<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.bnet.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on NASA's sky crane over Mars ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10900]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10900/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-25T19:50:00-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Not nuts]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10900-73668]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[@kwikset  - Actually, NASA has already landed rovers on Mars using the 24 airbag landing system - quite successfully, unlike your football scenario. Got some good bounces if I recall...]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10900-73668]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Edouin]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 22:46:27 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Has NASA gone nuts?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10900-73462]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[&quot;Or rather, the rovers were each encased by a tetrahedron of 24 airbags that absorbed the impact, then bounced and rolled to a halt. The airbag shell then deflated and the tetrahedral case blossomed open so that the cradled rover could roll onto the relatively unpolluted surface of Mars.&quot;Having played some football during my long gone and misspent youth I discovered that a partially inflated football just doesn't bounce.Could that be a simple as well as feasible solution?Like in &quot;only partially inflate the airbags!&quot;]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10900-73462]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[kwickset@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:11:08 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[It will be OK...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10900-73431]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[It will be OK, if NASA doesn't mix their metric and English units (as they did on a previous mission)!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10900-73431]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[omb00900@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:22:06 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[All this expertise will be lost with cuts in JPL funding]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10900-73410]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[In recent years there have been continual threats to JPL's annual budget of around $1.5 billion (of which Mars exploration is $300 million). President Obama this year wanted to cut JPL's budget by $300 million, although I think this was rejected by Congress. However, had these cuts gone through, it was quite likely that JPL would have lost many of the experienced personnel who make these Mars landings possible. Other ongoing missions would have lost funding as well.It seems misguided that the administration would cut the highly successful JPL's budget by $300 million even as it lost $535 million building a shiny new manufacturing plant for the failed Solyndra, but that's our priorities these days.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10900-73410]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[zackers]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:27:29 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

