Page 19 of 21 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 208

Thread: NASA's rover Curiosity lands on Mars [W:206]

  1. #181
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    re: NASA's rover Curiosity lands on Mars [W:206]

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Foley View Post
    Oh so in YOUR WORLD a pound of human, oxygen, water, food is totally different than a pound of robotics. Gotcha.
    I'm not sure I follow. We have fairly fixed rates for how much it costs to lift a certain amount of weight into orbit which I'd be happy to cite for you. The cost of the mission did not come from the weight of the object being lifted into orbit, not in this case. The Atlas V rocket that carried Curiosity can lift roughly 25,000-32,000 pounds to GEO for a cost of about $150-$200 million dollars. The lifting of that weight is a fairly fixed cost. Furthermore you cite the Apollo mission so I don't really follow your point. We spent roughly $10 billion a year to construct a space program from scratch and build all of our antecedent technologies required to move forward, and within a decade we had as you mention landed on the Moon. Somehow something about weight precludes our ability to send someone to Mars? I don't follow.

  2. #182
    Death2Globalists Matt Foley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ExecuteTheTraitors
    Last Seen
    11-24-12 @ 12:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,574

    re: NASA's rover Curiosity lands on Mars [W:206]

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    I'm not sure I follow. We have fairly fixed rates for how much it costs to lift a certain amount of weight into orbit which I'd be happy to cite for you. The cost of the mission did not come from the weight of the object being lifted into orbit, not in this case. The Atlas V rocket that carried Curiosity can lift roughly 25,000-32,000 pounds to GEO for a cost of about $150-$200 million dollars. The lifting of that weight is a fairly fixed cost. Furthermore you cite the Apollo mission so I don't really follow your point. We spent roughly $10 billion a year to construct a space program from scratch and build all of our antecedent technologies required to move forward, and within a decade we had as you mention landed on the Moon. Somehow something about weight precludes our ability to send someone to Mars? I don't follow.
    You can't just pretend the "vehicle price" is the only thing involved in the cost of launching.

    Due to the fact that it costs around a billion dollars to get 2,000 lbs to Mars, than the rover itself has to be miniaturized and perfected which is also costly too. The rover engineers look at the launch vehicle and go, "Holy **** this is expensive, we need to save weight." Cost of rover goes up.

    And then the Atlas V engineers are looking at their payload going, "holy **** this rover costs a billion dollars we don't want anything bad happening to the Atlas V" so it's costs go up even more on the Atlas V.

    feedback
    Globalist = Free Trade, Open Borders, Multiculturalist, Anti-White Racist, Hypocrite, Sophist, Deceiver, Manipulator, Warmonger, Vulgar Culture, Morally Depraved......Enemy

    Death to Globalists

  3. #183
    Death2Globalists Matt Foley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ExecuteTheTraitors
    Last Seen
    11-24-12 @ 12:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,574

    re: NASA's rover Curiosity lands on Mars [W:206]

    Quote Originally Posted by Londoner View Post
    Going into space is very extensive - with today's chemical technology. But the are plenty of alternatives. Space elevator, anyone?
    By the time a non-governmental entity invents a material capable of withstanding that type of stress, a non-governmental entity would have already invented better propulsion. Heck even Star Trek gets this right.
    Globalist = Free Trade, Open Borders, Multiculturalist, Anti-White Racist, Hypocrite, Sophist, Deceiver, Manipulator, Warmonger, Vulgar Culture, Morally Depraved......Enemy

    Death to Globalists

  4. #184
    Death2Globalists Matt Foley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ExecuteTheTraitors
    Last Seen
    11-24-12 @ 12:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,574

    re: NASA's rover Curiosity lands on Mars [W:206]

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun View Post
    It's an awesome accomplishment. Like the Apollo space project, just the act of getting there generates vast amounts of R&D which can be translated into public use. The scientific knowledge gained adds to our ability to not only explore our Solar System but to begin making use of that technology through mining resources be it on the Moon, asteroids or Mars itself.
    Wrong. The Apollo project didn't R&D anything.
    Globalist = Free Trade, Open Borders, Multiculturalist, Anti-White Racist, Hypocrite, Sophist, Deceiver, Manipulator, Warmonger, Vulgar Culture, Morally Depraved......Enemy

    Death to Globalists

  5. #185
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,733

    re: NASA's rover Curiosity lands on Mars [W:206]

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Foley View Post
    Wrong. The Apollo project didn't R&D anything.
    You have to be kidding. The apollo project was responsible for accelerating the development of integrated circuits, kidney dialysis machines, water purification systems, and even athletic shoes. Without the technology that came from Apollo, you would not be sitting at your computer, typing crap about Apollo not R&Ding anything.

    From Computer World Magazine:
    Sheesh!!
    Last edited by danarhea; 08-13-12 at 03:14 PM.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  6. #186
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    re: NASA's rover Curiosity lands on Mars [W:206]

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Foley View Post
    You can't just pretend the "vehicle price" is the only thing involved in the cost of launching.

    Due to the fact that it costs around a billion dollars to get 2,000 lbs to Mars, than the rover itself has to be miniaturized and perfected which is also costly too. The rover engineers look at the launch vehicle and go, "Holy **** this is expensive, we need to save weight." Cost of rover goes up.

    And then the Atlas V engineers are looking at their payload going, "holy **** this rover costs a billion dollars we don't want anything bad happening to the Atlas V" so it's costs go up even more on the Atlas V.

    feedback
    I'm not pretending that, I'm countering your initial comparison which was to point out the weight of our loads that we sent to the Moon and then what we sent to Mars in the form of this rover, and then concluding that we will never send a human to Mars. It is ludicrous logic. As for the cost of launching? The cost of launching is not a huge amount more than the vehicle price for conducting that launch. The price for this mission was primarily spent in the preparation of this incredibly complex probe, as well as personal costs. There is also increased murmuring of cost-overrun on these sorts of projects from the private sector like Lunar Express and Planetary Resources which believe we are massively overpaying for our probes. But still at the end of the day it was not in the scheme of our entire budget that expensive a program, and it was decisively different from the kinds of projects and programs people have been proposing for manned missions, preparations for those missions, and colonization efforts.

  7. #187
    Professor

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    08-19-14 @ 02:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,824

    re: NASA's rover Curiosity lands on Mars [W:206]

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    Sure am glad Queen Isabella of Spain didnt think like you do.

    Columbus would have been BUMMED.
    A better comparison would be the Vikings' wasted discovery of America before they had the technology to get any practical advantage out of it. Columbus was funded only because the Portuguese and Turks cut off the other trade routes to India. What can Mars give us besides self-indulgent fantasies for useless Trekkies?

    Why not develop Antarctica instead? If funded, the payoff of that huge area will quickly solve our debts, droughts, and material deficiencies. Vast wealth is down there waiting for us, available through a normal progression in technology if focused on what is here on Earth instead of way off in the glittering void.
    On the outside, trickling down on the insiders.
    We won't live free until the 1% live in fear.
    Hey, richboys! Imagine the boot of democracy stomping on your faces, forever.

  8. #188
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    re: NASA's rover Curiosity lands on Mars [W:206]


  9. #189
    Guru
    the_recruit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,177

    re: NASA's rover Curiosity lands on Mars [W:206]

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    ha!






    1098765321

  10. #190
    Death2Globalists Matt Foley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ExecuteTheTraitors
    Last Seen
    11-24-12 @ 12:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,574

    re: NASA's rover Curiosity lands on Mars [W:206]

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    I'm not pretending that, I'm countering your initial comparison which was to point out the weight of our loads that we sent to the Moon and then what we sent to Mars in the form of this rover, and then concluding that we will never send a human to Mars.
    Not with current propulsion technology, unless you plan on sending a dead human to Mars.

    It is ludicrous logic.
    The only ludicrous logic is coming from you wide eyed optimists that think it can be done.

    As for the cost of launching? The cost of launching is not a huge amount more than the vehicle price for conducting that launch.
    The price of curiousity, so far, is 2.5 billion dollars for 2,000 lbs on Mars. Not all of it is on the Rover.

    The price for this mission was primarily spent in the preparation of this incredibly complex probe, as well as personal costs.
    Nope

    There is also increased murmuring of cost-overrun on these sorts of projects from the private sector like Lunar Express and Planetary Resources which believe we are massively overpaying for our probes.
    They can "think" all they want

    But still at the end of the day it was not in the scheme of our entire budget that expensive a program, and it was decisively different from the kinds of projects and programs people have been proposing for manned missions, preparations for those missions, and colonization efforts.
    Manned missions = more expensive than probes pound for pound.
    Globalist = Free Trade, Open Borders, Multiculturalist, Anti-White Racist, Hypocrite, Sophist, Deceiver, Manipulator, Warmonger, Vulgar Culture, Morally Depraved......Enemy

    Death to Globalists

Page 19 of 21 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •