NASA's InSight lander is Dead

a reply to: gortex

A true shame BUT would they ever have let us see anything truly ground-breaking, my opinion is that they would not.

TEOTWAWKIAIFF.

I get that joke but apparently some here miss it so let's enlighten them.

It was a bit of a fringe conspiracy a while back that someone on Mars (or an arctic island as other conspiracy theorists believed) was cleaning the Rover, my opinion it was simply Martian wind and the light particle size of the wind blown dust on the surface allowed it to stay clean, that and probably Nasa used some kind of dust repellent material or perhaps just the angle of the solar cells allowed it to keep on working, in all likelihood it still will and may come back online but be increasingly erratic as the battery is probably dying pretty much like an old cell phone does.

I still believe they are sitting on any images that would have been too controversial though if any were taken by this old jalopy.

Still a shame, at least this time they did not bomb the face on mars.

a reply to: gortex

Sad news. Now it will never find that elusive martian.

a reply to: stelth2

The "sad news" is that the success of this mission is ignored by members here.

The ignorance is staggering.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: stelth2

The "sad news" is that the success of this mission is ignored by members here.

The ignorance is staggering.

Ummm…so…not having addressed an aspect of an issue…is in your mind…ignoring it…?

And then you label such non consideration…ignorance…?

Pathetic condescension posing as elevated intellect is truly not the hallmark of actual enlightenment…nor is it the edifice of education or elucidation…

Perhaps one should not be so invested in personal perspective as opposed to considerations reflecting disparate perceptions tangentially askew of individual consideration…

Merely opining on an increment of happenstance gleaned from perusing media…does not equate a superior gnosis state eclipsing whatever level you’ve assigned to those targeted by innuendo…






YouSir

a reply to: Terpene

That's the biggest problem with missions like this, while many people (and the mainstream media) want colour photos and high resolution videos, the real important data comes from other types of sensors.

a reply to: YouSir

Anything covering the panels would reduce the amount of light available to be converted into electricity.

a reply to: YouSir

Insight spent 4 years on Mars and did what it was sent to do ,there wasn't an issue other than in the minds of those who are only happy when complaining about something or trying to make smart arse comments like yourself.

If the cap fits suck it up Cupcake.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: YouSir

Anything covering the panels would reduce the amount of light available to be converted into electricity.

Ummm...actually peel offs are crystal clear...and their subsequent layering possibly designed with a Fresnel pattern to enhance and magnify the available light striking the panels...



YouSir

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: YouSir

Insight spent 4 years on Mars and did what it was sent to do ,there wasn't an issue other than in the minds of those who are only happy when complaining about something or trying to make smart arse comments like yourself.

If the cap fits suck it up Cupcake.

Ummm...as I previously stated...

Merely opining on an increment of happenstance gleaned from perusing media…does not equate a superior gnosis state eclipsing whatever level you’ve assigned to those targeted by innuendo…

So...there is that...

Also...I never did complain...I merely asked why there wasn't a method in place to mitigate the buildup of dust on the panel surface...then offered some thought on possible mitigation scenarios...

This was in an effort to provide possible paths to extend the life of the lander...so that it's science might continue...not denigrate any science that may have been gleaned thus far...

Cake taker...



YouSir

a reply to: YouSir

If things worked like that they would have Fresnel lens above all panels.

And, as most crystal clear as things may be, there is always some loss, nothing is 100% transparent.