Mars rover

[cupman]

I will give him that. One of the few that means what he says.

 

[call ducks]

Ok. So you do know that it was not just NASA that spent money on the rover right?


Also i don't want to offened any one here.... BUT

If you were to read up on the rover would realize with equipment on board. The equipment they are using to look for life is going to be optimized and used to look at other particles. Here in Canada they have developed basically a really fancy microscope. This piece of equipment samples of the surface of Mars and analyze this at the atomic level. So while most of this equipment is being used to look for life the same equipment is going to be looking for other elements and trace elements that are needed to sustain life. They find signs that life existed at one point there is a good chance that Mars may be a element rich planet. So the way they are looking for these elements, and it is not really a waste of taxpayers.

I wish that before people started saying that it was a waste of money that they would take a look at the whole project. All the components of the rover and what this is meant for future expeditions on Mars. The new skytrain technology needs to deploying Rovers for future use, will be that much easier.

 

[Matthew3590]

Everyone in america paid about $7 for it.

 

[TallChickMagnet]

Everyone in america paid about $7 for it.

Cool... I'd do that twice!!!

 

[Capvin]

There are really way too many reasons why this type of exploration is a good thing. The arguments for this type of science so outweigh the foolish arguments made against it that, for me, it would be a waste of time to argue the issue. Some of the things I have read here would be quite funny in a stand up comedy routine but in reality, it is sad because they are said as a serious discussion. The good part is that the ones who argue against this are in such a small, fractional minority that it is something that can, and is, ignored by the general population who watched this in amazement and not only realized what a fantastic scientific feat it was but also took great pride in their country for their ability to accomplish it.

 

[Capvin]

A PS to Call ducks......if you have a learning disability then I would hope that it is something that some others here could catch. A lot of us need your same kind of learning disability as your good, common sense has seemed to well overcome any deficiency you may think you have.

 

[chickened]

There are really way too many reasons why this type of exploration is a good thing. The arguments for this type of science so outweigh the foolish arguments made against it that, for me, it would be a waste of time to argue the issue. Some of the things I have read here would be quite funny in a stand up comedy routine but in reality, it is sad because they are said as a serious discussion. The good part is that the ones who argue against this are in such a small, fractional minority that it is something that can, and is, ignored by the general population who watched this in amazement and not only realized what a fantastic scientific feat it was but also took great pride in their country for their ability to accomplish it.

I am curious Don why Mars? I mean there are other planets that someone has thought might have a better chance at having life. Or maybe they did it because it was within thier technology and like I said earlier it is for hope that they can justify the cost.

I actually prefer the Hubbel telescope pictures myself. That thing actually sees things we cannot see from earth and therefore has a value.

 

[cupman]

Well, chickened, I think Mars is just the most reasonable planet for us to explore with our current technology. If you look at Mercury and Venus they are both kind of hectic, very hot and have conditions our equipment probably couldn't survive. The same is true once you go past Mars and move on to Jupiter, which I think is just a gas planet, and Neptune and the former planet Pluto are probably just so far away.. maybe even too cold for our equipment or too far to risk exploring at the present time? Mars is the planet that is most similar to our planet so it makes the most sense for us to branch out to that planet first. I don't even know the nature of our technology but I imagine the people at NASA do and have a solid reason for choosing Mars over the other planets.

 

[chickened]

Well, chickened, I think Mars is just the most reasonable planet for us to explore with our current technology. If you look at Mercury and Venus they are both kind of hectic, very hot and have conditions our equipment probably couldn't survive. The same is true once you go past Mars and move on to Jupiter, which I think is just a gas planet, and Neptune and the former planet Pluto are probably just so far away.. maybe even too cold for our equipment or too far to risk exploring at the present time? Mars is the planet that is most similar to our planet so it makes the most sense for us to branch out to that planet first. I don't even know the nature of our technology but I imagine the people at NASA do and have a solid reason for choosing Mars over the other planets.

If they did find life on Mars it would be so insignificant as to not benefit us I hardly think it would be worth the effort. If there were advanced intelligent life it would show up visually I think with the aid of our telescopes. If it is a water molecule with an amoeba we already know what that is.

Like I said other than the glory of knowing there is not much benefit really. I think we all know the real reason why the desire to find life other than our own really is... it is neat though the pictures and all.

 

[call ducks]

But if they did ( and they have in the form of microbs) it means, that elements we may need in the future are there! We have to stop thinking inside the box (what they tell us is it's main mission) and think about how the main missions sub-goals and they well effect. NASA is one of the smartest space organizations in the world they never ever send a prob any wheres with just one mission.

to Chickened,

Not really mars is the only plant that was thought to be able to sustain inhabitents. There are "Earth like planets" out there how ever it would take millons even billing of years to reach them. Aussming you could travel at light speed (299 792 458 m/s). Our Air Fighters are just approcheing mch 2.5 (speed of sound = 340.29 m/s) 850.72 m/s. And there has been only on passanger plane that could reach 340.29 m/s we are long long ways from being able to go to other "Earth like planets". Mars is the planet that is most likely to have presurved life on it. There is little hope of finding preserved life on venus. At least from the reading i did in grade 9.