Why are the robots they send to other planets so rubbish?

I dunno man. The MARS Rover lasted like 7 years longer than expected.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by LUXUS

 

You miss the point again...they are not controlled by themselves they are controlled by people on earth, you wanna try and control a fast robot with that amount of lag?
Slow and steady and then we will not have wasted all those billions.

So in your opinion that robot cant be fitted with a different brain to make it more autonomous, the corrections it is preforming when it slips are self corrections.

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
I dunno man. The MARS Rover lasted like 7 years longer than expected.

The mars rover didn't even cover 1 mile from its landing site, and nasa includes going in circles when it calculates distance covered

reply to post by LUXUS


Not to work on mars no.
Not saying it will not happen in the future but at the moment no.
Also dude getting tired of crazy claims about science without any backup..no links no proof just another person claiming crazy # and for that reason Iam out.

Originally posted by LUXUS
reply to post by InhaleExhale

 

All I know is that two of Teslas former students, Marconi and Otis Carr both worked on this mercury device. If you mount the vortex device in gambles like you do a gyroscope then whatever direction you point it in the craft will move.

Its really an exercise in delusion if you cannot show how Marconi could continue anything of Telsa's after he died when Marconi died before Tesla.

what in an open environment can make the device move in any direction other than up or down?

Originally posted by LUXUS

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
I dunno man. The MARS Rover lasted like 7 years longer than expected.

The mars rover didn't even cover 1 mile from its landing site, and nasa includes going in circles when it calculates distance covered

I suppose it could have gone farther if it just moved in a straight line, but then it may have past up some some interesting stuff.

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
I dunno man. The MARS Rover lasted like 7 years longer than expected.

Well, longer than Spirit and Opportunity's nominal mission (the original mission that was planned and originally budgeted). I think engineers felt they could go longer if the solar panels could stay clean enough.

Curiosity's nominal mission in only two years, but it is expected that Curiosity could potentially still be doing science in 15 years.

reply to post by LUXUS


Mars rover gets 125 watts from it's "nuclear battery" when new - decreasing to 100 watts after 14 years - a bit more power than a bright incandescent light bulb uses.

How much top spec gear do you think can work on that output??

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by LUXUS

 

Mars rover gets 125 watts from it's "nuclear battery" when new - decreasing to 100 watts after 14 years - a bit more power than a bright incandescent light bulb uses.

How much top spec gear do you think can work on that output??

A Thorium Plasma Battery can supply enough energy to fly an aircraft so that it never needs to land. If you think 100 watts is as good as it gets you are very wrong.

reply to post by LUXUS


Well it would......if it existed.

But not only is it only a product of some imaginative types, but the physics of it simply does not work.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Aircraft have been built which fly on nuclear energy, try goggling nuclear powered aircraft...they generate alot more then 100w!

Helium3 reactor would be another option

reply to post by LUXUS

try goggling nuclear powered aircraft

Ok

A nuclear aircraft is an aircraft powered by nuclear energy. Research into them was pursued during the Cold War by the United States and the Soviet Union as they would presumably allow a country to keep nuclear bombers in the air for extremely long periods of time, a useful tactic for nuclear deterrence. Neither country created any operational nuclear aircraft. One design problem, never adequately solved, was the need for heavy shielding to protect the crew from radiation sickness.

en.wikipedia.org...

Helium3 reactor would be another option

Unfortunate there is no such thing as yet.

reply to post by LUXUS


No aircraft have ever flown using nuclear energy for propulsion.

the US NB-36H carried a nuclear reactor, but it did not actually power the aircraft, as did the Soviet Tu-119 - both have links from the page above, as does the US tests of potential engines.

the SLAMattack missile of the 1950-early 60's was going to have a nuclear engine which was also tested, but the missile never flew.

Helium 3 might indeed be a great option at some stage....once such reactors are no longer science fiction.

reply to post by Phage



Go to 11:06

reply to post by LUXUS

Go to 11:06

No.

It's nonsense. I've seen it.

reply to post by Phage


He is a senior research scientist for lockheed martin!

Originally posted by LUXUS
He is a senior research scientist for lockheed martin!

no he is not.... what makes you claim that?

reply to post by LUXUS


So what?

the little ring levitating is nothing more than standard electromagnetic levitation - it's been done a million times before - eg



Levitation doesn't actually change the mass!!

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by LUXUS
He is a senior research scientist for lockheed martin!

no he is not.... what makes you claim that?

Maybe this? Patents

Originally posted by EasyPleaseMe
Maybe this? Patents

So he has patents.... so what? That does not make him a "senior research scientist for lockheed martin"