Watch the live coverage ...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57...rover-landing/

or here ... http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/ma...ity_news3.html
FF to the 120 range and watch for a few minutes.

: high-fives NASA :


Awesome! See what you can do when everyone uses the metric system? :p:

... and they even did it in day light

show offs

It was cool to watch the stream from JPL. Little groups of 2 or 3 people would high five as various points in the approach and landing would be achieved. I assume it would be when what they were responsible for passed. Then of course when they were sure it was down and the first picture came through, the crowd went crazy because it meant they not only done good, but they'll have jobs for awhile. There was about 27,000 watching the stream.

First image is in

A short video of the descent...

A TV talking head today said that NASA is downloading the data
and image data at the overwhelming rate of 32K baud !

Can that be true ???

wiki:

Thank you, Glatt.

That seems more reasonable, even if it is only 16+/- minutes each day.

It had to happen...

That is awesome! Thanks for the big laugh.

It would be pretty darn funny if they discovered life on Mars by running over it.

Big smile.

This photo from NASA's Mars rover Curiosity shows the layered
geologic history of the base of Mount Sharp, the 3-mile-high mountain
rising from the center of Gale Crater. Image taken on Aug. 23, 2012.

need scale. what is the mountain?

What else did you expect? These are guys.

Now you can see where Curiosity has been for the past year...

Discovery.com
Ian O'Neill
Jul 24, 2013

Curiosity's Roving Progress Spied from Mars Orbit

On June 27, NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) crossed the skies
over Gale Crater and used its High-Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE)
camera to capture a stunning bird's eye view of its wheeled robotic cousin.

Attachment 44956

NASA's Mars Science Laboratory rover Curiosity appears as a bluish dot
near the lower right corner of this enhanced-color view from the
High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) camera
on NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter.

I wonder if that black scar at the other end of the track is the scorched earth mars landing site.

hi rez image here:

http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/images...32436_1755.jpg

it sure looks burned, doesn't it?

also, there are a couple more blue dot/spots, probably part of the landing apparatus.

So I noticed this thread hasn't gotten resurrected since it was revealed that the Mars One program was a scam, either by intent or by degrading into one once things started to not go their way.

This to me bags the unfortunate question.... How do you - realistically - establish a mars colonization effort?

On the surface, it's very easy to think of colonizing space as easy as it was to colonize the new world. There are a lot of problems with that notion.
For one thing, anything you can find on mars is cheaper to mine or produce on earth then it is to fly it from mars to earth. There is no way to make a profit or even pay for the trip by trade in resources. Going to mars would have to be entirely financed by the fair tickets themselves - by people who's life goal is to go to mars.
And for most of the time, they are going to have to be wealthy people, even if you manage to cut own the trip costs, because self-sustainability is going to be remarkably more difficult. If the self-sustaining bar for the new world colonists was getting enough resources to set up a secure camp and start cutting down wood and hunting for food, for mars you would need a multitude of mining operations and refining facilities for anything from water to ores just to be able to extend life support. Until then every colonist would need to come along with construction material and resources to sustain them for a life time, and even that is only enough if you are willing to have laws limiting child birth and extremely tough labor conditions of a cottage industrial setup.

Before how, I would question why.

It'd be nice to have a backup planet.

That just makes people treat this one worse.

I don't agree.

do you treat your tires worse because you carry a spare?

Doesn't apply.

Even if splitting humanity between two planets might split our "caring per planet", which is possible in some sense - people raised on mars might care very little about earth's ecology - currently a human produces a carbon footprint and pollution a lot more then it produces "care for the planet", in fact almost all of that care - when it's around at all - expresses itself by slightly reducing the disregard and reduce their harm. You would benefit earth more by splitting the harm and sending some of the population there then you would hurt it by splitting the care.

If you mean that people who will still live on earth would otherwise recycle and support any pollution policies or buy less ecologically problematic products, will all of a sudden be ok with it because "Hey it's not like our entire species is in danger, its just our planet"... I think that's seriously underestimating how petty humans are. Can you think of an instance where that's true today in regards to countries, or cities, or... Anything? I work in the call & dispatch center for my city hall, and so far my experience is that most people can't deal with another neighborhood having a slightly geener park.

Let's take the opposite position then. Do you think people are treating THIS planet better because we don't have a backup planet?

Some are, for their children and children's children, but they are a minority with out any clout. But people worrying about eating tomorrow, have neither the knowledge or resources to do anything but try to survive. Action has to come from the "first world" countries, and we know who has the power there. So in the end, the future is in the hands of a few wealthy people. Until the masses get off their ass, accept science, get politically active, and make the government responsive, it won't happen.

Still, there are a lot of people making small contributions. Like when they started recycling here. There wasn't a lot of grumbling, people in general knew it was a good idea. But when it was discovered that most of the plastic they collected was being burned in the incinerator, a lot of people changed their mind.

See but that's not a contribution, it's reducing damage.

The planet is not better off because they are there and making sure that some of the products that took polluting the air to get to their place and get all the parts together are then getting recycled to not be burned and produce more air pollution. It is only less worst off then if the same people were replaced by those who would have added the extra bit of air pollution at the end to the air pollution they have already financed. That is not healing, it's minimal damage control, if you would imagine a point system, it's not a gain o +3 points, it's a loss of -7 instead of -10. If someone punched you but took a lot of effort and restraint to not punch you harder, you are not better off for their interaction with you, and neither is the planet.

This means that even in the hypothetical scenario where for some reason all the really environment-caring people left earth completely and moved to mars, earth would still get less pollution then it does now from those people over their lifetime.

Bullshit, in order the help you have to first stop hurting. Every step in stopping the hurting helps, and only baby steps are within the power of the masses. That's first world masses, as I said.

If you think all the volunteers to populate Mars would be bunny lovin' treehugger vegans, your dreaming. It would be science fiction freaks, depressed failures who feel they've nothing to lose, and a few curious scientists who wouldn't get along with the other two. :haha:

I'd have picked one that hadn't already died at least once. But, there really weren't that many choices, I guess.

:neutral:

I was presenting that as the extreme: If you are saying that people's ability to care for a planet would be split between earth and mars, for a hypothetical 50% 50% scenario which would reduce the the amount of caring for earth by 50%, then I am saying that even if you took away all the people who'd otherwise provide earth with the most environmental-caring, a 100% of the people who care about the environment, even then, earth's ecology would still benefit more from them not being on earth in the first place and thus not having a negative impact at all then from them being here and providing their "care" which is reducing their negative impact.
Obviously, it's unlikely that everyone in the green movement would be the ones to leave earth and colonize mars, in fact they might very well be more likely to stick around - in part because a lot of them care more about the aesthetics and surrounding of nature then about preserving it - but that means that you would still have people who care about the environment here on earth.

So why would they suddenly stop caring just because there is another planet? Do people care less about their countries because people in another country are doing better? Are people in Africa going "well at least the people in Sweden are enjoying healthcare so overall I wouldn't be too worried about malaria"?

I didn't say that.

I think we could probably do a better job colonizing Venus then mars, but it would be even harder to gear people to do so. At least Mars already has a following.

Ok, in that case I am not sure what you are saying.

I said people who have a nagging concern about future generations but feel helpless to makes a difference, can drop the feeling with Mars being an option.

Ok - thats what the 2nd part of the answer was for.

If anything, right now some people probably think that, "we might destroy our planet but our children can always colonize mars as a backup".

That psychology all changes once Mars colonists become a thing of the present, because then it's no longer our children, it's their children, those damn martians who think they can have everything are so so proud of their first rain forest bubble domes, f'cking snobs. It's no longer our future, it's another part of humanity that's potentially doing better then your part.

They'd certainly be aware of their environment, being tiny and fragile. Not like having the whole wide world.

One of the most interesting ideas IMO explored on that was in the Red Mars trilogy was a new kind of environmentalism. The idea that there would be people who would fall in love with the aesthetics of mars the same way people fall in love with the aesthetic of nature here, finding it beautiful for what they see around them rather then thinking of it comparatively as a more barren earth, and actually try to preserve it's current state from the formation of an increasingly terraformed ecology threatening it's existence by the people who appose them and want Mars to become more accommodating to human life.

Personally, as someone who's favorite place in nature is the Sinai desert between Israel and Egypt, I can relate to it.

It's the same as living under the ocean. Plenty of scenery but you can't relax for a moment because you need life support, and there is constant danger.

Living under the ocean is a hell of a lot easier than going to Mars and living there. And we don't have very many people living under the ocean.

But we do have plenty of machines doing that .. both in the ocean and Mars.

People still don't get it. Many still believe we need to deploy humans. Even factories have now replaced humans with something better - machines. And still, some people want to see solutions in terms of a deployed human. So many still cannot change their mindset. Best solution to Mars, oceans, or even factories is machines that replace humans. And do a better job.

Sure, a machine is great for doing a specific task, but if the point is to colonize a place with living creatures, you need living creatures to do that.

^ That.

There is no doubt that at the cost of a single human mission you could finance a few dozens of robotic missions that would cover a much wider area. The goal of sending people to mars would be having people on mars.

If we wanted to create a colony of robots for robots, there are much better targets for that then Mars. There are some limited gains for them if they want to go back to space - mining water for propellant and the possibility of aerobreaking and saving up on fuel - but even for that purpose they'd probably still be better off without having to fight against a planets gravity in the first place.

On an only slightly related note, if you meant we're better off going humanity+ and making ourselves into machines... My previous title - lord of the Hermocentric orbit - came from a private joke out of a conversation I had with someone on where is the best place in the solar system to install a server farm.

For every extra kilogram carried on a space flight, 530 kg of excess fuel are needed at lift-off. Need a better way.

You are still thinking in the mindset where only man can do things. Machines now do things better. And are just starting to get good.

We are only recently learning the world is not flat. Why are you still thinking in terms of 'we must colonize'? That is like saying the bayonet charge is the only effective battle strategy. Colonization was once necessary to support the best tools we had. Those tools (a colony of humans) has been superceed by something technically superior (and also costs less) - machines.

The argument is that we must colonize it. The argument is based in obsolete biases - an emotion. Logic says colonization has been made obsolete by what is far more important - technological advancement.

BTW, the cost of a human mission could easily finance about 100 robotic missions. But that is not the point. Each robotic mission accomplishes as much or more than a humanized mission.

I keep waiting for an official notice I can link to so I can brag here, but my brother just won a contest held by NASA to come up with an inventive way to build a Mars habitat that is super light to launch. His solution to your fuel problem to to just bring mylar forms in the shape of an igloo, and land on a part of Mars that has some water under the dirt. Melt the water, make mud with the martian soil, and pour it into the mylar form where it can freeze into an igloo shape. I read his paper and it sounds more technical and impressive than what I just wrote, but that's about it. Frozen mud igloos on Mars. Insulated, pressurized, and furnished on the inside of course. The main hurdle is energy once you get there. And as solar cells improve, that would have to be the answer.

That's cool! Yes energy would be a biggie on the gotta have list. Powering the pressurization and air locks, is critical. Without heat nobody would want to get naked, so wouldn't make babies fast enough to feed the colonists.

Try reading that again.

Forget it glatt, what your wrote doesn't fit his agenda. :rolleyes:

Thanks for the input Skynet.

Please regard this as an attempt at humor.
sincerely,
John Conner

Point was not to colonized a place with living creatures. The point was always an advancement of mankind. That was obvious.

You conclusion was not explicit. Therefore a reply with an explicit response to one possible interpretation was posted. Clearly stating whether the objective is to colonize with humans or with machines. Humans colonization on Mars is only desired when one ignores the objective - the advancement of mankind.

BTW, build that igloo deploying 3D printers. On earth, 3D printers are even building bridges. Construction that means other machines can do best science - without humans. Deploying humans to build that igloo is unproductive.

No problem with water. For humans to arrive healthy means that spacecraft may need be surrounded with six feet of water - to protect astronauts from radiation. Plenty of water. But then shortages (for man or machine) is in energy (not water).

YOUR objective - the advancement of mankind.
And your dedication to that objective has caused you to miss the entire point of the discussion, as usual.

I suggest you edumacate yourself here, and here, and here.

Personally I think the whole thing is stupid, but they can attempt to do anything they want... on their nickel.

I saw the point of the discussion. The underlying reasons for the discussion are flawed and therefore bogus.

Why do you think it is stupid? If you cannot say why, then that opinion has no credibility and no relevance.

...I gather you two have a history together? :p:

If the point was to expand our industrial capacity, resources or even knowledge, then mars would make for a pretty horrible target compared to almost any other place in our solar system. Asteroids & comets, rocky planets & moons, those would be the places you'd have a lot less in the way.

The point of our endeavors on earth-like planets would be the same as any other living organism's - to create copies of itself - just on a much larger scale. That point can be greatly aided by machines, but it can't be fulfilled by machines.

You don't know the story about the tar baby, do you?

I am pretty sure I've had my chance to perform all the roles in that play - the rabbit, the baby, the place the rabbit was running too and the prankster who placed the tar baby in the first place.

This feels like it should be an avenue Q song..

Everybody is somebody's troll
You believe in what you say
But to them you seem so repetitively doll
When echo chambers are stretching Poe's law effect
Your sane is someones crazy shit from a bat

I... completely forgot the music I was imagining with this a second ago. Freaking actual work interfering while I am on the job.