We landed on Mars... again? [Mod note post #1]

bfa1509

I always cringe when I see these monumental events unfold on the 6 o' clock news. Why is this big news? I thought we already did this 10 or 15 years ago?

Of course we get the grainy black and white images with really interesting rocks we will study for the next few years. I can't wait for the blurry red pictures of rocks to come through in about 6 or 7 months when people have finished caring about the landing event.

Do people actually believe this crap?

Mod note:

Trigger wrote: »

Mod: going to clean this one up a bit. Posters can and will have a difference of opinion, because they hold that opinion does not mean that they can be attacked. Play the ball and not the man.

banie01

What's the conspiracy theory?

ctrl-alt-delete

banie01 wrote: »

What's the conspiracy theory?

Black and white photos of the red planet I think.

bfa1509

bfa1509 wrote: »

I always cringe when I see these monumental events unfold on the 6 o' clock news. Why is this big news? I thought we already did this 10 or 15 years ago?

Because it's a new rover with new experiments and equipment. In particular, it's the first rover that is specifically tasked with searching for existing life rather than habitability.
Here's a great video on it:

bfa1509 wrote: »

Do people actually believe this crap?

Yes. Why wouldn't they?

Are you suggesting that it's faked?

Wanderer2010

Whats the purpose of this trip, and all the billions of dollars spent on it? Lets sort our own planet out first before we care about what may or may not have happened in distant lands.

Captcha

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Whats the purpose of this trip, and all the billions of dollars spent on it? Lets sort our own planet out first before we care about what may or may not have happened in distant lands.

This is why you are on boards.ie and not Mars

Wanderer2010

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Whats the purpose of this trip, and all the billions of dollars spent on it? Lets sort our own planet out first before we care about what may or may not have happened in distant lands.

Cool. Why not take money from say the military in that case?
Or from all the subsidies for sports?

bfa1509

King Mob wrote: »

Because it's a new rover with new experiments and equipment. In particular, it's the first rover that is specifically tasked with searching for existing life rather than habitability.

That's great, if we learn half as much using this rover as we did from the other five rovers then we will be doing just swell :rolleyes:

Of course it's faked, NASA has, is and always will be nothing more than a financial buffer/rainy day fund for the US government. Why do you think Obama put a halt to the space exploration program? Because Obamacare drained so much of the funds that they couldn't even afford to fire off the odd ceremonial rocket here and there like they used to.

bfa1509

bfa1509 wrote: »

That's great, if we learn half as much using this rover as we did from the other five rovers then we will be doing just swell :rolleyes:

Yes.

bfa1509 wrote: »

Of course it's faked, NASA has,

lol, what a silly and childish thing to believe.

Why do you believe that it's faked and what evidence do you have that any NASA mission has been faked?

bfa1509 wrote: »

is and always will be nothing more than a financial buffer/rainy day fund for the US government. Why do you think Obama put a halt to the space exploration program? Because Obamacare drained so much of the funds that they couldn't even afford to fire off the odd ceremonial rocket here and there like they used to.

Lol. Nonsense.

Do you really believe this or is this a poor attempt at trolling?

Wanderer2010

King Mob wrote: »

Cool. Why not take money from say the military in that case?
Or from all the subsidies for sports?

That comment makes absolutely no sense. The military and sports are essential bodies/activities here on Earth where we all live. And where billions of dollars could massively benefit so many people here and now.
Instead of investing it in a planet where none of us will ever visit in our lifetime, collecting soil samples for analysis of a period where life may have existed millions of years ago. Pointless to the progression of our species here and now.

I regurgitate the news

How do they have the technology to go to Mars but they don't have the technology to go to the moon anymore because they destroyed it

Wanderer2010

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

That comment makes absolutely no sense. The military and sports are essential bodies/activities here on Earth where we all live. And where billions of dollars could massively benefit so many people here and now.

Lol. Sure they are... :rolleyes:

You realise that NASA and the space industry employs thousands and directly leads to technology development, right?
Or are you ignoring this to troll?

I regurgitate the news

I regurgitate the news wrote: »

How do they have the technology to go to Mars but they don't have the technology to go to the moon anymore because they destroyed it

We do have the technology to go to the moon.

We haven't sent humans to the moon since the apollo program because there hasn't been the budget and political will.

At this stage I have to ask you guys if you believe the Earth is round before continuing this...

Lantus

Round like a plate.....

Smee_Again

I regurgitate the news wrote: »

How do they have the technology to go to Mars but they don't have the technology to go to the moon anymore because they destroyed it

They destroyed the moon?

I feel like I’d have noticed if the moon had been destroyed.

I regurgitate the news

King Mob wrote: »

We do have the technology to go to the moon.

We haven't sent humans to the moon since the apollo program because there hasn't been the budget and political will.

At this stage I have to ask you guys if you believe the Earth is round before continuing this...

We no longer have that technology because it was destroyed and it would be a painful process to build it back again.

You're obviously not too well read up on NASA's employees I see.

Honestly, you'd swear people worked for NASA but then they don't even know about NASA actually say

mickdw

bfa1509 wrote: »

I always cringe when I see these monumental events unfold on the 6 o' clock news. Why is this big news? I thought we already did this 10 or 15 years ago?

Of course we get the grainy black and white images with really interesting rocks we will study for the next few years. I can't wait for the blurry red pictures of rocks to come through in about 6 or 7 months when people have finished caring about the landing event.

Do people actually believe this crap?

Returning after a decade is an achievement - we cant seem to go back to the moon after 50 years.

Deagol

I regurgitate the news wrote: »

How do they have the technology to go to Mars but they don't have the technology to go to the moon anymore because they destroyed it

I weep..

Of course they have technology to go to the moon - you're willfully ignoring the difference between sending a one way, dispensable 1 ton 'robot' to Mars and the challenge of safely sending 6 tons of machine and extremely fragile humans to the moon AND safely returning them to Earth.

I regurgitate the news

Deagol wrote: »

I weep..

Of course they have technology to go to the moon - you're willfully ignoring the difference between sending a one way, dispensable 1 ton 'robot' to Mars and the challenge of safely sending 6 tons of machine and extremely fragile humans to the moon AND safely returning them to Earth.

Ok Here's NASA Astronaut Don Pettit. It's a short video. We no longer have the technology..........Jees. What is wrong with you guys

I regurgitate the news

I regurgitate the news wrote: »

We no longer have that technology because it was destroyed and it would be a painful process to build it back again.

You're obviously not too well read up on NASA's employees I see.

Honestly, you'd swear people worked for NASA but then they don't even know about NASA actually say

Lol So you are a flat earther then. Cool. No point in wasting time with you.

mickdw

mickdw wrote: »

Returning after a decade is an achievement - we cant seem to go back to the moon after 50 years.

But there's been a bunch of landings on the Moon in the last 50 years.

I regurgitate the news

King Mob wrote: »

Lol So you are a flat earther then. Cool. No point in wasting time with you.

You're a donk. I quote a NASA astronaut and show you the clip I am quoting.

All you can come back with is name calling because you didn't know NASA said this and you're trying to save face.......moron

I regurgitate the news

I regurgitate the news wrote: »

You're a donk. I quote a NASA astronaut and show you the clip I am quoting.

All you can come back with is name calling because you didn't know NASA said this and you're trying to save face.......moron

Yes, but you believe that the Earth is flat, so you clearly don't understand a great many things about science.

If you don't believe the Earth is flat, please just say so. No need to dodge the question.

Also, lol "Donk" :rolleyes:

bfa1509

King Mob wrote: »

Yes.

Tell me now, what revolutionary discoveries have we made about Mars that will benefit humanity for centuries to come?

King Mob wrote: »

Why do you believe that it's faked and what evidence do you have that any NASA mission has been faked?

About 90% of the footage they give us is computer rendered, animated nonsense. Why not just give us real footage if they are really doing it?

King Mob wrote: »

We do have the technology to go to the moon.

We haven't sent humans to the moon since the apollo program because there hasn't been the budget and political will.

So we had the budget in the 60s but not now, despite the fact that the technological advancements we've made in the meantime should allow us to go at a fraction of the cost...

King Mob wrote: »

At this stage I have to ask you guys if you believe the Earth is round before continuing this...

Nobody is asking you to be here. You've clearly made up your mind on the topic. Why wait around?

drunkmonkey

You can send your name, I put the family on Atlas V 401 on the Insight Mission to Mars a few years ago.
Still taking names for the next mission https://mars.nasa.gov/participate/send-your-name/mars2020/

bfa1509

bfa1509 wrote: »

Tell me now, what revolutionary discoveries have we made about Mars that will benefit humanity for centuries to come?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies

bfa1509 wrote: »

About 90% of the footage they give us is computer rendered, animated nonsense. Why not just give us real footage if they are really doing it?

Simple bull**** here.
Evidence please.

bfa1509 wrote: »

So we had the budget in the 60s but not now,

Yes.

bfa1509 wrote: »

despite the fact that the technological advancements we've made in the meantime should allow us to go at a fraction of the cost...

Which technological advancements specifically?
How much would it cost?

Also, could you explain why we don't have supersonic commerical aircraft now when we did in the 70s?
Are you claiming Concorde is fake too?

bfa1509 wrote: »

Nobody is asking you to be here. You've clearly made up your mind on the topic. Why wait around?

Oh... so you also believe the Earth is flat and space is a glass dome...
Cool...

bfa1509

King Mob wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies

Of course, when I ask you what discoveries we've made about Mars that will benefit humanity for centuries to come you deflect with an irrelevant link about NASA spinoff technologies...

King Mob wrote: »

Simple bull**** here.
Evidence please.

The video about Perserverence you posted above is 90% animated bulls***t

Here is a two hour long livestream of the landing:

Can you scan this and show me where there is actual footage of the landing? Even the "moon landing" had actual footage...

King Mob wrote: »

Which technological advancements specifically?
How much would it cost?

Eh, have you ever heard of SpaceX? Have you ever heard of Virgin Galactic? If we could go to the moon the commercial industry would be there in a second.

King Mob wrote: »

Also, could you explain why we don't have supersonic commerical aircraft now when we did in the 70s?
Are you claiming Concorde is fake too?

What has this got to do with anything? The concorde wasn't commercially viable after a highly publicised crash.

King Mob wrote: »

Oh... so you also believe the Earth is flat and space is a glass dome...
Cool...

Why don't you just question my mental state? I know you are only itching to. I've been watching your comments on this forum for the last two years, your conduct is disgraceful.

Covid19

bfa1509 wrote: »

I always cringe when I see these monumental events unfold on the 6 o' clock news. Why is this big news? I thought we already did this 10 or 15 years ago?

Of course we get the grainy black and white images with really interesting rocks we will study for the next few years. I can't wait for the blurry red pictures of rocks to come through in about 6 or 7 months when people have finished caring about the landing event.

Do people actually believe this crap?

Isn't education a wonderful thing.

Mr_Muffin

We can send a robot to mars but instead of equipping it with a decent camera, we attach the same black and white camera my grandparents used on their wedding day in 1934.

bfa1509

bfa1509 wrote: »

Of course, when I ask you what discoveries we've made about Mars that will benefit humanity for centuries to come you deflect with an irrelevant link about NASA spinoff technologies...

Yes. That's what you asked for. The development of space technologies leads to spinoff technologies that directly benefit people.

You clearly don't have any knowledge or interest in the purely scientific benefits and will call any such discoveries fake without evidence or reason.

bfa1509 wrote: »

The video about Perserverence you posted above is 90% animated bulls***t

Here is a two hour long livestream of the landing:

Can you scan this and show me where there is actual footage of the landing? Even the "moon landing" had actual footage...

Why would there be actual footage of the landing?
There wasn't any cameras on the surface to film it.

You've already posted the images from the rover.

Could you point to any examples of footage that NASA claims is real, from the spacecraft footage that is in fact faked? Also please provide evidence that it is fake.

bfa1509 wrote: »

Eh, have you ever heard of SpaceX? Have you ever heard of Virgin Galactic? If we could go to the moon the commercial industry would be there in a second.

So why haven't they gone to the moon?

Are you claiming that it's impossible to go to the moon?

bfa1509 wrote: »

What has this got to do with anything? The concorde wasn't commercially viable after a highly publicised crash.

But it doesn't exist now. So therefore it's fake.
This is your logic.

bfa1509 wrote: »

Why don't you just question my mental state?

Well you don't believe the world is round.

If you don't believe this, simply state that.

Either way, what you're proposing is of a similar level as claiming the world is flat.
Many flat earthers use similar arguments to what you are claiming.

bfa1509 wrote: »

I know you are only itching to. I've been watching your comments on this forum for the last two years, your conduct is disgraceful.

Lol. I'm sorry that you're so offended. :rolleyes:

bfa1509

Covid19 wrote: »

Isn't education a wonderful thing.

It truly is. It's a pity it doesn't teach you how to question things that are clearly bol**ox.

Mr_Muffin

Mr_Muffin wrote: »

We can send a robot to mars but instead of equipping it with a decent camera, we attach the same black and white camera my grandparents used on their wedding day in 1934.

The rover has a bunch of cameras that are in color. As well as a bunch of other instruments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseverance_(rover)#Instruments
What a ridiculous comment...

bfa1509

bfa1509 wrote: »

It truly is. It's a pity it doesn't teach you how to question things that are clearly bol**ox.

So just to clarify.
You believe that there are no rovers at all on Mars and everything about them has been faked and created and that NASA has been faking these space missions for decades?

Does this include all space missions?
Does it include space missions from other countries?
Does it include space missions from private companies?

Ronald Franz

The photos you see are the first photos taken seconds after landing, with the dust of touchdown still unsettled and not the optimum pictures that we will see from this rover. I'm not sure what standard you are expecting.

Each rover mission is progressively more detailed. First sussing the ground, 2nd more detailed, learning from the previous.

This one has a helicopter attached that will fly on its own mission.

The rover will dig down, take a sample, a robotic arm will place the sample in storage container. Another robotic arm will store the vial in the rover before placing it in an area that a future mission will pick up and return to Earth.

Its far more advanced than the previous rovers to land. And the next mission will be even more so. A return trip to Mars.

It will be 20 or more years before the full result of this mission is completed, when the scientists of the future are testing the samples and potentially confirming ancient life on Mars.

Guy:Incognito

Yeah, look at this horrible grainy, black and white video with no sound.

https://twitter.com/IrfanKh65232660/status/1362274214707924993

beachhead

bfa1509 wrote: »

I always cringe when I see these monumental events unfold on the 6 o' clock news. Why is this big news? I thought we already did this 10 or 15 years ago?

Of course we get the grainy black and white images with really interesting rocks we will study for the next few years. I can't wait for the blurry red pictures of rocks to come through in about 6 or 7 months when people have finished caring about the landing event.

Do people actually believe this crap?

Brain twanks again.There have been at 7 Martian probe landings since the 1970s.6,I believe were stationary probes.It's only a conspiracy when the americans attempt it not I'd say when the chinese do it next year

bfa1509

King Mob wrote: »

Lol. I'm sorry that you're so offended. :rolleyes:

Not one bit offended, sorry to tell you.

But I'd rather be a mentally ill, flat earth believing, tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist in your eyes than to be a righteous NASA fanboy who posts thousands of times in a forum with desperate (and honestly weak) attempts to debunk conspiracy theories.

bfa1509

bfa1509 wrote: »

Not one bit offended, sorry to tell you.

But I'd rather be a mentally ill, flat earth believing, tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist in your eyes than to be a righteous NASA fanboy who posts thousands of times in a forum with desperate (and honestly weak) attempts to debunk conspiracy theories.

Ok. So if the attempts are so weak, why are you unable to address them?
Why are you running away?

Why do you believe such an ignorant, ridiculous conspiracy theory when you're not able to defend it in any meaningful way?

Rikand

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Yeah, look at this horrible grainy, black and white video with no sound.

https://twitter.com/IrfanKh65232660/status/1362274214707924993

Mars is a fierce noisy place

Triangle

bfa1509 wrote: »

It truly is. It's a pity it doesn't teach you how to question things that are clearly bol**ox.

But it does teach you how to understand things.
Without a proper education on a subject how can you question the validity of it?

namloc1980

bfa1509 wrote: »

It truly is. It's a pity it doesn't teach you how to question things that are clearly bol**ox.

Can you provide proof and evidence of your claims?

If must be terrible to be so narrow minded as you clearly are.

Lantus

Well done everyone involved in bringing this to fruition. It will be an exciting few years of discovery I hope. Another small step forwards out of the darkness for humanity.

Trigger

Mod: going to clean this one up a bit. Posters can and will have a difference of opinion, because they hold that opinion does not mean that they can be attacked. Play the ball and not the man.

I regurgitate the news

namloc1980 wrote: »

Can you provide proof and evidence of your claims?

If must be terrible to be so narrow minded as you clearly are.

I provided evidence to my claim that NASA can no longer go back to the moon because they destroyed the technology and it would be a painful process to build it back again.

You were sneering before I provided NASA Astronaut Don Pettit's video confirming what I said but then you stopped debating it and calling me a flat earther.

Funny that.

When you lost the argument you went to name calling.

:pac::pac::pac::D

I regurgitate the news

I regurgitate the news wrote: »

I provided evidence to my claim that NASA can no longer go back to the moon because they destroyed the technology and it would be a painful process to build it back again.

But that's not what he said. You are misrepresenting the intention of his words to manipulate them to support your silly conspiracy notion.

He is not saying that the technology doesn't exist.
He is not saying that it's impossible to go back to the moon.
He is not saying that it's impossible to land probes on the moon and other planets.

What he's saying is that the specific technology used in the Apollo program was not maintained in the same way that the technology used in Soyuz was.
He's saying that to remake an Apollo like craft again, it would require a lot of infrastructure and engineering. Which would just take time and money.

Now if you disagree with this interpretation, please provide some statement from this guy where he directly states support for your silly conspiracy notion.
If you can't provide such a quote, then you are dishonestly claiming he supports something he does not.

I regurgitate the news wrote: »

You were sneering before I provided NASA Astronaut Don Pettit's video confirming what I said but then you stopped debating it and calling me a flat earther.

No, I called you a Flat Earther.
You are proposing the idea that all space mission are faked.
This is a very very silly and childish thing to believe. It's on the same level as believing the world is flat. They are both about equally as silly.
And many flat earthers also agree with your conspiracy theory that all space missions are faked.

I asked if you believed that the earth was flat, and as typical for conspiracy theorists you were evasive about your beliefs. So I assumed that you were a flat earther and did not want to admit as much.
It's not an insult. Simple statement of fact.

If you don't believe the earth is flat, simply say so.
No need for the constant dodging and running away.

Ger Roe

Mr_Muffin wrote: »

We can send a robot to mars but instead of equipping it with a decent camera, we attach the same black and white camera my grandparents used on their wedding day in 1934.

That camera was only for intended for use by the lander in identifying the intended landing site. It is in 'black and white' because it is only showing red spectrum light that was used for mapping comparison checks on the way down.

Wait for the spectacular HD pics when the rover is fully checked out and it unpacks itself from it's safe descent mode configuration. Various sytems and tools, including camera's have yet to be unfolded into operational position.

In a few days, you will not be disappointed with the picture quality.... or maybe you always will be

sydthebeat

Ger Roe wrote: »

That camera was only for intended for use by the lander in identifying the intended landing site. It is in 'black and white' because it is only showing red spectrum light that was used for mapping comparison checks on the way down.

Wait for the spectacular HD pics when the rover is fully checked out and it unpacks itself from it's safe descent mode configuration. Various sytems and tools, including camera's have yet to be unfolded into operational position.

In a few days, you will not be disappointed with the picture quality.... or maybe you always will be

You do know that the CT heads in here are 100% going to claim the HD colour pics are fake, don't you.

That's the whole reason for this forum to exist.

tdf7187

bfa1509 wrote: »

I always cringe when I see these monumental events unfold on the 6 o' clock news. Why is this big news? I thought we already did this 10 or 15 years ago?

Of course we get the grainy black and white images with really interesting rocks we will study for the next few years. I can't wait for the blurry red pictures of rocks to come through in about 6 or 7 months when people have finished caring about the landing event.

Do people actually believe this crap?

Not seeing the conspiracy theory here.

NASA need massive funding from the US government. They have good PR in order to exert moral pressure for more funding. All rationally explained without need to resort to conspiracy theory.

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

You do know that the CT heads in here are 100% going to claim the HD colour pics are fake, don't you.

That's the whole reason for this forum to exist.

But then when you ask them the next logical question, they ignore it.

If they're going to fake all the photos, which not have nice crisp HD pictures and footage from the landing to make it even more convincing?

Conspiracy theorists will not even acknowledge this kind of question.
Watch.

Akrasia

bfa1509 wrote: »

Tell me now, what revolutionary discoveries have we made about Mars that will benefit humanity for centuries to come?

The technology to send these rovers to Mars did not exist until it was developed for the purpose of sending these rovers to Mars. Now that it has been developed these robotics, electronics, nuclear, rocketry, communications, AI, sensors, lasers, shielding etc technologies have all been advanced and can be used across multiple other scientific and economic areas

About 90% of the footage they give us is computer rendered, animated nonsense. Why not just give us real footage if they are really doing it?

the real (raw) footage will be made available but it’s not that interesting to most people because it’s slow paced and first person view of a pretty bland and unchanging landscape. The general public would be bored to tears by it, and scientists don’t do this for the footage, it’s the data they care about, stuff the general public are not trained to understand

So we had the budget in the 60s but not now, despite the fact that the technological advancements we've made in the meantime should allow us to go at a fraction of the cost...




Nobody is asking you to be here. You've clearly made up your mind on the topic. Why wait around?

The budget in the 60s was unlimited because it was part of the Cold War and a lot of the technology had military applications so money was no object

What is the purpose of sending humans on holiday to the moon today?

Maybe if we built a lunar habitat and made them live there for a few months to see if they could survive? There would be enormous scientific value in that, But we’ve never had the technology to do this and it’s orders of magnitude greater than the challenge of visiting the moon and coming straight home. The costs would be astronomical

magicbastarder

bfa1509 wrote: »

I always cringe when I see these monumental events unfold on the 6 o' clock news. Why is this big news? I thought we already did this 10 or 15 years ago?

have you ever been to the same pub twice? if so, why? was the beer different the second time?