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.

 

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

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Sorry, I gotta agree. It's a Long EZ, with external fuel tanks hanging off the wing.





The aircraft that boyd is showing has no tail prop just like the WS125, the Long EZ on the other hand has tail prop.
edit on 6-8-2013 by LUXUS because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by LUXUS
 


Which is essentially invisible in a blurry picture that looks like it is flying so the engine is running.....

duh



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by LUXUS
 


And you and only you were able to make out that kind of detail. I'm willing to bet I can find at least a half dozen Long EZ pics that don't look like they have a prop on them.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by LUXUS
 


You need to read more carefully. I said on page one, both countries put a reactor on an aircraft. Both powered it up on the aircraft. Neither aircraft was ever powered by a nuclear reactor in flight.

The WS-125 never made it off the drawing board.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by LUXUS
he has loads of patents all of which confirm his story that he worked in aeronautics for Lockheed Martin.


no one said he never worked at Lockheed Martin.... when you post a video it is a good idea to read what is on the webpage you post. If you had done that you would have seen

Former Lockheed Martin


also his wiki page

Boyd Bushman (born 1936) is a retired senior research engineer who worked for Lockheed Martin



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by LUXUS
he has loads of patents all of which confirm his story that he worked in aeronautics for Lockheed Martin.


no one said he never worked at Lockheed Martin.... when you post a video it is a good idea to read what is on the webpage you post. If you had done that you would have seen

Former Lockheed Martin


also his wiki page

Boyd Bushman (born 1936) is a retired senior research engineer who worked for Lockheed Martin


Lol talk about back tracking and arguing semantics...

"Worked for Lockheed Martin". Sounds a lot like "Former Lockheed Martin" to me.

I suppose you want to argue that his Wiki page quite clearly states senior research engineer and luxus said scientist?



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by EasyPleaseMe
Lol talk about back tracking


I am not back tracking, all I have done was state the facts.... but as we have seen, some people cannot handle the facts!



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by EasyPleaseMe
Lol talk about back tracking and arguing semantics...

"Worked for Lockheed Martin". Sounds a lot like "Former Lockheed Martin" to me.

I suppose you want to argue that his Wiki page quite clearly states senior research engineer and luxus said scientist?


you should check eth claim - it wasn't that he was a "former" LM employee - it was that he IS a LM employee:


Originally posted by LUXUS
reply to post by Phage
 


He is a senior research scientist for lockheed martin!


- www.abovetopsecret.com... (my emphasis added)
edit on 6-8-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by LUXUS
and compare them to these pieces of junk they send into space


I cannot help but consider your post *extremely* ignorant.

Do me a favor and send some "normal" electronics or a vehicle on a month-long trip through space and then ahve it land AND OPERATE for months under the most extreme circumstances even imaginable.

This includes extreme temperatures, radiation, atmospheric pressure etc..etc

A normal vehicle or "consumer grade" electronics like a camera would in all likelihood not even survive the trip to Mars, let alone function for months. The same applies to computer chips, hardware etc. but also mechanical parts...simple things as making sure that your wheels actually still turn or an arm moves...AT TEMPERATURES WHICH CAN BE AS LOW AS -240F...just one example.

Also, the often given "opinion" about how "crappy" the cameras are is utterly ridiculous. WHY are the cameras supposed to be crappy? Can you elaborate on that?



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by EasyPleaseMe
Lol talk about back tracking and arguing semantics...

"Worked for Lockheed Martin". Sounds a lot like "Former Lockheed Martin" to me.

I suppose you want to argue that his Wiki page quite clearly states senior research engineer and luxus said scientist?


you should check eth claim - it wasn't that he was a "former" LM employee - it was that he IS a LM employee:


Originally posted by LUXUS
reply to post by Phage
 


He is a senior research scientist for lockheed martin!


- www.abovetopsecret.com... (my emphasis added)
edit on 6-8-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)


##snipped##

The man worked at LM in a senior position and he said that a craft was produced that was powered by a nuclear reactor, now you can choose to disbelieve him but why...do you think it is impossible to create a craft that is powered by a nuclear battery?
edit on Wed Aug 7 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: We expect civility and decorum within all topics.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by LUXUS
 


An aircraft is impossible, yes. A spacecraft, no. An aircraft requires so much shielding to keep the crew alive that even if you could get airborne, you couldn't carry a payload. Not to mention the minor problem of what happens when your nuclear powered aircraft crashes, which it will eventually.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


This whole thing about nuclear reactors progressed from a comment about how the mars rover had a nuclear battery which produced 100w, my point was that 100w for a nuclear battery is pitiful and in noway should be considered as optimal. yes a robot could be run on a nuclear battery and probably of a few kilowatts too!

edit on 7-8-2013 by LUXUS because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by LUXUS
 


Nuclear power has been used on spacecraft for years, its nothing new.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by LUXUS
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


This whole thing about nuclear reactors progressed from a comment about how the mars rover had a nuclear battery which produced 100w, my point was that 100w for a nuclear battery is pitiful and in noway should be considered as optimal. yes a robot could be run on a nuclear battery and probably of a few kilowatts too!

edit on 7-8-2013 by LUXUS because: (no reason given)


Sure -- Curiosity's power plant could have been more powerful, but then it would have been heavier, too...

...But that begs the question: what percentage of the total weight of the spacecraft should the power plant be, relative to the suite of scientific instruments? If the weight of Curiosity was set to an upper limit, then every pound over that limit that is dedicated to the power source would need to be subtracted from the rest of the craft, which may result in a reduction in the suite of instruments.

Weight limits need to be considered, and a balance must be struck among the weight of the power plant, the weight of the science package, the weight of the means of locomotion, and the weight of the superstructure that holds it all together (plus the weight of the spacecraft that gets it to Mars in the first place).



edit on 8/7/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by LUXUS
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


This whole thing about nuclear reactors progressed from a comment about how the mars rover had a nuclear battery which produced 100w, my point was that 100w for a nuclear battery is pitiful and in noway should be considered as optimal. yes a robot could be run on a nuclear battery and probably of a few kilowatts too!


apparently 125 watts is enough to enable the craft to carry out its mission with the instruments and facilities that could be lifted to Mars - if they needed more power they could almost certainly have added another power source......but given that they were already at the max total weight it seems unlikely that they could fit more instruments to use it.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I'd imagine that to do certain experiments the rover would need to stop anyway so they probably worked out the best use of the machine so when it moves it moves but has very little else running but when it stops theres power a plenty for the instruments...people always think that you need loads of power to do anything...but really when you work out what you want you probably need about a quarter of it at best.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   
I will say to my responsibility that most users in this thread don't know not only the differences between conventional robotics and aerospace robotics (the demands are clearly different), but the purpose of aerospace rovers. The following are mission statements from popular Mars missions:

Mars Pathfinder
Curiosity
There are many more, refer to the mentioned website.

None of them mentions "taking pretty pictures for the public"; in fact, most of the objectives are chemical, eletromagnetical, economical and geological. The rovers are there for research, hard science, things more important than high-resolution bling. And if you carefully read the mission objectives above, HD cameras aren't even absolutely necessary.

Not only the public is interested in planetary data. It is very likely larger companies with bigger influence want it too. There is no reason to spend billions sending obsolete rovers just to take grainy thumbnails, it doesn't benefit anyone.

For example, the YouTube video you posted. It sure looks like a nice robot to look at, and the motion is quite life-like. But that's it. Curiosity's wheel system is far more efficient and stable (the rover's mass center jitters less), precise (allowing for tiny, precise displacements), less prone to failure (a mechanical leg is much more complex), and a bunch of other important features that those involved in the project (experts in their fields, most of them) know much better than you and me, features that made the 6-wheel stand the chosen propulsion system.

There seems also to be a lively discussion here about how those robots operate. The money spent suggests that the rovers are quite complex. I can't understand how everyone seems so right of their rover robotics knowledge, even though sources aren't added to most claims.




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join