



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
I can't understand you Americans. Instead of celebrating a huge event, you look for all sorts of crap to make it seem like a hoax. Much like the moon-landings. Why can't you celebrate the great achievements of NASA (and your country), instead of trying to make it look as though the whole of USA are a bunch of idiots?

Are you Americans not proud of your achievements? I guess a sociologist would be able to explain it to me why, when you have achieved so many great things, you still want to make yourselves sound like idiots.

edit on 15/8/2012 by Hellhound604 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellhound604
 


Hey, I'm celebrating. I got drunk that night. I follow every inch of news and constantly laud the praises for NASA.

Not all Americans are that cynical.


As for those "trees" at the least... those trees would have to be hundreds of Kilometers in size.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by chrisb9
Uhh Ohh Mod's - The Sheep are beginning to " wake up " and see the flaws in this Curiosity Mars Landing.

Even though I agree with the op, I am wondering how long the Mod's will leave this New Topic in Space Exploration before Moving it to Skunk Works like they did the thread I started below and placed it in Space Exploration 1st too.


Curiosity Has Not Landed - But Is Good Entertainment For The TV Brain Washed Masses,


There you go op, you can go to the thread above and read the real bottom line on this whole subject.

BTW - Although you have pointed out the " Obvious " problems with the "so called curiosity landing" don't expect much support from the " brain washed TV Arm Chair Scientific Community " on your pointing out the obvious.

Everyone begins to see the light of the facts eventually, they just do not all see it at the same time...
edit on 8/15/2012 by chrisb9 because: typo's


No thanks, that particular thread is without substance, and 'strengthened' by a 'no men on the Moon' scenario as if, which is also proven to be without substance. You made up a thread on the supposition that one lie proagates another, except the the manned Moon landings are not a lie, and are proven. This thread is set up in the exact same way, to extrapolate a negative from something positive. So you and the 'OP' tell me, what are the pictures that we are seeing now from NASA? CGI, Arizona, Ballygobackwards. What's wrong with looking at rocks? geologists do it all the time, they can tell you offhand which particular rock's percentage of water is, and in whatever form, and how that form came to be. They will certainly look into it, they might even look under it!
edit on 15-8-2012 by smurfy because: Text.



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join