Article

2005-02-16 -Short Attention Span Theater-

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by BigEd 2005-02-16 2:49:56 PM|| || Front Page|| [11131 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Caves you say? Triple the order on them thermobaric blu boys.

Posted by Shipman 2005-02-16 2:58:22 PM|| 2005-02-16 2:58:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 soo that's what's been wiping off the windshield :-)

Man..this is a week for the surprise meter!

Posted by 2b 2005-02-16 3:06:59 PM|| 2005-02-16 3:06:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 ...hidden away in caves and sustained by pockets of water.

So Bin Laden's on Mars?
Mars: Now the 278,678th most Holy Place in Islam.

Posted by tu3031 2005-02-16 3:09:36 PM|| 2005-02-16 3:09:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 NASA's budget up for a vote already?

Posted by Robert Crawford 2005-02-16 3:19:41 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-02-16 3:19:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Indeed, Robert.

The cost thrown about for a manned mission to Mars is about 180 Billion. This likely does not include ground operations for the time period, which for the Mars rovers was a bargain at 3 million a month. Assume the cost of operation is much higher because of the nature of the manned mission. Can we estimate that it might be higher than 200 Billion? The Mars rovers cost very roughly 850 Million to date for flight and operation for more than a year on planet. You can't tell me having one group of people there for a few weeks and who might die, will be better or more effective than having more than 200 rovers all over the surface. Also, economies of scale would drive down the cost per rover, versus cost per astronaut.

There doesn't seem to be a mission for people to do that robots cannot do equally effectively, and without those costs and risks. It just isn't quite as glamorous.

Posted by Mark E. 2005-02-16 3:47:51 PM|| 2005-02-16 3:47:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 aaaak-ak-ak.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2005-02-16 4:03:47 PM|| 2005-02-16 4:03:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Rex, your babelfish's not working. "We come in peace" is aaaak-ak-ak-aak.

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-02-16 4:09:12 PM|| 2005-02-16 4:09:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 well I, for one, welcome our new monocellular overlords

Posted by Frank G 2005-02-16 4:10:17 PM|| 2005-02-16 4:10:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Tech Support, here I come.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2005-02-16 4:24:32 PM|| 2005-02-16 4:24:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Remember the meteorite report? Subsequently NASA announced the supply of 16 new grants, of an unspecified amount as well as the National Science Foundations input of 7 grants to the total of $US800,000. http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/snc/news11.html

Then, everyone who looked at the rock determined that it had no signs of life. See, e.g.,
http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Ecarlkop/marsdeb.html

The NASA budget is up for review. There is an entire section for Mars exploration -- which will be a matter for debate in the Congress:

"The request is expected to focus on plans to reorient NASA's priorities toward President Bush's "Vision for Space Exploration" to the moon and Mars."

Other congressional sources, however, said the decision could reopen discussion of Bush's moon-Mars plan, which was greeted tepidly last year by a Congress worried that other programs and priorities -- such as Hubble -- would be downgraded or abandoned.

"At least we'll have a debate," said one source, who declined to be identified because of lack of firsthand knowledge of the decision to scrap the servicing mission. "It will certainly put in stark relief the tension between [Bush's plan] and other NASA activities."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27653-2005Jan21.html

Posted by Kalchas 2005-02-16 4:40:16 PM|| 2005-02-16 4:40:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 "Yes... life! And the Martians seem to have wheeled vehicles! We have photos of the tire tracks and... erm... oh. Ne'ermind!"

Posted by eLarson 2005-02-16 4:58:38 PM|| [http://larsonian.blogspot.com] 2005-02-16 4:58:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Not the news you want to hear immediately after a seesion of Doom3...

Posted by Elliot Swan 2005-02-16 5:19:19 PM|| 2005-02-16 5:19:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 What sucks is I'm 100% behind space exploration, even of a manned mission to Mars, a base on the Moon, whatever. But NASA's not the people to do it anymore. This kind of crap proves it -- they're too tied to the bureaucratic mindset and hunting for press coverage.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2005-02-16 6:46:01 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-02-16 6:46:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#14

Earthlings,

My name is Sandy Greenbody, and I am the mayor of Olympus Mons. Now that you know we are here, please return our lost prince. He was last reported in the area you call North Korea, and goes by the name of Kim...

Please help. His mother is worried since he was kidnapped by his father many years ago, who then stole a craft that looks like this :

Kim would look like a typical small human beaing in his early 60s. By computer imaging, we figure he looks something like this:

Gort, Klaatu barada nikto,
With kind regards,
Sandy

Posted by BigEd 2005-02-16 7:12:46 PM|| 2005-02-16 7:12:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Mark E. - You're almost there, now follow your logical trail to its unavoidable terminus: Even though $850M seems like a bargain for a rover we don't really benefit from the science performed by the rovers anyway. While the pursuit of knowledge may be a fine and noble thing we have more concrete issues which require our attention and resources right here at home. Further it is unconscionable to spend a single dollar on NASA when there are _ (fill in your favorite LLL tax-dollar-recipient group here).

Personally I'm glad you weren't in a position to influence US space policy in the late 60s.

Posted by AzCat 2005-02-16 8:20:25 PM|| 2005-02-16 8:20:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Could be that NASA is finally listening to what the public has been saying after seeing some of the images sent back by the rovers?

This guy has a LOT of rover images of what he thinks are fossilized organisms that the rovers have seen:

http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsindx.htm

Worthwhile having a look I think. Stuff that makes you go: Hmmmm.

Posted by Leigh 2005-02-16 8:22:12 PM|| 2005-02-16 8:22:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Leigh, it looks to me like that guy's just spotting more canals. Nothing there but the ability of the human brain to spot patterns.

Seriously, trilobites on Mars? If he just said "this is interesting", he'd be respectable. Spouting off about "sea urchins" and "trilobites" is reading WAY TOO MUCH into the pictures.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2005-02-16 8:43:11 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-02-16 8:43:11 PM|| Front Page Top

14:02 Crerert Ebbeting3481
09:14 1233JEFF
08:49 1233JEFF
08:38 1233JEFF
23:59 Bomb-a-rama
23:54 phil_b
23:46 gromky
23:43 .com
23:39 phil_b
23:38 .com
23:37 Frank G
23:35 Frank G
23:30 Frank G
23:25 .com
23:24 Frank G
23:18 phil_b
23:13 Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead
23:02 Robert Crawford
23:01 Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead
22:59 Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead
22:54 .com
22:43 Desert Blondie
22:41 Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead
22:40 IToldYouSo