Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

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

2456719

Comments



  • 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...:confused:




  • 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?




  • 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.




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

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




  • 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


  • Advertisement


  • 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 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?




  • 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




  • 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?




  • 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.


  • Advertisement


  • 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.




  • 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.




  • 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 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.
    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.




  • 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 :)




  • 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.




  • 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 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.




  • 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




  • 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?


  • Advertisement


  • 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

    As a person that believes on moon landings I find this argument so weak.




  • 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.

    Ha the ultimate anti foreign aid argument




  • 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 lander has loads of cameras attached. Some of them do little things like just watching wheels and equipment for damage and others for mapping the route for danger they are not all for scientific purposes.

    Now I know this second half will be complicated science for people who believe that Covid can be transmitted on 5g waves but there is a time delay between Mars and Earth when sending information so that's why we get the low resolution stuff first




  • 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.
    what do you mean they destroyed the technology? you mean if we *did* go back, we'd be exclusively using technology designed in the mid 60s?




  • 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

    Notbsure what you are getting at- we don't have the technology to produce Ford Escorts anymore either, that was also destroyed and it would be a painful and pointless process to build it back again.




  • what do you mean they destroyed the technology? you mean if we *did* go back, we'd be exclusively using technology designed in the mid 60s?

    People seem to get very confused by this story and think that no longer having the tech we had on Apollo means that the science behind it is lost and forgotten and we are incapable of going to the moon

    All it means is the factory that built the nuts and bolts is closed down but we do have new factories building new better nuts and bolts and have not lost the ability to get to the moon




  • what do you mean they destroyed the technology? you mean if we *did* go back, we'd be exclusively using technology designed in the mid 60s?

    But people say this all the time, that we don't have the technology to go to the moon now because the Apollo program was destroyed. Its the same as saying the Ferrari doesn't have the technology to built the Dino (from 1969). Those weak arguments that creates conspirationists about the moon landings.




  • Notbsure what you are getting at- we don't have the technology to produce Ford Escorts anymore either, that was also destroyed and it would be a painful and pointless process to build it back again.

    But we will not be going back to the moon in a ford escort, or even with an Apollo lander on a Saturn V rocket. When we go back, it will be newer and better technology.

    Even if we had forgotten about the technology that was used in the past, that might not be a bad thing in deciding how to go back fifty years later.

    To go back to the original Mars landing argument here, we have done it several times before, but each time we are getting better and seeing/learning more. This current mission is the biggest and bestest hardware on Mars yet.

    That's why it has been done again.




  • 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.

    You obviously don't understand the technology in the slightest. It's not the camera that's low quality - they're within the most highly engineered cameras ever created.

    Transmitting these images in high resolution is what takes time. Getting anything back from over 200 million kilometers away is an incredible achievement. Wait, and the high resolution pictures and data will come.


  • Advertisement


  • kirving wrote: »
    You obviously don't understand the technology in the slightest. It's not the camera that's low quality - they're within the most highly engineered cameras ever created.

    Transmitting these images in high resolution is what takes time. Getting anything back from over 200 million kilometers away is an incredible achievement. Wait, and the high resolution pictures and data will come.
    Exactly. It's hilarious when folk give out about the crappy photos. It should be abundantly obvious to anyone with any degree of intelligence that the signal bandwidth and latency over such a long distance is absolutely horrific.


Advertisement