Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Curiosity's Countdown to Mars

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 71chevellejohn
    replied
    new pic:

    Leave a comment:


  • momo
    replied
    Originally posted by Sgt Beavis View Post
    True. But it is, by far, the largest thing we've put there. Additionally, the method of landing added greatly to the suspense. Then there is the fact that NASA never actually tested the landing method before sending it over to Mars. Oh, and this bad boy is nuclear powered too. It should last more than a decade.
    ya, the method to land is a lot more impressive then the airbag crash method.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sgt Beavis
    replied
    Originally posted by momo View Post
    ... this isn't the first mars landing or the first mars rover.
    True. But it is, by far, the largest thing we've put there. Additionally, the method of landing added greatly to the suspense. Then there is the fact that NASA never actually tested the landing method before sending it over to Mars. Oh, and this bad boy is nuclear powered too. It should last more than a decade.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sgt Beavis
    replied
    Originally posted by MustangPoser View Post
    Money. It costs us something like $10,000 per pound to lift cargo into space, and 80,000 per pound to land it on the moon.
    That is one reason Elon Musk created SpaceX. He is already driving those costs down. The Falcon9 Heavy is targeting a price of under $1000 per pound. Which is something the Space Shuttle was supposed to do.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sgt Beavis
    replied
    Man, I'm impressed that they pulled it off. The entire SkyCrane concept was just nuts but I'll be damn, it worked like a champ. Pretty damn awesome. Great work NASA. Good to see that someone in our government can actually do their jobs to an extremely high degree of precision.

    Leave a comment:


  • momo
    replied
    ... this isn't the first mars landing or the first mars rover.

    Leave a comment:


  • 01vnms4v
    replied
    Don't forget we are suppose to have a Mars colony by 2023 once you get there, you will be there for life.

    One way trip!

    Leave a comment:


  • Downs
    replied
    Yeah I noticed the guy was thanking Prez Obama earlier tonight.

    Building a base on the moon that can sustain humans for any length of time would be much more costly and complicated than sending an unmanned probe to Mars.

    Leave a comment:


  • idrivea4banger
    replied
    This press conference reeks of re-election propaganda.

    Leave a comment:


  • idrivea4banger
    replied
    Originally posted by MustangPoser View Post
    Money. It costs us something like $10,000 per pound to lift cargo into space, and 80,000 per pound to land it on the moon.

    Edit: here's an article about russias plan for a moon base: http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/23/30...moon-base-plan
    But it still has to be more expensive to go to Mars with these rovers than it is to have another manned missions to the moon to build some sort of station.

    Leave a comment:


  • Treadhead
    replied
    Shadow. Nice one GE!
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • GE
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • MustangPoser
    replied
    Originally posted by idrivea4banger View Post
    We should've had a base on the moon by now to continue these space missions. Why haven't we done so??
    Money. It costs us something like $10,000 per pound to lift cargo into space, and 80,000 per pound to land it on the moon.

    Edit: here's an article about russias plan for a moon base: http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/23/30...moon-base-plan

    Leave a comment:


  • idrivea4banger
    replied
    We should've had a base on the moon by now to continue these space missions. Why haven't we done so??

    Leave a comment:


  • Venix
    replied
    Huge step for all of man kind. Now we just need to keep poring money into space travel.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X