I do, especially since Europe paid for it, but NASA can learn from it. You can't beat free scientific data at zero risk factor to those not involved.
I can understand that point of view. I'm just not convinced we didn't pay for it through our "Buying Friends" Program. Did any country receiving American $$$$ give aways participate in this?
I honestly don't know and it really doesn't matter. I've finally figured out that most or our politicians are into magic. Watch this hand while I do something else with the other.
------------------ Ron Count Down to A Better America: http://countingdownto.com/countdown/196044 Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
It didn't. The French don't have three heads anymore.
------------------ Ron Count Down to A Better America: http://countingdownto.com/countdown/196044 Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
The industrial-military complex would like you to believe that there's an "enemy" at every turn, and under every rock.
Yeah, tell that to anyone who has served in the middle east in the last 10 years or so.
------------------ Ron Count Down to A Better America: http://countingdownto.com/countdown/196044 Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
Excuse me but, I happen to agree that this is one hell of a technical achievement. I just think it's a waste of money, regardless of who paid for it.
It's a shame that you can't see where achievements like this can take scientists through the knowledge that is gained. But I guess it's like trying to justify money spent on a new Navy submarine to a farmer who is trying to keep his crops alive during a drought....he just isn't going to get it.
quote
Originally posted by blackrams:
You are 100% correct, I'd rather see that money spent on providing our troops with everything they need to defeat our enemies.
BTW, I'm not knocking NASA, I simply don't support this particular mission.
That's ok....NASA had nothing to do with this.
quote
Originally posted by blackrams: I can understand that point of view. I'm just not convinced we didn't pay for it through our "Buying Friends" Program. Did any country receiving American $$$$ give aways participate in this?
I honestly don't know and it really doesn't matter. I've finally figured out that most or our politicians are into magic. Watch this hand while I do something else with the other.
Believe it or not, there are other countries in the world with money. Also, though I won't be able to make you understand this, but any money given from one country to another will be given through a process using something called a "MOU" (Memorandum of Understanding). This document defines specifically what the money must be used for. This is a legal document and is followed very closely by all first world countries...as are all those in the European Union. Therefore any money that was given would not be allowed to be used for anything other than what it was designated for. If this mission wasn't specifically listed on the MOU during the money transfer, then it would not receive funding from the US.
Yeah, tell that to anyone who has served in the middle east in the last 10 years or so.
Maybe you could tell me what it's accomplished.
After the gazillion of dollars spent (you're worried about the expense, right?), and the sacrifice of so many people's lives (both soldiers and civilians)... the situation if anything is worse than it was ten years ago. The middle east is a mess, and our own lives have been screwed up with the need now to be constantly on guard against terrorists (real or imagined) in our own back yards.
If the "west" had directed all those resources wasted in the middle east (and other conflicts) towards space research instead... hell, we probably could've had a full-fledged colony on Mars by now... and shed a lot fewer tears in the meantime.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 11-14-2014).]
After the gazillion of dollars spent (you're worried about the expense, right?), and the sacrifice of so many people's lives (both soldiers and civilians)... the situation if anything is worse than it was ten years ago. The middle east is a mess, and our own lives have been screwed with the need now to be constantly on guard against terrorists in our own back yards.
If the "west" had directed all those resources wasted in the middle east (and other conflicts) towards space research instead... hell, we probably could've had two full divisions and an air combat/nuclear strike wing on Mars by now... and shed a lot fewer tears in the meantime.
Don, the awful thing is... the revision you made to my post actually rings true in a lot of people's minds. You know it and I know it. It would be funny if it wasn't so damn scary!
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 11-14-2014).]
After the gazillion of dollars spent (you're worried about the expense, right?), and the sacrifice of so many people's lives (both soldiers and civilians)... the situation if anything is worse than it was ten years ago. The middle east is a mess, and our own lives have been screwed up with the need now to be constantly on guard against terrorists (real or imagined) in our own back yards.
If the "west" had directed all those resources wasted in the middle east (and other conflicts) towards space research instead... hell, we probably could've had a full-fledged colony on Mars by now... and shed a lot fewer tears in the meantime.
So build weapons and sent them to mars because we need them there why? Talk about a waste of resources! We need them on THIS planet!!!!!!!
I won't be able to make you understand this.............................................
Neil, Understanding and agreeing are two totally different things. Obviously, you're not impressed with my intellectual capability and that's alright. I'm not posting to impress you but, I am giving anyone that's interested my opinion. You are free to ignore my posts as I ignore some.
------------------ Ron Count Down to A Better America: http://countingdownto.com/countdown/196044 Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
To my understanding, the Rosetta mission has another purpose beyond the acquisition of more scientific knowledge. Sooner or later, a sizable asteroid, or a comet, will come into an orbit that puts it on a collision course with the earth. Depending on whether that threat is detected in advance, and how far in advance, the results of the Rosetta mission and other comet/asteroid rendezvous missions (past, present or future such missions) will almost certainly be useful as inputs to any comet or asteroid deflection or impact mitigation effort that could be mounted in reaction to an impending impact threat.
I think that this is something to consider, even if the designers of the Rosetta mission themselves were to say that they never dwelled on that particular line of thought when they were designing the Rosetta hardware and mission.
The space programs of both the USA and Russia have their roots in the military/industrial complex of Nazi Germany and a lot of technological advances have come from the military.
To my understanding, the Rosetta mission has another purpose beyond the acquisition of more scientific knowledge. Sooner or later, a sizable asteroid, or a comet, will come into an orbit that puts it on a collision course with the earth. Depending on whether that threat is detected in advance, and how far in advance, the results of the Rosetta mission and other comet/asteroid rendezvous missions (past, present or future such missions) will almost certainly be useful as inputs to any comet or asteroid deflection or impact mitigation effort that could be mounted in reaction to an impending impact threat.
I think that this is something to consider, even if the designers of the Rosetta mission themselves were to say that they never dwelled on that particular line of thought when they were designing the Rosetta hardware and mission.
Very true. It's possible they know more than what is reported. To be able to land on a meteor/comet/asteroid is a huge deal. Now if we need to deflect or steer one away from hitting Earth we land a rocket motor on one and thrust it out of a collision course.
To my understanding, the Rosetta mission has another purpose beyond the acquisition of more scientific knowledge. Sooner or later, a sizable asteroid, or a comet, will come into an orbit that puts it on a collision course with the earth. Depending on whether that threat is detected in advance, and how far in advance, the results of the Rosetta mission and other comet/asteroid rendezvous missions (past, present or future such missions) will almost certainly be useful as inputs to any comet or asteroid deflection or impact mitigation effort that could be mounted in reaction to an impending impact threat.
I think that this is something to consider, even if the designers of the Rosetta mission themselves were to say that they never dwelled on that particular line of thought when they were designing the Rosetta hardware and mission.
Not a bad (or new) idea.......
quote
If man can land a vehicle on a comet, it stands to reason man can one day land one on an asteroid, which may come in pretty handy should an asteroid be discovered that has Earth's name on it.
Is this a joke? I have no idea what you're talking about.
Did you seriously go back and edit your post!!!!!
quote
Originally posted by Patrick:
Maybe you could tell me what it's accomplished.
After the gazillion of dollars spent (you're worried about the expense, right?), and the sacrifice of so many people's lives (both soldiers and civilians)... the situation if anything is worse than it was ten years ago. The middle east is a mess, and our own lives have been screwed with the need now to be constantly on guard against terrorists (real or imagined) in our own back yards.
If the "west" had directed all those resources wasted in the middle east (and other conflicts) towards space research instead... hell, we probably could've had two full divisions and an air combat/nuclear strike wing on Mars by now... and shed a lot fewer tears in the meantime.
quote
Originally posted by Patrick: Maybe you could tell me what it's accomplished.
After the gazillion of dollars spent (you're worried about the expense, right?), and the sacrifice of so many people's lives (both soldiers and civilians)... the situation if anything is worse than it was ten years ago. The middle east is a mess, and our own lives have been screwed up with the need now to be constantly on guard against terrorists (real or imagined) in our own back yards.
If the "west" had directed all those resources wasted in the middle east (and other conflicts) towards space research instead... hell, we probably could've had a full-fledged colony on Mars by now... and shed a lot fewer tears in the meantime.
No, I did not edit the part you've highlighted... Don did.
quote
Originally posted by maryjane:
I fixed that for ya
And this is a good example why it probably isn't a good idea to post altered "quotes" in this manner. (I'm also guilty of having done it in past threads.) Anyone just skimming the thread will get confused as to who actually said what.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 11-15-2014).]
Originally posted by maryjane: I have seen some people (comments sections of different websites) mention the fact that the lander missed the hoped for LZ by about 1/2 kilometer and as a result, Philae now sits in the 'shade' of a cliff and the solar collectors won't work very well. I don't think there is any realistic way to lift the probe from the surface and sit it back down elsewhere tho. Anyone know more about this?
I very recently heard that they are gonna try, so there must be some kind of a way that they could do something. The same report said that the probe has began drilling down for sample analysis, but the batteries are so low that the data may not be able to be sent back to Earth. Then they said they were gonna try that whatever something.
Neil, Understanding and agreeing are two totally different things. Obviously, you're not impressed with my intellectual capability and that's alright. I'm not posting to impress you but, I am giving anyone that's interested my opinion. You are free to ignore my posts as I ignore some.
I must give a sincere apology to you blackrams. My intent was to say that I couldn't change your mind since it was already made on this topic...I in no way meant to insult your intelligence. Your opinion is as valid as mine even if we disagree. I am truly sorry for the tone that my post took.
Philae bounced twice before coming to a halt. 'Bounce' does not quite describe it correctly. Philae did by far the biggest jump ever. The tallest, longest, slowest JUMP ever done by a human made object (including humans). Without using thrusters, just by pushing off from a rock. That's something for the Guiness Book of Records.
And Philae was lucky as hell. It jumped about 1 km high and 1 km wide on a rock barely 2 km large. Philae jumped off very slowly at about 1/5 walking speed. Had it been twice as fast, then it would have left the comet entirely and it would be lost in space by now.
It has been a whirlwind ride for the lander, which was dropped onto the surface of the mountain-sized comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko on Wednesday morning. Two harpoons that were designed to tether it to the surface failed to fire, and scientists say the lander made two bounces before becoming stable. The first bounce caused the lander to go one-third of a mile into the air.
Into the air? This comet has an atmosphere? Hmmm
Creative writing.
------------------ Ron Count Down to A Better America: http://countingdownto.com/countdown/196044 Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
