« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Down

Curiosity rover

  • 154 Replies
  • 32418 Views
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #60 on: August 08, 2012, 03:46:27 PM »
But they claim they've landed several "spacecraft" on Mars using retrorockets. Odd bit that.
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #61 on: August 08, 2012, 03:51:08 PM »
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #62 on: August 08, 2012, 04:59:42 PM »
    "The ancient Martian crater where the Curiosity rover landed looks strikingly similar to the Mojave Desert in California with its looming mountains and hanging haze, scientists said Wednesday."

    ...

    Grotzinger said he was struck by the Martian landscape, which appeared diverse. There seemed to be harder material underneath the gravelly surface, he said.

    “It kind of makes you feel at home,” he said. “We’re looking at a place that feels really comfortable.”

One might call this a bit of a curiosity.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2012, 05:07:46 PM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11852
  • +10/-5
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #63 on: August 08, 2012, 06:02:29 PM »
Quote from: EnigmaZV on August 08, 2012, 02:07:56 PM
Quote from: hoppy on August 08, 2012, 01:59:28 PM
Quote from: LolaTheRabbit on August 07, 2012, 05:28:06 PM
Quote from: Ski on August 07, 2012, 05:23:30 PM
Quote from: Lorddave on August 07, 2012, 04:40:16 PM
Quote from: Ski on August 07, 2012, 04:26:34 PM
Did they deliberately pick the method least likely to succeed?
It was the one most likely to succeed.  Mars's atmosphere is too thin to allow for a save parachuting landing and the rover was too heavy for the cushion airbag landing of the last rover.  Did you know that even with the parachute, the rover was falling at 200 miles per hour?  The rockets are the only thing that kept it from crashing.

Why introduce a "skycrane" at all? Have you seen the laughable animations of the system? Wouldn't retrorockets have been much simpler? Granted it lacks the sci-fi excitement of the animations, and so is less likely to "inspire" the public to fund the monstrosity.

Because if the rockets landed all the way on the ground it would stir up too much dust and may damage the rover.



Wny would rockets stir up dust as the lunar lander stirred up nothing.

http://www.space.com/4956-lunar-landers-sandblasted-moon.html

It seems that they stirred up a whole lot.
I don't see that any dust was blown by the lunar lander. It would have collected in the foot, which you see it didn't.


http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/AS11-40-5925HR.jpg
Logged
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth
*

EnigmaZV

  • 3459
  • +0/-0
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #64 on: August 08, 2012, 06:13:09 PM »
Why would it have collected in the foot? With no atmosphere, there would be no vortices to carry debris back towards the lander. All of the force exerted by the landing rockets would have been directed down at the lunar surface, and would then be deflected out, and away from the lander, and would have carried all of the debris in that direction.

Please let me know if I'm incorrect, and why.
Logged
Quote from: Saddam Hussein on February 27, 2009, 03:43:45 PM
I don't know what you're implying, but you're probably wrong.
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #65 on: August 08, 2012, 06:17:19 PM »
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
?

Lorddave

  • 19852
  • +29/-61
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #66 on: August 08, 2012, 06:28:33 PM »
Quote from: Ski on August 08, 2012, 06:17:19 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/space-junkies-try-explain-mysterious-image-photo-mars-190419541.html



It's, uh... don't pay any attention to that...
Why? It's something unexpected. That's the whole point of having cameras: to see something unexpected.
Logged
Gone.
*

Supertails

  • 4376
  • +0/-0
  • what do i put here
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #67 on: August 09, 2012, 04:07:42 AM »
I'm loving the desperate grabs by Tom and Ski. Like, really, is that all you've got? I'm not even talking about arguing for a conspiracy, just how pathetically it's being done. I love a good conspiracy debate, but..."Martian landscape looks similar to the Mojave" and "something in Curiosity picture" are not OH SNAP-worthy posts.

Neither was the argument about how the Rover was landed, but it was at least a step higher.
Logged
Recently listened to:

?

Hazbollah

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2436
  • +0/-0
  • Earth Shape Apathetic.
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #68 on: August 09, 2012, 05:07:27 AM »
Quote from: Supertails on August 09, 2012, 04:07:42 AM
I'm loving the desperate grabs by Tom and Ski. Like, really, is that all you've got? I'm not even talking about arguing for a conspiracy, just how pathetically it's being done. I love a good conspiracy debate, but..."Martian landscape looks similar to the Mojave" and "something in Curiosity picture" are not OH SNAP-worthy posts.

Neither was the argument about how the Rover was landed, but it was at least a step higher.
Why? It's ridiculous:'hay guise why don't we spend billions developing a flying crane?' I'll grant the idea makes for snazzy CGI animations but it's still a hugely overcomplicated solution.
Logged
Always check your tackle- Caerphilly school of Health. If I see an innuendo in my post, I'll be sure to whip it out.
*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #69 on: August 09, 2012, 05:42:05 AM »
Quote from: Hazbollah on August 09, 2012, 05:07:27 AM
Quote from: Supertails on August 09, 2012, 04:07:42 AM
I'm loving the desperate grabs by Tom and Ski. Like, really, is that all you've got? I'm not even talking about arguing for a conspiracy, just how pathetically it's being done. I love a good conspiracy debate, but..."Martian landscape looks similar to the Mojave" and "something in Curiosity picture" are not OH SNAP-worthy posts.

Neither was the argument about how the Rover was landed, but it was at least a step higher.
Why? It's ridiculous:'hay guise why don't we spend billions developing a flying crane?' I'll grant the idea makes for snazzy CGI animations but it's still a hugely overcomplicated solution.

Do tell a better way then, that this can be done? Keep in mind, there's atmosphere, so vortices can occur from stirred up dust. The atmosphere is .7% as dense as earth's, so parachutes and wings are somewhat out of the question. So please, if you would, tell another way to do it that would be less expensive and easier.
Logged
Quote from: BoatswainsMate on August 24, 2012, 12:18:02 PM
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.
?

Hazbollah

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2436
  • +0/-0
  • Earth Shape Apathetic.
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #70 on: August 09, 2012, 06:44:26 AM »
Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 09, 2012, 05:42:05 AM
Quote from: Hazbollah on August 09, 2012, 05:07:27 AM
Quote from: Supertails on August 09, 2012, 04:07:42 AM
I'm loving the desperate grabs by Tom and Ski. Like, really, is that all you've got? I'm not even talking about arguing for a conspiracy, just how pathetically it's being done. I love a good conspiracy debate, but..."Martian landscape looks similar to the Mojave" and "something in Curiosity picture" are not OH SNAP-worthy posts.

Neither was the argument about how the Rover was landed, but it was at least a step higher.
Why? It's ridiculous:'hay guise why don't we spend billions developing a flying crane?' I'll grant the idea makes for snazzy CGI animations but it's still a hugely overcomplicated solution.

Do tell a better way then, that this can be done? Keep in mind, there's atmosphere, so vortices can occur from stirred up dust. The atmosphere is .7% as dense as earth's, so parachutes and wings are somewhat out of the question. So please, if you would, tell another way to do it that would be less expensive and easier.
Retrorockets, with the rover in a box to stop it being sandblasted. Give it a bit so the dust dies down, the box opens and you have a Mars rover ready to go.
Logged
Always check your tackle- Caerphilly school of Health. If I see an innuendo in my post, I'll be sure to whip it out.
*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #71 on: August 09, 2012, 07:08:10 AM »
Quote from: Hazbollah on August 09, 2012, 06:44:26 AM
Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 09, 2012, 05:42:05 AM
Quote from: Hazbollah on August 09, 2012, 05:07:27 AM
Quote from: Supertails on August 09, 2012, 04:07:42 AM
I'm loving the desperate grabs by Tom and Ski. Like, really, is that all you've got? I'm not even talking about arguing for a conspiracy, just how pathetically it's being done. I love a good conspiracy debate, but..."Martian landscape looks similar to the Mojave" and "something in Curiosity picture" are not OH SNAP-worthy posts.

Neither was the argument about how the Rover was landed, but it was at least a step higher.
Why? It's ridiculous:'hay guise why don't we spend billions developing a flying crane?' I'll grant the idea makes for snazzy CGI animations but it's still a hugely overcomplicated solution.

Do tell a better way then, that this can be done? Keep in mind, there's atmosphere, so vortices can occur from stirred up dust. The atmosphere is .7% as dense as earth's, so parachutes and wings are somewhat out of the question. So please, if you would, tell another way to do it that would be less expensive and easier.
Retrorockets, with the rover in a box to stop it being sandblasted. Give it a bit so the dust dies down, the box opens and you have a Mars rover ready to go.

What will this box be made out of? How will it be shaped? Will it have a heat shield? How much will all the R&D cost to bring this SUV sized box down onto the surface of mars safely? You realize the skycrane was used because curiosity was SO BIG. Otherwise they probably would have used one of the systems they used previously.
Logged
Quote from: BoatswainsMate on August 24, 2012, 12:18:02 PM
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.
*

Rushy

  • 8970
  • +0/-0
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #72 on: August 09, 2012, 08:01:51 AM »
No legitimate reason exists for the use of this "Skycrane" over the use of another standard and cheaper landing system. The Skycrane is pure sensationalism, which makes one wonder why NASA would want to lend anything to sensationalism.
Logged
*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #73 on: August 09, 2012, 08:42:00 AM »
Quote from: Irushwithscvs on August 09, 2012, 08:01:51 AM
No legitimate reason exists for the use of this "Skycrane" over the use of another standard and cheaper landing system. The Skycrane is pure sensationalism, which makes one wonder why NASA would want to lend anything to sensationalism.

An organization that has recently had it's funding cut by it's biggest sponsor does not spend billions of dollars on "sensationalism."
Logged
Quote from: BoatswainsMate on August 24, 2012, 12:18:02 PM
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.
?

Lorddave

  • 19852
  • +29/-61
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #74 on: August 09, 2012, 08:54:40 AM »
Quote from: Hazbollah on August 09, 2012, 06:44:26 AM
Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 09, 2012, 05:42:05 AM
Quote from: Hazbollah on August 09, 2012, 05:07:27 AM
Quote from: Supertails on August 09, 2012, 04:07:42 AM
I'm loving the desperate grabs by Tom and Ski. Like, really, is that all you've got? I'm not even talking about arguing for a conspiracy, just how pathetically it's being done. I love a good conspiracy debate, but..."Martian landscape looks similar to the Mojave" and "something in Curiosity picture" are not OH SNAP-worthy posts.

Neither was the argument about how the Rover was landed, but it was at least a step higher.
Why? It's ridiculous:'hay guise why don't we spend billions developing a flying crane?' I'll grant the idea makes for snazzy CGI animations but it's still a hugely overcomplicated solution.

Do tell a better way then, that this can be done? Keep in mind, there's atmosphere, so vortices can occur from stirred up dust. The atmosphere is .7% as dense as earth's, so parachutes and wings are somewhat out of the question. So please, if you would, tell another way to do it that would be less expensive and easier.
Retrorockets, with the rover in a box to stop it being sandblasted. Give it a bit so the dust dies down, the box opens and you have a Mars rover ready to go.
How will the computer know where the ground is if the metal box is blocking the radar?
Logged
Gone.
*

Rushy

  • 8970
  • +0/-0
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #75 on: August 09, 2012, 09:15:02 AM »
Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 09, 2012, 08:42:00 AM
Quote from: Irushwithscvs on August 09, 2012, 08:01:51 AM
No legitimate reason exists for the use of this "Skycrane" over the use of another standard and cheaper landing system. The Skycrane is pure sensationalism, which makes one wonder why NASA would want to lend anything to sensationalism.

An organization that has recently had it's funding cut by it's biggest sponsor does not spend billions of dollars on "sensationalism."

On the contrary, NASA would like to be as sensational as possible in order to garner more funding. It is the same way the military operates, if you don't use all of your budget, you have portrayed the image that you can spend less. If you can spend less then you are expected to spend less. NASA doesn't want to portray an image of budget-friendly products, otherwise we would cut even more of their funding.
Logged
*

garygreen

  • 598
  • +0/-0
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #76 on: August 09, 2012, 09:19:09 AM »
Yes, the skycrane is very complex.  That's not an argument against its existence.

http://www.uk.amsat.org/2578
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/28/radio_hams_curiosity_signals/

The Bochum amateur radio facility in Germany picked up telemetry from the MSL on its way to Mars.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2012, 09:24:24 AM by garygreen »
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2012, 10:59:03 AM
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --
?

Hazbollah

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2436
  • +0/-0
  • Earth Shape Apathetic.
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #77 on: August 09, 2012, 09:30:40 AM »
Quote from: Lorddave on August 09, 2012, 08:54:40 AM
Quote from: Hazbollah on August 09, 2012, 06:44:26 AM
Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 09, 2012, 05:42:05 AM
Quote from: Hazbollah on August 09, 2012, 05:07:27 AM
Quote from: Supertails on August 09, 2012, 04:07:42 AM
I'm loving the desperate grabs by Tom and Ski. Like, really, is that all you've got? I'm not even talking about arguing for a conspiracy, just how pathetically it's being done. I love a good conspiracy debate, but..."Martian landscape looks similar to the Mojave" and "something in Curiosity picture" are not OH SNAP-worthy posts.

Neither was the argument about how the Rover was landed, but it was at least a step higher.
Why? It's ridiculous:'hay guise why don't we spend billions developing a flying crane?' I'll grant the idea makes for snazzy CGI animations but it's still a hugely overcomplicated solution.

Do tell a better way then, that this can be done? Keep in mind, there's atmosphere, so vortices can occur from stirred up dust. The atmosphere is .7% as dense as earth's, so parachutes and wings are somewhat out of the question. So please, if you would, tell another way to do it that would be less expensive and easier.
Retrorockets, with the rover in a box to stop it being sandblasted. Give it a bit so the dust dies down, the box opens and you have a Mars rover ready to go.
How will the computer know where the ground is if the metal box is blocking the radar?
When it isn't moving.
Logged
Always check your tackle- Caerphilly school of Health. If I see an innuendo in my post, I'll be sure to whip it out.
*

garygreen

  • 598
  • +0/-0
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #78 on: August 09, 2012, 09:51:15 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 08, 2012, 04:59:42 PM
    "The ancient Martian crater where the Curiosity rover landed looks strikingly similar to the Mojave Desert in California with its looming mountains and hanging haze, scientists said Wednesday."

    ...

    Grotzinger said he was struck by the Martian landscape, which appeared diverse. There seemed to be harder material underneath the gravelly surface, he said.

    “It kind of makes you feel at home,” he said. “We’re looking at a place that feels really comfortable.”

One might call this a bit of a curiosity.

Mars is a desert.  The Mojave Desert is...well, it's a desert.  It shouldn't surprise you that they look alike.

Now, if the article was saying something like, "The ancient Martian crater where the Curiosity rover landed looks strikingly similar to downtown Manhattan," then we'd have a bit of a problem.
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2012, 10:59:03 AM
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --
*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #79 on: August 09, 2012, 10:23:17 AM »
Quote from: Hazbollah on August 09, 2012, 09:30:40 AM
Quote from: Lorddave on August 09, 2012, 08:54:40 AM
Quote from: Hazbollah on August 09, 2012, 06:44:26 AM
Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 09, 2012, 05:42:05 AM
Quote from: Hazbollah on August 09, 2012, 05:07:27 AM
Quote from: Supertails on August 09, 2012, 04:07:42 AM
I'm loving the desperate grabs by Tom and Ski. Like, really, is that all you've got? I'm not even talking about arguing for a conspiracy, just how pathetically it's being done. I love a good conspiracy debate, but..."Martian landscape looks similar to the Mojave" and "something in Curiosity picture" are not OH SNAP-worthy posts.

Neither was the argument about how the Rover was landed, but it was at least a step higher.
Why? It's ridiculous:'hay guise why don't we spend billions developing a flying crane?' I'll grant the idea makes for snazzy CGI animations but it's still a hugely overcomplicated solution.

Do tell a better way then, that this can be done? Keep in mind, there's atmosphere, so vortices can occur from stirred up dust. The atmosphere is .7% as dense as earth's, so parachutes and wings are somewhat out of the question. So please, if you would, tell another way to do it that would be less expensive and easier.
Retrorockets, with the rover in a box to stop it being sandblasted. Give it a bit so the dust dies down, the box opens and you have a Mars rover ready to go.
How will the computer know where the ground is if the metal box is blocking the radar?
When it isn't moving.

The computer needs the radar to calculate thrust adjustments for descent speed so that it doesn't smack into the ground at supersonic speeds. That might be somewhat detrimental to the equipment. If there's too much thrust, it either starts going back up, or slows down to slow, runs out of fuel, and drops like a rock anyway. If there's too little thrust, it drops like a rock anyway. The radar is necessary for measuring distance to the ground and speed of descent.
Logged
Quote from: BoatswainsMate on August 24, 2012, 12:18:02 PM
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #80 on: August 09, 2012, 10:26:53 AM »
Quote from: Supertails on August 09, 2012, 04:07:42 AM
I'm loving the desperate grabs by Tom and Ski. Like, really, is that all you've got? I'm not even talking about arguing for a conspiracy, just how pathetically it's being done. I love a good conspiracy debate, but..."Martian landscape looks similar to the Mojave" and "something in Curiosity picture" are not OH SNAP-worthy posts.

Neither was the argument about how the Rover was landed, but it was at least a step higher.

NASA has ony provided us a few blurry pictures to look at. There's really not that much to discuss.
Logged
*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #81 on: August 09, 2012, 10:27:53 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 09, 2012, 10:26:53 AM
Quote from: Supertails on August 09, 2012, 04:07:42 AM
I'm loving the desperate grabs by Tom and Ski. Like, really, is that all you've got? I'm not even talking about arguing for a conspiracy, just how pathetically it's being done. I love a good conspiracy debate, but..."Martian landscape looks similar to the Mojave" and "something in Curiosity picture" are not OH SNAP-worthy posts.

Neither was the argument about how the Rover was landed, but it was at least a step higher.

NASA has ony provided us three blurry pictures to look at. There's really not that much to discuss.

Tom... This has been explained. There's no more to be discussed with you.
Logged
Quote from: BoatswainsMate on August 24, 2012, 12:18:02 PM
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.
*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • +0/-0
  • Ding dong!
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #82 on: August 09, 2012, 10:56:55 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 09, 2012, 10:26:53 AM
Quote from: Supertails on August 09, 2012, 04:07:42 AM
I'm loving the desperate grabs by Tom and Ski. Like, really, is that all you've got? I'm not even talking about arguing for a conspiracy, just how pathetically it's being done. I love a good conspiracy debate, but..."Martian landscape looks similar to the Mojave" and "something in Curiosity picture" are not OH SNAP-worthy posts.

Neither was the argument about how the Rover was landed, but it was at least a step higher.

NASA has ony provided us a few blurry pictures to look at. There's really not that much to discuss.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/picture/2012/aug/08/curiosity-rover-gale-crater-mars?fb=optOut:
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2012, 01:00:09 PM
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.
*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8880
  • +3/-3
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #83 on: August 09, 2012, 11:21:51 AM »
Quote from: Moon squirter on August 09, 2012, 10:56:55 AM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 09, 2012, 10:26:53 AM
Quote from: Supertails on August 09, 2012, 04:07:42 AM
I'm loving the desperate grabs by Tom and Ski. Like, really, is that all you've got? I'm not even talking about arguing for a conspiracy, just how pathetically it's being done. I love a good conspiracy debate, but..."Martian landscape looks similar to the Mojave" and "something in Curiosity picture" are not OH SNAP-worthy posts.

Neither was the argument about how the Rover was landed, but it was at least a step higher.

NASA has ony provided us a few blurry pictures to look at. There's really not that much to discuss.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/picture/2012/aug/08/curiosity-rover-gale-crater-mars?fb=optOut:

You can tell where the wall starts.
Logged
Quote from: James on August 26, 2011, 05:40:53 AM
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?
*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #84 on: August 09, 2012, 11:30:48 AM »
Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 09, 2012, 11:21:51 AM
Quote from: Moon squirter on August 09, 2012, 10:56:55 AM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 09, 2012, 10:26:53 AM
Quote from: Supertails on August 09, 2012, 04:07:42 AM
I'm loving the desperate grabs by Tom and Ski. Like, really, is that all you've got? I'm not even talking about arguing for a conspiracy, just how pathetically it's being done. I love a good conspiracy debate, but..."Martian landscape looks similar to the Mojave" and "something in Curiosity picture" are not OH SNAP-worthy posts.

Neither was the argument about how the Rover was landed, but it was at least a step higher.

NASA has ony provided us a few blurry pictures to look at. There's really not that much to discuss.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/picture/2012/aug/08/curiosity-rover-gale-crater-mars?fb=optOut:

You can tell where the wall starts.

Well that's certainly strange. Although, it's not an even line, I suppose it could be pictures cropped and placed together.
Logged
Quote from: BoatswainsMate on August 24, 2012, 12:18:02 PM
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.
?

Lorddave

  • 19852
  • +29/-61
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #85 on: August 09, 2012, 11:38:16 AM »
That's two pictures from the main mast, one from the left and right camera. Hance the overlap.
Logged
Gone.
*

garygreen

  • 598
  • +0/-0
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #86 on: August 09, 2012, 11:40:13 AM »
It's a composite image.  Look at the rover.

Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2012, 10:59:03 AM
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --
*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8880
  • +3/-3
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #87 on: August 09, 2012, 11:43:56 AM »
That only explains the vertical line. Not the horizontal ones.
Logged
Quote from: James on August 26, 2011, 05:40:53 AM
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?
*

garygreen

  • 598
  • +0/-0
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #88 on: August 09, 2012, 12:12:11 PM »
Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 09, 2012, 11:43:56 AM
That only explains the vertical line. Not the horizontal ones.

What horizontal lines?
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2012, 10:59:03 AM
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --
*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #89 on: August 09, 2012, 12:14:58 PM »
Quote from: garygreen on August 09, 2012, 12:12:11 PM
Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 09, 2012, 11:43:56 AM
That only explains the vertical line. Not the horizontal ones.

What horizontal lines?

If you put your face up against the monitor, it looks like there might be some horizontal lines, but I can't quite tell.
Logged
Quote from: BoatswainsMate on August 24, 2012, 12:18:02 PM
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Up
« previous next »