Discussion on:
Just
In
In
Curiosity
Posted by bb_apptix
6th Aug
Show:
0
Votes
For What?
All this money being spent for WHAT? It would be better spent here on Earth because there are so many unsolved things here. Why not leave the Moon and Mars alone?
Posted by Paul D. Martin
1st Aug
0
Votes
RE: For What?
Because the technologies developed from this will indeed trickle down and improve life here. Because for most of the electronics, computing power, miniatureized circuits and related gear that we use now - for better or for worse, the seeds were planted by the space programs and related projects.
Posted by GregGold
1st Aug
0
Votes
Four Factual Errors of the Space Program
by Darin_Selby@hotmail.com
Most of us Baby Boomers have allowed ourselves to be brainwashed into believing that "Mom, apple pie, and launch the Mars Rover!" is the way to go.
In the process, the planet is being trashed by more and more launches, as the industry WORLDWIDE increases, to launch even privatized space vehicles, based upon the tried and tested technology of the environmentally-disasterous Space Shuttle era.
At this point, I question the need to go into outer space at all, to accomplish the very thing that we're collectively seeking to do in the first place.
This veil of hypocrisy of the space program being for the 'betterment of all Mankind' must be lifted, to reveal what is REALLY going on with the trashing of the environment at large.
First Factual Error
was in the disregard for all of life and the environment, by launching 10 POUNDS OF PLUTONIUM and risking an accident in the process.
So not only did NASA risk life and limb with launching 10 lbs. of Plutonium, what came out of the TAIL PIPE of the ATLAS ROCKET BOOSTER that lifted this spacecraft into outer space?
The space program has proved itself in many ways, but exploring pristine space has a large environmental cost here on Earth. NASA estimates that complete cleanup of the remnants of space shots going all the way back to the Apollo Program will take decades and the cost will run close to one Billion dollars.
Learn more about the Mars rocket launch environmental disaster here: http://darinselby.1hwy.com/MonsterMarsRocket.html
Second Factual Error
is what was finally chosen to be the way to land on Mars.
I am simply amazed at the overly-complex, Rube Goldberg way that NASA has decided to land their rover named, 'Curiosity' on Mars.
Watch this video, and at about the 2 minute mark, when the rockets get fired, everything gets WAY more complicated than it really needs to be.
Does a Science lab on Mars to dig for rocks really warrant the $2.5 billion cost of taxpayer's money?
And if it does, after all the environmental damage to our atmospheric envelope from solid rocket fuel pollution, and the risk of 10 lbs. of Plutonium dispersement from an accident, now Curiosity is almost ready to land on Mars, Aug 5th.
So I watch this video, "Seven Minutes of Terror" and they're all 'biting their nails' in it because of all the things that could go wrong with the TOTALLY LAME landing sequence (in my opinion, of course), that the NASA technicians came up with.
The Tao Te Ching explains it this way,
"Plan difficult tasks through the simplest tasks
Achieve large tasks through the smallest tasks
The difficult tasks of the world must be handled through the simple tasks
The large tasks of the world must be handled through the small tasks"
In other words, that which has become simple has matured.
What has seemed to be completely forgotten on the drawing board for creating the entry module onto the Martian surface, was the simplicity of the 'Deployable Tensairity Inflatable Wing':
This wing has already been built and tested by none other than NASA, and it completely eliminates the need for the use of the complicated EIGHT rockets (that will all have to work without one glitch) for landing the Mars rover.
The price tag would have also been a fraction of what was spent on this landing design, which has a HIGH probability of failure. And that is according to the engineers who built it!
If a Deployable Tensairity Inflatable Wing were to be used, the 200 mph parachute descent would then be able to turn into a GLIDING descent, with the minimal use of small rockets to control pitch and yaw of the flying lander.
These same small rockets would also be utilized for short lift-offs, so that Curiosity could take off and fly to another location. Then it glides once again to a soft landing. The Tensairity wings deflate, roll back up and stow away, to be ready for the next short runway take-off.
Third Factual Error
People are continuously fed the B,S. that we need to go into outer space, or to Mars, or back to the moon. This propaganda was all started in the U.S. by a captured Nazi rocket scientist, Wernher Von Braun, who teamed up with Walt Disney back in the '50's.
Through Disney media movies, they BRAINWASHED a good majority of the Baby Boomer generation into this totally INSANE way to treat the environment, & frivolously waste BILLIONS of dollars on unnecessary outer-space satellite projects.
And one thing about every single satellite in orbit is that they ALL must eventually return in a decaying orbit, to burn up in the atmosphere, releasing TONS of TOXIC & RADIOACTIVE CHEMICALS in re-entry into our fragile atmospheric envelope.
Instead of billions of dollars wasted on gathering some MOON and MARS ROCKS, couldn't it be better channeled by using this voluminous scientific knowledge of information overload that has already been acquired, on the betterment of mankind here on Earth? Learn more about this here:
http://darinselby.1hwy.com/NASASatelliteReEntryDanger.html
Fourth Factual Error
That we need satellites at 250 - 350 miles altitude, as well as at a 22,500 miles geosynchronous orbit. MILITARY advantages are the main reason.
Because, almost EVERYTHING that we're doing with orbital space satellites can be done with Stratospheric Airships, and at a mere 25 miles altitude!
As far as orbital satellites go, this ridiculous and environmentally unsound BLASTING OFF from the earth is no longer necessary. We can now FLOAT to the edge of space instead, and accomplish just about everything that we were doing at 10 times the altitude. Learn more about this here:
http://darinselby.1hwy.com/floattospace.html
Most of us Baby Boomers have allowed ourselves to be brainwashed into believing that "Mom, apple pie, and launch the Mars Rover!" is the way to go.
In the process, the planet is being trashed by more and more launches, as the industry WORLDWIDE increases, to launch even privatized space vehicles, based upon the tried and tested technology of the environmentally-disasterous Space Shuttle era.
At this point, I question the need to go into outer space at all, to accomplish the very thing that we're collectively seeking to do in the first place.
This veil of hypocrisy of the space program being for the 'betterment of all Mankind' must be lifted, to reveal what is REALLY going on with the trashing of the environment at large.
First Factual Error
was in the disregard for all of life and the environment, by launching 10 POUNDS OF PLUTONIUM and risking an accident in the process.
So not only did NASA risk life and limb with launching 10 lbs. of Plutonium, what came out of the TAIL PIPE of the ATLAS ROCKET BOOSTER that lifted this spacecraft into outer space?
The space program has proved itself in many ways, but exploring pristine space has a large environmental cost here on Earth. NASA estimates that complete cleanup of the remnants of space shots going all the way back to the Apollo Program will take decades and the cost will run close to one Billion dollars.
Learn more about the Mars rocket launch environmental disaster here: http://darinselby.1hwy.com/MonsterMarsRocket.html
Second Factual Error
is what was finally chosen to be the way to land on Mars.
I am simply amazed at the overly-complex, Rube Goldberg way that NASA has decided to land their rover named, 'Curiosity' on Mars.
Watch this video, and at about the 2 minute mark, when the rockets get fired, everything gets WAY more complicated than it really needs to be.
Does a Science lab on Mars to dig for rocks really warrant the $2.5 billion cost of taxpayer's money?
And if it does, after all the environmental damage to our atmospheric envelope from solid rocket fuel pollution, and the risk of 10 lbs. of Plutonium dispersement from an accident, now Curiosity is almost ready to land on Mars, Aug 5th.
So I watch this video, "Seven Minutes of Terror" and they're all 'biting their nails' in it because of all the things that could go wrong with the TOTALLY LAME landing sequence (in my opinion, of course), that the NASA technicians came up with.
The Tao Te Ching explains it this way,
"Plan difficult tasks through the simplest tasks
Achieve large tasks through the smallest tasks
The difficult tasks of the world must be handled through the simple tasks
The large tasks of the world must be handled through the small tasks"
In other words, that which has become simple has matured.
What has seemed to be completely forgotten on the drawing board for creating the entry module onto the Martian surface, was the simplicity of the 'Deployable Tensairity Inflatable Wing':
This wing has already been built and tested by none other than NASA, and it completely eliminates the need for the use of the complicated EIGHT rockets (that will all have to work without one glitch) for landing the Mars rover.
The price tag would have also been a fraction of what was spent on this landing design, which has a HIGH probability of failure. And that is according to the engineers who built it!
If a Deployable Tensairity Inflatable Wing were to be used, the 200 mph parachute descent would then be able to turn into a GLIDING descent, with the minimal use of small rockets to control pitch and yaw of the flying lander.
These same small rockets would also be utilized for short lift-offs, so that Curiosity could take off and fly to another location. Then it glides once again to a soft landing. The Tensairity wings deflate, roll back up and stow away, to be ready for the next short runway take-off.
Third Factual Error
People are continuously fed the B,S. that we need to go into outer space, or to Mars, or back to the moon. This propaganda was all started in the U.S. by a captured Nazi rocket scientist, Wernher Von Braun, who teamed up with Walt Disney back in the '50's.
Through Disney media movies, they BRAINWASHED a good majority of the Baby Boomer generation into this totally INSANE way to treat the environment, & frivolously waste BILLIONS of dollars on unnecessary outer-space satellite projects.
And one thing about every single satellite in orbit is that they ALL must eventually return in a decaying orbit, to burn up in the atmosphere, releasing TONS of TOXIC & RADIOACTIVE CHEMICALS in re-entry into our fragile atmospheric envelope.
Instead of billions of dollars wasted on gathering some MOON and MARS ROCKS, couldn't it be better channeled by using this voluminous scientific knowledge of information overload that has already been acquired, on the betterment of mankind here on Earth? Learn more about this here:
http://darinselby.1hwy.com/NASASatelliteReEntryDanger.html
Fourth Factual Error
That we need satellites at 250 - 350 miles altitude, as well as at a 22,500 miles geosynchronous orbit. MILITARY advantages are the main reason.
Because, almost EVERYTHING that we're doing with orbital space satellites can be done with Stratospheric Airships, and at a mere 25 miles altitude!
As far as orbital satellites go, this ridiculous and environmentally unsound BLASTING OFF from the earth is no longer necessary. We can now FLOAT to the edge of space instead, and accomplish just about everything that we were doing at 10 times the altitude. Learn more about this here:
http://darinselby.1hwy.com/floattospace.html
Posted by darinselby
2nd Aug
0
Votes
Curiosity
- Is Curiosity 100% sterile? If not, then the results will be contaminated.
- Does vaporizing a rock from up to 25 feet away with a laser affect the rock's chemsty in any way?
- Likewise, does heating rock to 1,800 degrees affect the rock's chemsty in any way?
When asked how life came to be on Earth, Richard Dawkins (and others) believe that life on Earth originated from Mars or some other planet, which still doesn't explain how life began.
Posted by bb_apptix
6th Aug