/sci/ - Science & Math

And here we go again.

>>4940877

What's the big deal? What's the big deal? What's the big deal? What's the big deal? What's the big deal? What's the big deal? What's the big deal? What's the big deal? What's the big deal? What's the big deal? What's the big deal? What's the big deal? What's the big deal? What's the big deal? What's the big deal? What's the big deal? What's the big deal? What's the big deal? What's the big deal?

>>4941035
What's the big deal?

It's only the largest and most up-to-date rover that cost around $2.5bil to make, and that it's the most optimum landing ever to occur of any spacecraft given the amount of shit that could have went wrong - *completely* on it's own mechanical merits, no remote human intervention either.

It'll safely browse rugged slope terrain, and examine layers of a mountain to calculate when, where and what occured on mars so many billions of years ago.

AND tell us if it's feasible or not to start considering habitable Mars bases, talk about two birds and one stone.

>>4941057
The other rovers were automated too. They told us about the mars terrain too. It's just more of the same, just with better quality pics? Again, what's the big deal?

What's the big deal? WHATS THE FUCKING BIG DEAL?? Ill tell you what the fucking big deal is you uneducated retard. go the fuck outside, do you see that little fucking dot there, thats motherfucking Mars bitch. We just landed a Fucking car, and not a shit old mini, a proper SUV sized CAR on that. so you must be thinking; "but didnt we already did that?", "whats so hard about that?", "whats different this time?". fuck you ask a lot of shitty questions. look at your dog, see that little animal there, thats the size of the previous rovers, see your SUV, its a FUCKTON bigger. THAT'S THEW FUCKING DIFFERENCE. or to but it in a language you meat-heads can understand, imagine the largest weight ever lifter by a human in a show of primitive strength, that's what? 300kg? now imagine someone comes along and lifts 2000kg. thats a pretty worth while accomplishments.

>>4941078
So everyone is celebrating how humanity is the crowning achievement of god's creation because we landed a bigger rover on Mars. Wow. Thanks for clearing that up.

i fell asleep yesterday after the first picture was uploaded. did they say who the other 4 countries that joined were? i'm sure canada is one and the another russia, but the others?

>>4941078
>now imagine someone comes along and lifts 2000kg. thats a pretty worth while accomplishments.

What are you on about? Nobody is weightlifting here. That's a terrible analogy.

>>4941070
Why are you on /sci/ if you can't figure this out yourself?

You're obviously a lost cause.

>>4941089
You're not implying that everyone on /sci/ is smart, are you? You're not that new into actually believing that stereotype, are you?

>>4941070
This thing weighed a ton. It had to pierce the Martian atmosphere at just the right speed and angle to not burn up. It had to eject from the capsule at the right time, it had to deploy parachutes at the exact moment of entering atmosphere. It had to not snap during the 9G deployment of said parachute.

It had to disconnect from the chute, and come to a slow descent using 8 thrusters at the right timing, and kill what, 13,000 miles per hour in just seven minutes, and use an unorthodox sky-crane to gently lower it onto the sand about 20 or so meters before touch down and of course be cut from the thrusters.

It was what they called 7 minutes of terror, because in 7 minutes, it could have all fucked up. And it's also a big deal because we'll be able to not only take great picture/video of the surface, but study it using it's robotic arm to determine if life ever existed on Mars.

And if it's possible for us to colonize it.

>>4941087
im assuming that if you cant see the importance of this you are mentally retarded, which only leaves lifting as something you can do (i meen, look at /fit/).

>>4941094
Good point

>>4941084
no, they didn't. Though they did mention that they did collaborate with several research teams from several other countries (like 7 or something).

I remember spain being one of the most helpful, russia being listed, uhh after that I don't remember, but I'm pretty sure Canada wasn't one.

>>4941099
The thing was bigger than the Huygens probe and was anchored off by some crazy ass thruster crane into the ground.

This was a step forward in the scientific world.

Not to mention, it only took what, 9 months to get there?

>>4941117
UK, Spain, Australia were 3 of the 7.

Y'know at this point, it's safe to assume that it was a collaborative effort from a lot of nations, you no doubt had many engineers and scientists who come from foreign backgrounds, I mean fuck, one of the engineers they interviews pre-landing was British.

>>4941127
Yeah, around 9 months anon. Imagine the work put into it before the launch, the years it took to plane and execute and even build the machine.

I can kinda understand why all the scientists were hugging, crying, and shaking hands, those men and women were colleagues working for the same rather unsure goal, and it paid off before their eyes.

Kinda like how the cast of Lord of the rings felt after filming the trilogy for years and then having to leave their project since it was finished.

>>4941140
I thought it usually took 5 years to get there?

>>4941219
depends on when you launch and if you do a low energy or high energy transfer.

I think it's cool that the rovers will probably be in a museum on Mars one day.

>private company
>5kg of plutonium on board
cool story brah

Why are they taking so fucking long to put out a HD full color picture? Its just a camera for fucks sake. Are they going to be this fucking slow about everything?

>>4941354
I know, right? It's not like photo was made on Sun or something ,lol xP #NERDS

>>4941354
Accurately transmitting data over such a large distance means the data rate is very slow - even at peak it's not more than a few kb/s.

Even with some of the most efficient compression algorithms on the planet, it can still take hours to transmit large data packets

>>4941354
>yfw mars to earth ideal bandwith are 12 kilobits/sec with 14 minutes latency

it tooks about 2 hours in ideal conditions (which never happens) to send a good quality photo from Mars to Earth

>>4941355
Well, to be fair, they got the thumbnails pretty much instantaneously. It doesn't seem like it would take that much longer to send some high-res pics, unless it's night where the rover is and we can't make lasting contact until dawn there, or something.

>>4941385
>it tooks about
>tooks

The pictures so far are from the hazcam used for landing. The real camera is on the mast, which is even now probably still folded up inside the rover. They're predicting to recieve 720p pictures and video possibly in the next two days.

>>4941394
Videos of what?

>>4941407
of landing

MRO q_q

He isn't actually interested in conversation, just riling people up. Don't feed the troll, please.

>>4941427

>Mars Descent Imager for Curiosity
This Mars Descent Imager (MARDI) camera will fly on the Curiosity rover of NASA's Mars Science Laboratory mission.

The downward-looking camera will take about four frames per second at nearly 1,600 by 1,200 pixels per frame for about the final two minutes before Curiosity touches down on Mars in August 2012. Malin Space Science Systems, San Diego, Calif., supplied MARDI and two other camera instruments for the mission. A pocketknife provides scale for the image.

cant fucking wait

Why aren't the pictures in color instead of BandW?

>>4941436
>1,600 by 1,200 pixels per frame
How come my piece of shit DSLR takes 18MP images and this billion dollar rover can't even shit out a 2MP image?

>>4941434
most mindblowing thing about the whole thing for me, man i love satellites

>>4941445

mainly for low power usage

>>4941452
It's got a >100W plutonium power pack.

>>4941439
>>4941445
>The pictures so far are from the hazcam used for landing. The real camera is on the mast, which is even now probably still folded up inside the rover. They're predicting to recieve 720p pictures and video possibly in the next two days.

>>4941434
https://twitter.com/HiRISE
>"Great shot, kid! That was one in a million!"

>>4941457
>720p pictures
>1,600 by 1,200 pixels per frame
>implying 720p images are an improvement

>>4941445
I think they have somewhat better optics on the rover.

>>4941453
still pointless on a camera thats going to be facing the ground right beneath for ~14+ functional years

>>4941460
Still a better resolution than my laptop screen, so I don't care. If you don't like it, take it up with Obama.

>what's the big deal

We landed an SUV on a planet that's 50 million miles away from us on average.

>>4941083

Landing the rover was a huge deal to begin with, even if it was half the size of the previous one. Most missions to mars have failed, even recent ones. Just because it has been done before, doesn't mean its not a big deal.

Now understand the significance in the difference between Curiosity and the previous rover, and you might get an idea of how big the deal is.

The things connection is about = to a really bad dialup connection with 15 minutes of latency. They have better things to do with there limited bandwidth then to send highrez photos to some autist.

>>4941099
I wish I'm an alien on mars an saw that thing coming down. most have been an awesome sight!

>>4941434
Well shit, from that angle, that thing looks like a UFO.

>>4941536
The landing is over, please return to whatever board you crawled out of.

>>4941575
I will go back to mlp then. time to clop.

>>4941070
the big deal is that nasa seems to be resorting to cheap sensationalism in order to gather fundings

>>4941579
Is that the /mlp/ version of yiffing?

>>4941591
dunno. heard the word in the mlp-documentation, posted on /fit/

>>4941606
greetings from >>>/fit/

came here to see what all you DYEL nerds had to see. back to my oats. later betas.

>>4941585
why is that a bad thing? NASA needs funding to do awesome things. you think the moon landing wasn't cheap sensationalism?

Supposedly this thing can drill, check weather, and do other shit that the previous rovers can not.

>>4941648
it also has 16 fucking cameras.

I'll just wait for the Higgs Boson to be manipulated. Once that happens, Nasa can then reduce the cost of space exploration.

>>4941657
how?

How come all rovers can only last two years? Why not go solar powered and let the atmosphere in Mars keep that shit alive for longer than two years. I mean, 2.5B dollars you would think the project after creating it would be at least 5 to 10 years.

>>4941664
this things is nuclear powered, it can go for 10 years.

>>4941664
The rover's power should last for about 14 years. 2 years is the duration of the mission, but it's not like that if that thing can still going they'll shut it down.

>>4941664

The minimum life expectancy of the nuclear power is expected to be 14 years. One of the previous rovers is still operational.

They give the projects limited life expectancy on purpose.

>>4941679
you had a good point until you derped the herp at the end.
>but it's not like that if that thing can still going they'll shut it down.
it's like you had a stroke when you got to but.

>>4941640
i never said it was a 'bad thing', however it's misleading and manipulative since what was done wasn't as 'historic, extraordinary, without precedents' as they made it seem. they landed a more complex rover on the surface of mars, which they and even the soviets have done before.

Am I the only one that saw the similarity between these two?

>>4941691
how can you complain about space travel being sensationalized? NASA deserves press, and this was a pretty major moment in history. if/when this thing discovers proof of ancient water and/or life, humanity as a whole will change.

IF we find water on Mars and that Mars can sustain human life then when would it be possible to start putting people on Mars?

>>4941686
Oh god fucking dammit... that's never going to get out of my head now!

>>4941686
who is this?

>>4941746
It has 1% earth pressure. Nobody is going to survive there.

>>4941953
Not with that attitude.

>>4941953

Stop being such a debbie downer. We'll figure shit out

>>4941460
>Bitching about image quality
>Implying they didn't have a billion other priorities to invest their budget on
Do you not know that NASA's funding is only 1/10th of a penny on every tax dollar

>>4941695
Ancient bacterias are already confirmed. Fossils of them were found in some rocks from the mars which have fallen down billions of years ago on the earth.

>>4942230

no.