/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7016814]

Are there any actual videos from the rovers?

Like I understand of they move slow as fuck, i dont mean like the rover doimg like burnouts and shit.

I mean have they just ever used the onboard camera to film like wind blowing some dust, or the sky or anything?

Ive tried searching everywhere but i get are gay animations and shit.


How about any of the other rovers we have elsewhere in the solar system?


Sidenote: what the hell happened to the comet thing? How badly did we fuck that up? And what are the implications for the future of funding for our space endeavors?


Can this thread be like rover general or something?

[Anonymous No.7016818]

>>7016814


Sorry btw im typing on my phone...

[Anonymous No.7016971]

Bump

[Anonymous No.7016973]

>>7016814
bump

[Anonymous No.7016976]

>>7016814
The problem is that videos are HUGE without really providing any new information. And bandwidth is very limited.

[Anonymous No.7017000]

>>7016976
so you're saying you have no proof the rover is real

[Anonymous No.7017007]

>bumping up your own troll post

[Anonymous No.7017219]

>>7017000
Do you require video proof for the existence of everything?

[Anonymous No.7017237]

>>7016814

We have a handful of frequently taken frames of Martian dust devils, which ave been assembled into movies:

http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/press/spirit/20070412a/dd_enhanced_1120a.gif
http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/press/spirit/20050819a/dd_enhanced_525b-B558R1.gif

are a couple of examples. There's not really that many through, as the surface of Mars is a pretty lifeless place and there's better uses of dozens of images worth of bandwidth.

As for Rosetta and Philae, while it didn't go perfectly to plan it still managed to end up on the comet and do all of the science it was intending to. It's gone into hibernation for now, but the people at the ESA are hoping it will get enough light to start waking up and talking to us again some time in the summer.

[Anonymous No.7017476]

>>7017219
do you? they're not on Mars, they're playing around in the desert in southwestern US

[Anonymous No.7017480]

>>7017476
And a video would convince you otherwise?

You are an idiot.

[Anonymous No.7017486]

>>7017480
hard data and science would convince me otherwise, but NASA hides all that behind national security lines.

but the average person is too amazed by the pretty pictures to care about real science.

ever wonder why in the 50+ years of NASA's existence they haven't really discovered anything that changed any paradigms or upset science whatsoever? why they pretty much have nothing to show nowadays except CGI pictures of space that they tell you are from satellites?

[Anonymous No.7017487]

>they think Mars wasn't a proto-Earth
>they think life didn't flourish on Mars
>they think dinosaurs didn't fly from Mars to Earth
>they think humans weren't alive on Mars
>they think the face on Mars is just a coincidence
>they think Mars is habitable anymore
>they think NASA isn't hiding tons of evidence they've found on Mars
>they think NASA will release classified information to the masses of proles
>they think they haven't found plenty of archaeological evidence of past civilizations on Mars
>they think they haven't found dinosaur bones on Mars

[Anonymous No.7017489]

>>7017237
If there is wind then why do the dumb fucks at NASA use an RTG or solar panels for power? The RTG is bound to run out and solar panels are fucking impractical due to the sheer distance to the sun and the atmosphere thats between it. Fuck can't they just make a rover with a wind turbine on it and make it run forever? Crazy engineers with there rigid mindsets, it saddens me.

[Anonymous No.7017490]

>>7017487
there you go, this is the stupid stuff you have to believe in if you take NASA face value at their word. secret space program and aliens and garbage like that to cover up the complete lack of any results that NASA produces.

[Anonymous No.7017492]

>>7017489
Before looking like a retard, maybe you should use your brain for a second, a wind turbine is not efficient, take a shitload of place, and depend of the air density, which is very low on Mars.

[Anonymous No.7017493]

>>7017486
>I don't like NASA's results so they are not real!
>NO THEY ARE NOT REAL
>THE WORLD CAN'T BE THIS BORING
>LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU

[Anonymous No.7017494]

>>7017493
what results? they never left the planet and have been making stuff up the whole time. they take pictures of deserts in the southwestern US and tell you it's an alien world and you believe them.

they barely even have to try.

[Anonymous No.7017496]

>>7017492
And solar panels are so efficient on Mars and they don't take a lot of space?

And RTG's do run out you know.

[Anonymous No.7017497]

>>7017486
If there's someone who doesn't care about real science here, it's probably you, if you're not aware that nearly every model is changed, every time we receive data from space probes.

[Anonymous No.7017498]

>>7017497
>if you're not aware that nearly every model is changed, every time we receive data from space probes
that must feel real comforting to believe but you should really be honest with yourself and admit that you made that up

otherwise it would be simple to show me 3 times we've changed "nearly every model" based on data recovered through NASA

[Anonymous No.7017499]

>>7017496
RTG are still more efficient than a wind turbine, and more reliable than solar panels.

When curiosity's RTG will be depleted, he will probably already be broken.

[Anonymous No.7017500]

>>7017494
There are plenty results. Just because you either don't understand them or don't like them doesn't mean they don't exist.

>>7017496
wind turbines are very likely to fail as there are lots of moving parts, can't risk that. Also not very reliable energy source and reliability>efficiency in space.

[Anonymous No.7017501]

>>7017500
>There are plenty results. Just because you either don't understand them or don't like them doesn't mean they don't exist.
then it should be really easy to come back with 3 examples of results that have any relevance to anything

[Anonymous No.7017502]

>>7016814
do you even remember the SKYCRANE? i was blown away when they announced this and it wasn't an april fools joke. just goes to show how little the average person understands about anything if you could sell them this

[Anonymous No.7017504]

Why are you people answering seriously to this poster? Clearly he is not here with serious intents but rather to play.

[Anonymous No.7017507]

>>7017501
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/index.html
There, look for yourself. Curiosity gathered lots of data about marsian topology, geology and composition. I know this is not relevant to you because you like flashy things, but this is highly relevant for future missions and the origin of the solar system and life.

[Anonymous No.7017509]

>>7017507
so you couldn't find any results that have any tangible effect on anything could you?

i can make up pages and pages of figures about other planets, and it can all be internally consistent - doesn't make it real

[Anonymous No.7017510]

>>7017504
because people seek approval for following the narrative. They understand it could be true so they argue its false to assure themselves it isn't.

[Anonymous No.7017512]

>>7017507
It's nothing about wind or weather so in effect your argument is broken

[Anonymous No.7017513]

>>7017509
If there's nothing to possibly change your mind out there, than call it a religion and shut the fuck up or go to >>>/x/.

[Anonymous No.7017514]

>>7017486
>hard data and science would convince me otherwise, but NASA hides all that behind national security lines.
That's complete bollocks.

http://pds-geosciences.wustl.edu/missions/msl/

>then it should be really easy to come back with 3 examples of results that have any relevance to anything

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/basic_connect?qsearch=MSL+mars&version=1

>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.7017515]

>>7017513
real science and hard date could change my mind but the little amount of data that NASA has chosen to release doesn't do that

[Anonymous No.7017516]

>>7017514
>can't come up with 3 examples
>pastes links and implies they include the examples
look we know you can't come up with 3 examples, it's better to just not reply

[Anonymous No.7017519]

>>7017515
>implying you'd even understand any of it

>>7017516
If you're too lazy to do a little work on your own, than you really deserve to be a conspiracy nutjob.

[Anonymous No.7017520]

>>7017516
>ask for results
>ignore 700 results

You're claims are debunked. Results and data are available.

>>>/x/

>>7017515
Data and science:
>>7017514

[Anonymous No.7017524]

>>7017519
>>7017520
i asked for 3 examples of something NASA has discovered that has had any affect on earth, and you continue to wiggle out of that.

it's clear that you can not tell the difference between quantity or quality. you keep throwing up quantity and ignoring that i asked for a specific quality.

[Anonymous No.7017531]

>>7017516
>look we know you can't come up with 3 examples, it's better to just not reply
And what were you expecting from an "actual" Martin lander?
The missing link between the fork and the spork?
A list of ingredients in chicken McNuggets?
Bigfoot piloting a UFO?
Maybe advanced stem-cell techniques that allow vegans to travel backwards in time?

The laws of physics aren't different on Mars, so we're mostly just learning about the geology, meteorology, etc that's unique to Mars, and thus expanding our understanding of planetology in general.
This knowledge isn't glamorous or exciting to anyone outside the fields involved.
But it is freely available to the public and the thousands of scientists that study it aren't suspicious that it's all a hoax.
Instead, no-life, basement-dewlling misanthropes have figured out t he big secret?
sure...

[Anonymous No.7017535]

>>7017524
>i asked for 3 examples of something NASA has discovered that has had any affect on earth
No, you said "that have any relevance to anything", those papers have relevance to Mars and the evolution of the solar system. You also claimed they released no results or data, which was disproved. Now you're attempting to worm your way out. Nope.

[Anonymous No.7017538]

>>7017531
here's an example: if any of the heat shields that NASA claims they were using worked to the degree that NASA claims they worked, all the power plants in the world would be implementing that technology.

but they don't.

just like we don't use the spacesuits that "survived the radiation on the moon" for any real radiation work on earth, because they don't actually protect from radiation whatsoever.

>>7017535
you're nitpicking and dissembling, it's clear you don't have any examples that have any relevance to earth

[Anonymous No.7017545]

>>7017538
Ignorance is not really an argument. Try harder, it's getting pathetic.

I guess you are the same guy that keeps spamming those moon hoax threads?

[Anonymous No.7017548]

Maximum bandwidth rate 2 times lower than dial-up modem. %%You may not know what it is.%% Other then images, it sends a lot of another data.

[Anonymous No.7017557]

>>7017538
>if any of the heat shields that NASA claims they were using worked to the degree that NASA claims they worked, all the power plants in the world would be implementing that technology.
[citation needed]

> they don't actually protect from radiation whatsoever.

A sheet of paper provides some protection from radiation. No one ever claimed the Apollo suits were good at stopping anything other than the light of the sun and low energy particles. Strawman.

[Anonymous No.7017558]

Maximum bandwidth rate 2 times lower than dial-up modem. Other then images, it sends a lot of another data.

[Anonymous No.7017566]

>>7017538
>here's an example: if any of the heat shields that NASA claims they were using worked to the degree that NASA claims they worked, all the power plants in the world would be implementing that technology.

To do what?

[Anonymous No.7017568]

>>7017557
>[citation needed]
i know, because you're an authoritarian, a child of society.

instead of taking responsibility for your own knowledge, instead of seeing your own ignorance as an opportunity to start more research, you cuck for someone else to tell you what to think. you aren't going to look into this some more on your own, you're going to sit back confident you know the truth because no one's willing to argue with you anymore.

>A sheet of paper provides some protection from radiation
let's not get into an argument that's based on muddying the waters. paper won't protect against all radiation, it won't protect against the cosmic radiation that we are talking about.

[Anonymous No.7017569]

>>7017538
>it's clear you don't have any examples that have any relevance to earth

What sort of thing would qualify for that? Since apparently neither new technologies nor greatly expanded knowledge about the solar system counts? Seriously, an example of WHAT?

[Anonymous No.7017570]

>>7017566
He won't explain it, he doesn't actually have any idea about what he's talking about. He demands "hard scientific data" but can't provide any on his own.

[Anonymous No.7017572]

>>7017569
>neither new technologies
what new technologies? name 3 technologies we use on earth today that NASA developed.

[Anonymous No.7017576]

>>7017572
>name 3

Here's like a hundred:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies

[Anonymous No.7017578]

>>7017576
and that's a great point. you can't think for yourself at all, can't even say 3 things on your own. you didn't read that page, that's for sure.

you can quickly google keywords and find a bunch of results and tell yourself you've found the truth though.

[Anonymous No.7017581]

>>7017576
#rekt

:^)

[Anonymous No.7017583]

>>7017566
>>7017570
i don't know what there is to explain? heat transfer is very important in all power plants and insulation of that ability... well it would be like the amazing jet fuel that destroys world trade towers. if only we could get some more of that stuff on our hands.

[Anonymous No.7017584]

>>7017572
That's an easy one: Teflon, Nickel-Cadmium batteries, infrared thermometers.

There are literally hundreds of others though.

[Anonymous No.7017586]

>>7017583
>i don't know what there is to explain?
So you have no idea, alright then. Another pointless argument, no surprise.

[Anonymous No.7017588]

>>7017578
>hurr durr it doesn't count if you link to exactly what i'm asking for, you have to SAY it

Fine, retard.

2 Health and medicine

2.1 Infrared ear thermometers
2.2 Ventricular assist device
2.3 Artificial Limbs
2.4 Light-emitting diodes in medical therapies
2.5 Invisible braces
2.6 Scratch-resistant lenses
2.7 Space blanket

3 Transportation

3.1 Aircraft anti-icing systems
3.2 Highway safety
3.3 Improved radial tires
3.4 Chemical detection

4 Public safety

4.1 Video enhancing and analysis systems
4.2 Fire-resistant reinforcement
4.3 Firefighting equipment

5 Consumer, home, and recreation

5.1 Temper foam
5.2 Enriched baby food
5.3 Portable cordless vacuums
5.4 Freeze drying

6 Environmental and agricultural resources

6.1 Water purification
6.2 Solar Cells
6.3 Pollution remediation

7 Computer technology

7.1 Structural analysis software
7.2 Remotely controlled ovens
7.3 NASA Visualization Explorer
7.4 Space Race Blastoff
7.5 OpenStack

8 Industrial productivity

8.1 Powdered lubricants
8.2 Improved mine safety
8.3 Food safety

[Anonymous No.7017589]

>>7017494

And exactly what would that accomplish? What is the purpose of faking such a thing?

OP should be board banned.

[Anonymous No.7017592]

>>7017584
>teflon
false: http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ipp/home/myth_tang.html

>nickel-cadmium batteries
false: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel%E2%80%93cadmium_battery

>infrared thermometers
false: http://www.zytemp.com/infrared/history.asp

that didn't take long to show that all 3 were not invented by NASA.

[Anonymous No.7017593]

>>7017589
>OP should be board banned.

He would just consider that more proof he's right, since obviously the mods are part of the coverup.

[Anonymous No.7017594]

>>7017568

>doesnt provide sources to retarded claims
>expects to be taken seriously

/x/ is a few boards down the road, m8

[Anonymous No.7017597]

>>7017589
>>7017593
i'm not OP (tell mods to check IPs), but this thread will probably be deleted soon like they deleted the other one that was getting popular

[Anonymous No.7017601]

>>7017588
pick 3 that you think NASA invented and i will show you that they did not

[Anonymous No.7017603]

>>7017592
It's one thing to invent them and another to actually find a use for those inventions. It's an engineering thing.

[Anonymous No.7017606]

>>7017538
Space-suits are incredibly cumbersome for work on earth. That's why they don't use them for radiation work. It's DESIGNED to be used in SPACE. They're also many degrees more expensive than a radiation suit.

[Anonymous No.7017607]

>>7017603
so now your claim has changed from NASA invented these things to NASA found a use for these things. i'd love to see you provide some sort of proof that any of these things weren't in use at the time and that it was NASA that "engineered" their use... but we both know how you'll respond

[Anonymous No.7017608]

>>7017583
>heat transfer is very important in all power plants and insulation of that ability

Sure, but what's the benefit to a power planet of making the shielding lighter and more fragile?

[Anonymous No.7017612]

>>7017608
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles-class_submarine

you tell me

[Anonymous No.7017619]

Lol OP must be the same asswipe that keeps coming on here to argue cell membranes arent made of lipids

pic related OP being smarter than us

[Anonymous No.7017620]

>>7017612
Lol, you have no idea, have you?
You're funny guy.

[Anonymous No.7017622]

>>7017620
what powers that submarine?

[Anonymous No.7017625]

>>7017612

I'll like to, but I'm not sure why you would use something not designed for more than a few minutes of use somewhere where you can't replace it for weeks or months at a time. Hence why I'm asking you.

[Anonymous No.7017631]

>>7017622
Either you post a full explanation of your baseless claim, or you have no argument there. I know you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.7017633]

>>7017625
>something not designed for more than a few minutes of use
this is what you do when you believe in NASA. you believe that if something is "designed for" that it exists and works to that degree. what was this ( >>7017515 ) heat shield designed for, would you say? it wasn't even affected by any heat, not "only designed for a few minutes".

[Anonymous No.7017640]

>>7017631
post your question then, you've made insults but contributed nothing

[Anonymous No.7017645]

>>7017633
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.7017650]

>>7017640
What is so impossible about the heat shields and where aren't they used even though it would be beneficial (why?)?

Good luck.

[Anonymous No.7017658]

>>7017633
>it wasn't even affected by any heat

I don't know, it looks pretty battered when you're not staring at the inside of it.

[Anonymous No.7017660]

>>7017650
these "heat shields" that NASA claims they use are science fiction. they don't resemble any real engineering projects on earth. if they were capable of achieving the effect that NASA claims then they would be in use all over the world. instead, just like all the examples i debunked above, NASA's "technology" exists in its own bubble, away from real engineering projects on earth. they are just as difficult to "debunk" as every other religious belief, because they are surrounded by other lies and every part of them is not real.

i'm not trying to convince you with this, this is not my whole argument summed up in once. a full treatment of this would take years. just start following your favorite space programs, for real, not at a fanboy level. collect every scrap and crumb of data and evidence they release, separate it all into actual independently verifiable science and just fluff. spend a few years doing this on your own and you'll find the truth. it's not going to happen unless you stop being passive and start being active with learning.

it's the difference between looking both ways before you cross the street or blindly walking in and expecting other people to follow the rules and not run you over.

[Anonymous No.7017670]

>>7017660
>if they were capable of achieving the effect that NASA claims then they would be in use all over the world.
What is the effect NASA claims?

Rest is just rubbish. Also not a single source. You're even worse than NASA by your standards.

>i'm not trying to convince you with this
I notice that.

[Anonymous No.7017686]

>>7017660
>they're not real because I said so with no supporting evidence
>wake up sheeple

[Anonymous No.7017693]

>>7017670
>>7017686
>constant mockery of anything outside of the mainstream authority
>constant appeals to further authority and group cohesion
this behavior was fostered in you for a reason.

[Anonymous No.7017701]

>>7017693
I guess you're done then.

[Anonymous No.7017702]

>>7017686
>>7017670

Don't argue with him. He's a blatant troll.

>>7017693

He used this same picture and said about the same thing in the moon landing conspiracy thread I saw yesterday.

[Anonymous No.7017707]

>>7017702
I don't know, it's kind of sad. I can only hope that he doesn't believe his own crap.

[Anonymous No.7017708]

>>7017701
>>7017702
why don't you guys make some positive statements that i can sit here and debunk then? you're the trolls who haven't contributed anything at all to this thread, meanwhile i've presented many pictures and many new ideas to discuss on a discussion board, if they're garbage they're garbage, the ideas should stand on their own without your constant personal attacks

[Anonymous No.7017711]

>>7017708
Do you feel angry about other people not agreeing with your baseless statements? Does it make you feel discouraged? Have your parents ever encouraged you? What kind of person was your mother? Would you call her a loving mother?

[Anonymous No.7017712]

>>7017707

I'd rather hope not, too. On the other hand, it's sad either way. Either he's delusional and paranoid, or some sad child who finds posting stupid shit and "angering" people way too funny.

[Anonymous No.7017713]

>>7017711
oh come now, you really think you're getting to me? this is just pathetic, you're making your side look bad by acting this way.

remember when the curiosity rover "beamed back" that will.i.am. song? pepperidge farm remembers.

[Anonymous No.7017716]

>>7017660
Of course they don't resemble any other engineering project on earth...
Ablative heat shields for reentry are designed for... surprise surprise... atmospheric reentry... not something that crops up very often on earth in any other field than aerospace...
They need to work once, be reasonable cost and be light enough for launch... For every other earth based application where a system requires shielding equivalent to reentry is it much cheaper to use heavy, very cheap but very heavy heat shielding, and some of the only things that need to deal with supersonic (or faster) gas flow at a couple thousand degrees are rocket launch pads and test stands.

[Anonymous No.7017717]

>>7017713
Does it anger you that nobody really takes you seriously? Did your father touch you when you were a child? Did you like it?

[Anonymous No.7017719]

>>7017717
no, as long as you remember this, your subconscious will take care of the rest. a few years from now you'll be the one doing this

i consistently encourage everyone to learn more about the space programs. look into them more beyond just a "oh wow much science such engineering" level. this is the internet age, you don't need a classroom to learn. find out everything you can.

start with how much independently verifiable data you can find of each of their claims. for example, this recent comet landing. how much data did they actually release? a grand total of 2-3 blurry black and white photographs? that's about par for the course with these space programs, all drama and glitz, no substance.

[Anonymous No.7017721]

>>7017719
Why didn't you like it?

[Anonymous No.7017723]

>>7017713
I think that arguing in general like it is being done here shouldn't exist. Its immature and ineffective and fosters ill will among us. There is so much more we can offer each other and ourselves from more productive positive interactions.

[Anonymous No.7017729]

>>7017719
This isn't fucking KSP where you send back your SCIENCE and have the benefits immediately.
It takes months or years of analysis and evaluation to write a scientific paper on the data sent back by each scientific instrument on a spacecraft, and the teams that put the instrument together usually have first dibs on information coming back.

[Anonymous No.7017732]

>>7017719
>start with how much independently verifiable data you can find of each of their claims. for example, this recent comet landing. how much data did they actually release? a grand total of 2-3 blurry black and white photographs? that's about par for the course with these space programs, all drama and glitz, no substance.

Well, of course. The data first goes to the people who provided the instruments, so they can gain priority over any discoveries in the data. Full data should be released to the public after 6 months, and the ESA are looking to change the way it's handled in future missions so the public gets more data as it's received.

[Anonymous No.7017752]

>>7017719
I just joined the thread, why do you consider that space exploration is one big conspiracy? What's the point for them to lie about it?

[Anonymous No.7017768]

>>7017719
lmao

[Anonymous No.7017769]

>>7017752
you get a happy public that adores the state and more military spending.

[Anonymous No.7017774]

>>7017769
4chan posts are gr8 evidence my conspirator friend
We showed those scientists lmao fuk doze niggas unawmsayin ?

[Anonymous No.7017782]

>>7017769
Why does NASA's budget keep shrinking then? Also while it has increased military spending back during the Cold War, how is it increasing military spending today?

[Anonymous No.7017788]

>>7017693
Is this post /sci/'s newest meme?

[Anonymous No.7017793]

>>7017782
the answer to why you would do something so complex as a massive public propaganda campaign is not really simple enough to fit in one sentence. that's just _A_ reason, not THE BE ALL END ALL reason. in part your entire worldview, from every extreme, was designed for you in order to keep you under control.

NASA's budget has been less than a trillion dollars over it's lifetime.

for comparison there's more than a trillion dollars worth of outstanding student loan debt right now.

in the 1960s, it was a useful way of funneling money to black budgets. it's not necessary for that anymore. see: Iran-Contras and the CIA smuggling cocaine.

[Anonymous No.7017856]

>>7017538

You clearly don't understand what the terms heat shield or radiation mean.

Both of those terms can be learned in a sophomore year high school class on general sciences.

I suggest you retake that class.

[Anonymous No.7017867]

>>7017856
do you know how i know you've never worked with radioactive material in an industrial setting?

you think sophomore definitions determine reality. i can define a warp drive but that doesn't make it real.

[Anonymous No.7017916]

>>7017867
If you have ever actually worked in an elevated radiation environment, where the levels are potentially damaging over a short period of time, you would know that rad doses are much higher than most people would expect. Sure you couldn't and wouldn't stand in a certain area of a nuclear facility for hours as you would have an increased risk of cancer as a result, but you can walk through that area and be fine...
It is the same with space, the levels are higher in space but are within the same region as the levels in the nuclear industry. The Van Allen belts and solar storms are the high level radiation spots where you wouldn't want to stay but it is reasonably safe to travel through them with minimal shielding.

[Anonymous No.7017922]

>>7017916
>the levels are higher in space but are within the same region as the levels in the nuclear industry
false, you should look into the research NASA is doing right now on space radiation. they openly acknowledge that it is something holding them back from more manned space travel.

they pretty much gave up on all manned space travel past low earth orbit in 1972.

[Anonymous No.7017936]

>>7017922
It is the same level, but for long duration space flight its the time spent that becomes the issue.

[Anonymous No.7018022]

>>7017717
yet another quality post from /sci/
>I'm losing an argument
>I know, I'll call the guy a faggot! That will surely gain me credibility
This is why people call /sci/ the SECOND smartest board

[Anonymous No.7018773]

Bump

[Anonymous No.7018795]

>>7016814
BAMP

[Anonymous No.7020446]

>>7017486
The science behind those tracks.

[Anonymous No.7020979]

>>7020446

[Anonymous No.7020999]

>>7017486

> 50+ years of NASA's existence they haven't really discovered anything that changed any paradigms or upset science whatsoever?
>Never been anywhere you can't see with a telescope

What did you expect to find in the solar system? A magic wizard just chilling in a glass bowl?

[Anonymous No.7021004]

So are we going to actually put a colony on that rock or what?

I want my Martian city.

[Anonymous No.7021016]

>>7016814
>the rover doing burnouts and shit

[Anonymous No.7021020]

>>7017769

>Tom and the boys are in trouble

I'll admit I laughed.

Also, it's not like the Apollo program started in January 1969, it started in 1961 before anyone even knew who Nixon was. We'd already been to the moon in December of 1968, we just didn't land on it.

[Anonymous No.7021023]

>>7018022
The point is that it's not even worth discussing with this retard. He always has the same strategy in every single thread.

1. Post pictures that he thinks can't be real for no good reason
2. When debunked, the counter argument is ignored and back to (1).
3. When people start to notice what's up he posts some blog entry by some conspiracy nutjob with zero credibility
4. To finish off he claims we're all brainwashed into thinking he's wrong and pisses off.

It doesn't matter what you say, he will never leave his bubble. He doesn't even understand the basic physics behind whatever he's trying to say, so why bother? I might as well tell him to crawl back into his mom's ass. Doesn't really achieve anything, but sure feels a little less aggravating.

[Anonymous No.7021025]

>>7017516
here have some results you lazy bastard:
http://pds-geosciences.wustl.edu/msl/msl-m-apxs-2-edr-v1/mslapx_0xxx/data/sol00013/

.dat is the actual data, .lbl is an explanation of what it is, this is from sol 13

[Anonymous No.7021041]

>>7017496
Several reasons:
1. the atmosphere's density is really really low.
Air pressure, density is left up as an exercise for the reader
Earth: 101 kPa
Mars: 0.6 kPa
2. uncertainty in wind speed at the landing site. We can't tell what the wind speed is until we get there.
3. more moving parts than solar cells and RTGs
4. possibility of vibrations
5. the wheels and other mechanical parts will fail before the RTG does.

that being said there's this:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/reports/CB-979/houston.pdf
>>7017499
>>RTGs more efficient than wind turbine
they aren't lol, pretty much all RTGs have efficiencies lower than 10%. Wind turbines can get better than that with efficiencies in the 30-40% range.