Originally posted by CarbonBase
How much did this piece of junk 'Curiosity' cost again? (...)
I mean, driving around on Mars, taking pictures of soft rocks, that erode constantly in a highly windy, low pressure atmosphere, without anything to
slow down the particles suspended in the atmosphere?
Something in the neighborhood of $2.5bn?
But the imagery is not that
bad, in my view, and reveals some interesting details in the terrain. As for the erosion: I had a more detailed
look at that aspect in this post
based on findings by the Pathfinder
I'm pretty sure if it was a Human explorer, or a robot not designed by science guys, you could just walk over and kick it and say 'Wow, that's
a funny looking rock!' Here's a something about Mars that we actually do have data on.
Well, indeed, we need boots on Mars
ASAP ... no question. But for now, the publicly available
images provided by MSL are all we got, I'm
And I don't know: imagine you were part of the MSL science team and would have seen all these interesting formations at Rocknest, Yellowknife Bay
etc., wouldn't you have made Curiosity image all of that close-up?
I can imagine that these high quality images exist. Of course, there's the public archive at NASA/JPL and images get uploaded almost directly
to that server, but it's not really done in real-time. The science team needs to approve them before they go out to the public ... and I think it's
not impossible that we only see selected images
With all these REDUNDANT rover missions to a dead planet, that is dead, was dead, and will ALWAYS will be dead, don't you think it should
have instruments that can do science-y stuff on it that can send us stuff, called data?
Your irony is appreciated
But I wouldn't go so far and say it has always been a dead planet. Scientific data is key, of course, but that includes visual evidence as
well. Pure morphological analysis cannot be valid proof of anything, that's correct, unless we have something in front of us that resembles something
non-natural which is beyond all doubt
of artificial nature.
So, yes, let them do their science at NASA/JPL and collect/evaluate all the other data. I'm convinced they are doing a very good job in that regard.
But I also think that potential future
results of this mission still have some incredible surprises in store for us ... if we'll ever get to
see them, that is!
edit on 16-4-2013 by jeep3r because: text
edit on 16-4-2013 by jeep3r because: spelling