Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Russian on May 25, 2008, 05:39:37 PM

Title: NASA TV
Post by: Russian on May 25, 2008, 05:39:37 PM
watch how billions of $ crater Mars....its on now.
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: Masherbrum on May 25, 2008, 05:49:35 PM
watch how billions of $ crater Mars....its on now.
I'm still trying to decipher what your sentence means.   :confused:
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: Strip on May 25, 2008, 05:52:30 PM
What channel was the live special supposed to be on?

Bright House Networks in Florida.....

Strip
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: Russian on May 25, 2008, 06:55:06 PM
Touched down.
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: AKIron on May 25, 2008, 06:56:44 PM
w00t!
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: MoeRon on May 25, 2008, 06:57:08 PM
 :aok :aok :aok :aok
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: Masherbrum on May 25, 2008, 06:58:24 PM
Are you talking about the Phoenix probe?
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: MoeRon on May 25, 2008, 07:03:47 PM
yes, it just landed  :salute

perfect landing....1/4 degree tilt
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: Masherbrum on May 25, 2008, 07:05:31 PM
yes, it just landed  :salute

perfect landing....1/4 degree tilt
Cool, I wasn't sure if Russian was talking about this, or not.   

 :salute NASA
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: Russian on May 25, 2008, 07:10:20 PM
Cool, I wasn't sure if Russian was talking about this, or not.   

 :salute NASA

Are there other probes landing today on Mars? Why are you playing stupid?


Anyhow, first picture is due in 1.5 hours.
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: moot on May 25, 2008, 07:12:44 PM
I had left it on the speakers.. fell asleep, but heard the last 2000 meters descent mark and woke up, hehe.. Awesome! :D
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: LePaul on May 25, 2008, 07:21:42 PM
Are there other probes landing today on Mars? Why are you playing stupid?


Anyhow, first picture is due in 1.5 hours.

Wow, someone use all your Preparation H tonight?

Congrats to NASA, great landing.
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: xNOVAx on May 25, 2008, 07:23:06 PM
 :rock on NASA

Cant wait to see the pictures
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: moot on May 25, 2008, 07:24:19 PM
It's too bad they didn't have a camera for the landing... Like the Huygens "lander"..
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: Strip on May 25, 2008, 08:41:16 PM
Russian,

Well that proves it! There wasnt a fire, loss of craft, or malfunction of any kind.

Must of have been free of anything made in Russia....

:aok

How many failures has the Russian space program had with missions to Mars?

Strip
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: sluggish on May 25, 2008, 08:59:50 PM
You know, I wouldn't knock the Russians when it comes to space travel.  They handed our butts to us for the first ten years of the space race.  Every bad thing you describe in your post has happened to American craft.
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: Masherbrum on May 25, 2008, 09:02:29 PM
See Rules #4, #5
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: AquaShrimp on May 25, 2008, 10:04:21 PM
See Rules #2, #5
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: RTR on May 25, 2008, 11:14:44 PM
Well to be realistic here, the USSR put the first hardware on the moon I believe. MIR was in use a long time (Longer than any US station).
They put the first man in space...the list goes on.

So they didn't just put a "simple transmitter in low earth orbit" and quit. (the Space shuttle is actually a low earth orbit vehicle btw).

Those of us who were around during the Space Race recall the anticipation of each new launch and endeavor from both sides of the world.

It is still a pretty exciting thing.

Kudos to NASA on a succesful landing, it's going to be an interesting few weeks.

cheers,
RTR
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: AquaShrimp on May 25, 2008, 11:46:01 PM
See Rules #2, #5
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: Russian on May 26, 2008, 12:03:19 AM
Where is this Russia VS USA debate came from? Does my user name really bother pride of some people here that much?
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: Masherbrum on May 26, 2008, 12:09:04 AM
Where is this Russia VS USA debate came from? Does my user name really bother pride of some people here that much?
I was only trying to figure out what you meant with your initial post.   USA vs USSR crap is what it is, crap.   

Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: Hornet33 on May 26, 2008, 12:22:47 AM
Wached the landing "live" on TV tonight on the Science channel before I went out. Everything seemed to go by the numbers for the guys at JPL and NASA. What a way to celebrate the Memorial Day Weekend. 5-10 years of planning and testing and it all came together for them. WTG :salute They learned from their failure with their last mission to the pole region of Mars and pulled one out of their hat this time around.

Just remember guys, it always takes baby steps before the longer steps are taken.
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: AWMac on May 26, 2008, 02:16:03 AM
Crap!!!  The first pic back is a Coke~Cola can in Chinesse.

 :O
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: MORAY37 on May 26, 2008, 11:43:47 AM
Great to see it get down, and that all the programming was in alignment (see mars polar explorer)  I saw Phoenix off from my rooftop last year...it was one of the few launches from Kennedy that passed at a right angle to my home... had to get up in the middle of the night to watch it....  Could see it for about 45 minutes as it went out... and out... and out...

Great Job to JPL. 

Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: MORAY37 on May 26, 2008, 11:52:25 AM
See Rule #2, #5
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: Russian on May 26, 2008, 12:02:39 PM
See Rule #4
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: Furball on May 26, 2008, 12:04:20 PM
jeez, lighten up people.
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: AWMac on May 26, 2008, 12:05:42 PM
 :rofl
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: Furball on May 26, 2008, 12:06:05 PM
See Rule #2
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: moot on May 26, 2008, 12:42:55 PM
3D pic for those of us with two eyes:

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2126/2525182178_ea85dd0575_o.jpg)

It needs to be entirely visible to work.


Did anyone record the NASA-tv descent commentary for the last 2km or so? 
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: moot on May 26, 2008, 01:19:37 PM
It was caught on its way down by an orbiter, with the parachute still on:
(http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/375/mroparalf0.jpg)

For scale:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2263/2525328874_178cb1948d_b.jpg)
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: MotorOil1 on May 26, 2008, 02:52:52 PM
Quote from the NASA PM of the project today as the Phoenix completes it's 10 month journey to Mars and lands successfully:

“It was better than we could have possibly wished for,” said Barry Goldstein, the project manager for the mission.

 It landed, how can that be better than expected? Were they epecting it to crash as the other one did of the dame design?  Guess that's what you get for $400+ million. 

Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: moot on May 26, 2008, 03:04:04 PM
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,237162.0.html

They probably expected to have one or two things go mildly wrong, instead of merely 6 seconds late on parachute release and (most likely in consequence) a 20km offset from landing target. 
  Guess that's what you get for $400+ million. 
Tell that to the engineers, face to face..
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: soda72 on May 26, 2008, 03:21:10 PM
They should be happy. 
Quote
Landing on Mars is a notoriously tricky business. There has been about a 50% failure rate on all Mars missions since Russia launched the first one in 1960.   

Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: Wolfala on May 26, 2008, 03:27:12 PM
I watched the debrief last night for about 2 hours.

It was the equivalent to taking a golf swing from Washington D.C., and hitting a hole in 1 in Sydney, while the hole in Sydney was moving.

So instead of a 55% failure rate to Mars, we now have a 50% failure rate.


Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: AKIron on May 26, 2008, 03:35:53 PM
I watched the debrief last night for about 2 hours.

It was the equivalent to taking a golf swing from Washington D.C., and hitting a hole in 1 in Sydney, while the hole in Sydney was moving.

So instead of a 55% failure rate to Mars, we now have a 50% failure rate.




I'd rather think of it as an increase to a 50% success from a 45% success rate. It's easy for me to think of these missions to a dry barren ball as a waste of money and effort but the drive for knowledge has yielded unexpectedly profitable results in recent decades.
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: Holden McGroin on May 26, 2008, 03:38:12 PM
It's easy for me to think of these missions to a dry barren ball as a waste of money and effort but the drive for knowledge has yielded unexpectedly profitable results in recent decades.

Much of Nevada is dry and barren... maybe we just havent found Tahoe or Vegas yet.
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: moot on May 26, 2008, 03:53:48 PM
I'd rather think of it as an increase to a 50% success from a 45% success rate. It's easy for me to think of these missions to a dry barren ball as a waste of money and effort but the drive for knowledge has yielded unexpectedly profitable results in recent decades.
With your post history, that's LOL funny.
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: AKIron on May 26, 2008, 03:57:56 PM
With your post history, that's LOL funny.

Not everything is cut and dried, black and white, simple, or straight forward. It is possible to yearn for more while counting it's cost. When you get older you may understand this.
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: moot on May 26, 2008, 04:07:24 PM
I reckon I've had more time spent listening to and squeezing wisdom from elders than you think Iron.  To stay on topic, calling this probe a waste of money and effort, when it and all the other things done by NASA are done on a shoestring budget, while a large proportion of the citizenry acts like vegetables gobbling up hundreds of billions in social program taxpayer money compared to the fraction of a percent budget given to NASA... and when you defend supernatural wild goose chases, when there's indeed some black and white reasoning to missions like this mars lander..  That's funny.  Not mockingly funny, but just plain funny..

I can't say I agree with the bloating and red tape NASA has tended towards, but that's another story.
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: moot on May 26, 2008, 04:10:25 PM
The above picture is actualy the next (1 ton) Mars probe's chute, oops..
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: AKIron on May 26, 2008, 04:12:23 PM
I reckon I've had more time spent listening to and squeezing wisdom from elders than you think Iron.  To stay on topic, calling this probe a waste of money and effort, when it and all the other things done by NASA are done on a shoestring budget, while a large proportion of the citizenry acts like vegetables gobbling up hundreds of billions compared to the fraction of a percent budget given to NASA... and when you defend supernatural wild goose chases, when there's indeed some black and white reasoning to missions like this mars lander..  That's funny.  Not mockingly funny, but just plain funny..

I can't say I agree with the bloating and red tape NASA has tended towards, but that's another story.

$400+ million here, $400+ million there, pretty soon you're talking real money. When have I ever advocated spending a nickle or YOUR money on ANYTHING supernatural?

I doubt you have more years under your belt being enthusiastic about space exploration than do I. I'm all for finding out if Mars can or ever did support life, when we can afford to do so without going into astronomical debt.
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: moot on May 26, 2008, 04:35:29 PM
You aren't reading my post as I'm meaning it.  I'm saying it's funny you'd call this very justifiable probe effort a waste, when the budget is what it is.. When it's done on an agency's budget that's 0.5 (or so) percent of the total budget.  I'm saying it's funny you'd call it a waste in any metric, and funny you'd find surprising that the first few steps (in person or not) on virgin worlds would yield any less than 50% surprises...  And that you've given supernatural hocus pocus stuff more credit (in the credibility sense) than very reasonable stuff as this, as opposed to (e.g.) the rampant dis-measurement of 'efforts' like welfare, etc.
When I say I've had more time leeching elders, I mean wisdom in no matter specifically, and I mean just a few of them together have 3 times your lifetime.. That's not condescence, it's my tally of it.

And I could probably illustrate the non-waste of those 400M$ here and there... If you have that many years of space enthusiasm, you should know there's nothing about the astronomical debt in the US that's due to one agency's 0.6% share of the budget.
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: AKIron on May 26, 2008, 05:10:40 PM
You aren't reading my post as I'm meaning it.  I'm saying it's funny you'd call this very justifiable probe effort a waste, when the budget is what it is.. When it's done on an agency's budget that's 0.5 (or so) percent of the total budget.  I'm saying it's funny you'd call it a waste in any metric, and funny you'd find surprising that the first few steps (in person or not) on virgin worlds would yield any less than 50% surprises...  And that you've given supernatural hocus pocus stuff more credit (in the credibility sense) than very reasonable stuff as this, as opposed to (e.g.) the rampant dis-measurement of 'efforts' like welfare, etc.
When I say I've had more time leeching elders, I mean wisdom in no matter specifically, and I mean just a few of them together have 3 times your lifetime.. That's not condescence, it's my tally of it.

And I could probably illustrate the non-waste of those 400M$ here and there... If you have that many years of space enthusiasm, you should know there's nothing about the astronomical debt in the US that's due to one agency's 0.6% share of the budget.

Knowing people who are older and perhaps wiser is not the same as being that yourself. I did not say this mission was a waste of my money although it very well may be a huge waste of money, only time will tell. However, the money spent on this is most definitely my money, at least some of it. I certainly have the right to express my opinion and even my dissent when it comes to spending my money and those who spend it would do well to listen.
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: moot on May 26, 2008, 07:09:59 PM
these missions to a dry barren ball as a waste of money and effort
  A waste of money and effort, not "a waste of your money."

You certainly have the right to express your opinion and dissent, and I can point out how crooked it all looks given the context of your previous posts.. 

"Knowing people who are older and perhaps wiser is not the same as being that yourself."  Well are you going to just insinuate it, or explicitely say you can read my mind and know I didn't learn from their wisdom, and specificaly didn't learn that "It is possible to yearn for more while counting it's cost. When you get older you may understand this." ? You're not even close.. And context such as your clinging to bogus mysticism like ID (all the while denouncing GW and other instances scientific dogmatism) tips the scales further to 'erroneous', in my eyes.

I still say that it's bogus to resume a mission like phoenix to "a waste of money and effort", and calling the profitable results in recent decades from the drive for knowledge "unexpected", in so far as missions like these (if that's what you're refering to) were going to chart what's nearly 'terra incognita'.  How could they not yield unexpected results?  How could they not be worth the small fraction of the agency's 0.5% of the budget?
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: DiabloTX on May 26, 2008, 08:02:57 PM
The Phoenix Lander onboard computer is so cutting edge...it couldn't even run Aces High I on it.

"The computer has a maximum clock rate of 33 MHz and a processing speed of about 35 MIPS. In addition to the CPU itself, the RAD6000 has 128 MB of ECC RAM. A typical RTOS running on NASA's RAD6000 installations is VxWorks. The Flight boards in the above systems have switchable clock rates of 2.5, 5, 10, or 20 MHz."
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: zoozoo on May 26, 2008, 08:15:02 PM
Quote from the NASA PM of the project today as the Phoenix completes it's 10 month journey to Mars and lands successfully:

“It was better than we could have possibly wished for,” said Barry Goldstein, the project manager for the mission.

 It landed, how can that be better than expected? Were they epecting it to crash as the other one did of the dame design?  Guess that's what you get for $400+ million. 




Thats really weird.

I watched the movie about the two landers today on science channel. THe whole  process was truely spectacular.  :aok
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: moot on May 26, 2008, 08:18:06 PM
The Phoenix Lander onboard computer is so cutting edge...it couldn't even run Aces High I on it.
I think if you're designing computerized hardware that's going to be limited to specific tasks, it's more efficient to move as much of the software down to firmware or even further.. It's more effective in power consumption and productivity, I think.  IIRC the link bandwidth is just a few dozen kbps.
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: DiabloTX on May 26, 2008, 08:31:23 PM
Sorry moot, I wasn't trying to convey a literal meaning, just sort of an illustration of it's limited capabilities.
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: splitatom on May 26, 2008, 08:35:31 PM
didnt last time they miss mars completeley
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: moot on May 26, 2008, 09:04:54 PM
Just running with the thought.. I was surprised too, the first time I noticed that trait in other leading edge tech.
They really have to trim all the fat down to the bare minimums on these machines.. I think they opted out of a onboard camera filming the descent to avoid any risk of interference with the other systems.  It was one of the top few factors in the decision, and IIRC it was one of the possible causes for the previous probe's crash.  Really sensitive stuff.
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: Hornet33 on May 26, 2008, 09:15:25 PM
I can't belive some of you guys are complaining about the cost of sending this probe to Mars. The cost was what?? $400 million?? Guess what, they could have done several mission for the price of ONE B-2 bomber

These guys at JPL and NASA built, launched, flew to anouther planet, and landed a spacecraft, unmanned, for less than half the cost of the worlds most advanced bomber.

I fail to see where they have wasted my money as a taxpayer. The money was spent on hard science. The engineering used to fly this mission can and probably will have future broad range applications for many things that we will take for granted in the future.

I would rather see money spent on this type of science and exploration, than on wellfare, illegal imigration reform, and socialized medicine. This country throws away billions of dollars every year and gets absolutely NOTHING in return for it. This mission will at least give us knowledge about one of our neighbors in the solar system, and do so at a bargin compared to some of the things we spend money on.
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: moot on May 26, 2008, 09:56:34 PM
The only gripe I have with this mission is that it seems they might be giving too much importance to life/habitability... "Too much" being subjective. But it's undeniably a very significant aspect, so it has to be done.. So they might as well get it done, and it's not so bad considering all the other science that'll get done.

Maybe it's bias on my part, but if there's been life on Mars, I reckon finding it'll be like a needle in a haystack, and won't be found till we're over there in person.. and even then I'd expect it to take us a few years of exploring before we hit the jackpot and find some undeniable footprint of past life.  Or with a lot of luck, of present microscopic life.  But even in the worst scenarios, it's a prospect that's got to be near the top of any short list of things to investigate out in space.
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: DPQ5 on May 26, 2008, 10:02:08 PM
heres some more pics from the probe

(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/1181_1211857242_230215main_sol0final_100-75.jpg)

(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/1181_1211857225_230115main_false_color_postcard_100-
75.jpg)

(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/1181_1211857209_230107main_s_000eff_cyl_sr10ca8_r888m1_8799_100-75.jpg)

(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/1181_1211857199_230103main_s_000eff_cyl_sr10ca8_r222m1_8807_100-75.jpg)
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: wrongwayric on May 26, 2008, 10:41:00 PM
It's all done on a hollywood film lot!!! Nothing got launched or landed but some wallets did get fatter. Just like the lunar landings it's all smoke and mirrors.

Let the rocks be hurled gents. :lol

On the serious side i think a manned mission is in order. What guy wouldn't want a 20 month plus round trip without his wife nagging him as he drove? :rofl
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: WilldCrd on May 26, 2008, 10:47:18 PM
It's all done on a hollywood film lot!!! Nothing got launched or landed but some wallets did get fatter. Just like the lunar landings it's all smoke and mirrors.

Let the rocks be hurled gents. :lol

On the serious side i think a manned mission is in order. What guy wouldn't want a 20 month plus round trip without his wife nagging him as he drove? :rofl

Oh GOD where do I sign up!!!! :pray
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: OOZ662 on May 27, 2008, 05:19:17 AM
didnt last time they miss mars completeley

I'd like to see you hit it with something the size of a car. :)

(Actually, I have no idea how big it is.)
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: Strip on May 27, 2008, 05:46:29 AM
With the solar arrays not deployed its about 4' by 4'.

Deployed.......5' by 10'

Strip
Title: Re: NASA TV
Post by: LePaul on May 27, 2008, 07:04:38 AM
You realize space exploration is like way under 1% of the GNP, right?  Back in the Apollo/Space Race days, it was much higher.

I wish we could spend more on it, we are natural born explorers to learn more about our surroundings.  Thankfully private enterprise is starting to come online to take some of the load off government (see SpaceX).