Spirit & Opportunity @ + Years
 

NASA's rovers mark five years on Red Planet

Whomever the project managers for this mission is need to be rewarded, and be brought back for future major projects.

Five years is about twenty times the initial guarantee. That's pretty good.
With what we've learned about exploring Mars from this pair, and with software and computer hardware improvements, I imagine that we could build and launch smaller, cheaper, and more self-maintaining rovers that are even more capable than these.

It would be great to have a dozen different locations being explored like this. :cool:

I agree. Problem is, I think is that it's hard to keep in the public eye unless we are sending people up and even the shuttle launches got 'routine' until the accidents started happening.

You all got to understand.

It is no longer about the science and images. Over these 5 years a TON TON TON TON!!!! Has been learned about keeping spacecraft alive, power management, Movement under bad situations..

The book of stuff learned from it will mean the manned rovers of the future will be FAR more robust.

Cool stuff.

Just in case anyone has been under a rock, Google Mars kicks ass.

And all that knowledge has cost a TON TON TON TON of money, to little avail. As cool as it is to know what Mars rocks are made of, it doesn't do us any good unless that knowledge is profitable. All NASA is doing, regardless of what success they might achieve, is putting the nation's economy further in the red (no pun intended)

If or when it makes economic sense to explore the red planet, private industry will do it, and it will do so in a fashion that creates economic growth. Wasting public funds on these endeavors and stonewalling private attempts at space exploration through excessive regulation are only delaying the process. Private firms like Virgin Galactic have already put NASA to shame by their efficient use of resources and ability to not waste hundreds of billions of dollars on missions that, while informative, end up benefitting the world very little. For starters, they have pursued the idea of equipping a spacecraft with wings so that it could fly as close as possible to orbit before using fuel-inefficient rockets. NASA did the exact opposite, fitting a spacecraft with wings so it could glide to earth for the completely irrelevant non-hypersonic approach to the runway, all in the name of saving money, with no regard to the hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of fuel required to fill the booster rockets.

As happy as I am for the success of the Mars rovers, I'd be a lot happier if their funding wasn't siphoned from the economy in the form of taxes, public debt, and inflation. Rather than worrying about why Mars is a dead, apparently worthless ball of rock and rust, perhaps we should worry about furthering the progress of humanity through the pursuit of economic development, so that we will have the time and resources to spend on such things in the future.

Sorry LCpl however, we've already shown the numbers proving that the budget of NASA isn't even 1% of the Federal Budget, what little cost they do have for the significant data which they do produce is amazing. I am not saying that there isn't waste that may need to be cut, or more efficient ways of doing certain things, however, NASA's efforts along with those of private companies are in the best intersts of future space travel for all of us.
And why not have Private Industry design the next national manned program, make a competition of it, best one, wins the larger contract. Much like how old aircraft programs were competed for.

Unfortunately that worthless ball of rock and rust is the most earth-like planet in this entire solar system, so it's always going to be the subject of the greatest interest when it comes to an eye for future settlement. The arctic was once seen as a howling waste and now nations are going to great lengths to claim even underwater title to great portions of it. I can guarantee you that the same people who begrudge the waste of money are the same ones who will howl "who lost Mars?" if China or some other nation gets there even with an unmanned craft.

However, Venus....now that's a waste of money. :p I think the Russian Venera probes lasted twenty minutes before the corrosive atmosphere cooked them.

I'll admit, it's one of my crazier opinions, and I suppose that there are worse things that NASA's 25 billion dollar budget could be spent on. The folks at NASA have done some amazing things, you're right, and I suspect it's because they have a passion for what they do.
Nonetheless, in any limited-competition environment (including semi-private endeavors with long-term contracts) there will be a lot of waste. The military-industrial complex is a sterling example. I think there's a real danger that space exploration and research could actually end up being impeded compared to what the private sector could do.
I'm afraid that NASA is alot like Amtrak in many respects. It provides a very valuable service that very few people want, so it ends up being a giant waste.
It fails to innovate, because it is stifled by red tape and lack of incentive (once again, NASA does at least seem to have some incentive). When people do end up wanting the valuable service that they provide, they'll opt for a completely different method, but NASA still won't go away. Ultimately it will end up getting in the way of private space ventures and leeching off of their infrastructure.

Well, that's enough thread-derailing for me for one day, so I'll just add that however I may feel about NASA, I'm glad their rovers survived and got all that data. Does anyone know if they got any samples that gave us much info about Mars' magnetic field?

Don't forget Titan. :know:

Yes yes not a "planet" but... :p

Well it wasn't the rovers that discovered this but one of NASA's orbiters. There are a number of magnetic fields on Mars, its thought that the planets magnetic field is in its last stages before it vanishes because the planets core is becoming solid rock again and thus has stopped spinning. This is though have been caused by a moon that was captured by Mars, the tital forces of the moon caused the planet to spin more until the core heated up much like Earth's until the moon crashed in to Mars and oblitrated the northern half of the planet.

Just watched a 6 part show on telly about the challenges behind the first manned Mars flight. Darn, sooo many things that can go wrong. And even if they make it to the surface, every moment they are on the surface outside their pod can kill them (the huge sand tornados & radiation). :-?

Now, if they could get these mechanical marvels to last that long and glitch free, why can't MS get Windows to last that long and glitch free?

There next step is a flying miniture machine with wings designed after a moth. This machine will be delivered in the same manner as these two rovers. The rover will be the flying machines home base.

http://www.gtri.gatech.edu/casestudy/flying-mars

Talk about high tech wizardry!

Because Windows does not have to run on just one type of CPU and RAM and memory.

The rovers have amazingly little CPU and RAM for programs.

Why not amazingly send them to MS?

What makes Titan so interesting is that it has an atmosphere and is covered in organic molecules. Despite the fact that it's so cold that methane runs like water and ice is as solid as rock up there, it's actually pretty Earthlike in it's compositions. The same can be said for Venus, but that planet just doesn't have the abundance of organic molecules that Titan has.

As far as Mars goes. It's probably the only other inhabitable planet in our solar system other than Earth with resources that could be exploited and used to sustain life. We should learn as much about it as possible. Also, there is SOME economic gain that can come from planetary exploration. They're always discovering new things about chemistry and physics from studying compounds and penomenon on other planets. A lot of these discoveries CAN have economic benefit, maybe not NOW, but in the long run, probably. Too many people think of the short term. "Where is my cash NOW !!" "How does this help me TODAY ?"
It seems that the corporate minded don't think too much about anything beyond next years financial outlook. :nope:

Going to mars has little to do with economics as it is dealing with population growth.

7 billion people will become 10 in a blink of an eye. 10 will become 20 in another and shortly afterwards there will be chaos because even with advanced technology you simply cant get enough food to sustain such without crazed things like screwing with plant genes.

Colonizing Mars is important because almost every part of it can be refined to grow and support.

The chain goes like this.

Ship, Shelther, Robot factory, Refineries/mines, lots of factories, dome buildings, Dome cities, Dome states, etc...

Obviously humans will not build these domes. Doing anything in a spacesuit (even a skintight one) is much harder than on earth so this will be a robot thing.

The impotant thing is you don't have to worry about "Ruining the environment" on mars because you wont waste anything and also whatever envrionment will be in domes not on the outside.

Also important is that you have all the materials you need on Mars. Steel? No problem! Glass? Easy! Rocket fuel? Are you kidding? dig a few feet and you got it. Silica? Plenty!

Maybe we can talk Saturn into a swap. Their promising moon for our dead and airless one. ;)

Once transport matters have been brought to a reasonable level of reliability, colonization of Mars is simply a matter of critical mass on site. Get enough material and people in the right spot with the ability to function with some level of self sufficiency, and matters take care of themselves.

The biggest hurdle in the long run is going to be to create something more there than a glorified Antarctic research outpost. Colonization doesn't do anyone any good if it's a constant money drain. The people on the colony will eventually need to dabble in more than meteorology and geology to grow and justify the expensive supply line from Earth. I do think future taxpayers would eventually get weary of throwing people into space just to create an extraterrestrial welfare state. The flow has to be both ways, so wherever we go, sooner or later something we find there needs to be of value back home. Mining has been mentioned for the Moon, maybe some minerals that can't be found commonly on Earth. I personally put money on the first economically viable mining operations on asteroids will be for iridium. Its a pretty useful metal, and its rarity on Earth limits its applications.

Putting footprints on other worlds will happen again in our lifetimes. Putting down roots and raising families, I can see that taking another century or so.

Do you have any idea what it would cost to move billions of people from the Earth to Mars? Don't get me wrong, i wholeheartedly support the colonization of space but I don't believe it can ever be an answer to overpopulation.

It is the only answer besides the elephant in the room...

As for cost. Trillions.. And that is assuming they develop a super high ISP and thrust engine so you can carry 777 sized human cargo into space.

It is not going to be cheap. And nobody is going to develop the stuff to do it for free. That is why there has to be incentive. Like agreements to give mineral rights to many asteroids containing precious metals.