|
Post by unknown on Jun 2, 2005 9:47:51 GMT -4
Nasa has spent a lot of money to buid that human eyed ostrich named Spirit (it seems that famous character of that celebrate science fiction film), Spirit has spent 7 months to go to Mars and has travelled for 500 million kilometers in the darkness of universe. What would you have done when you were close to Mars? Intelligent answer: "with some Sony camcorders (the most expensive, not those made in Congo that jerk along) we would have filmed Mars raising from the darkness of universe slightly illuminated by the sun and more and more close to us, we would have filmed that fantastic, exciting, wonderful, marvellous sight". Nasa's answer: "we have no time to lose, we don't take trouble to film that insignificant sight. When we will be on Mars we are going to film some thousands of stones of incredible beauty. How wonderful". ;D ;D ;D
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 2, 2005 10:14:48 GMT -4
Each launch vehicle has a maximum mass it is capable of injecting into the required trajectory. Therefore, deciding what to put on a spacecraft becomes a matter of trade-offs. Designers can't put everything they want into a craft, so only the most essential hardware is included and everything else gets left out.
Spirit and Opportunity were sent to Mars to do geology - that is their primary mission. Thus, any hardware required to perform geology gets top priority. Your camcorder idea is a superfluous frill that probably would have never made it past the first cut.
Your expectations in this case are simply naive.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jun 2, 2005 10:27:19 GMT -4
"Sony camcorders" won't work in space. And unless you are willing to cough up the many, many millions of dollars needed to build and qualify the camera, upgrade the communications system to handle the high-rate video stream, upgrade the power system to power the camera and constant transmission, pick a bigger launch vehicle to launch the extra mass, and pay for the deep-space radio antenna time neeeded to receive it all, I suggest your opinion doesn't carry much weight. Especially since the imagery returned is breathtaking enough, even ignoring its scientific value.
But then again, your opinion is all the fact you need, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 2, 2005 10:27:27 GMT -4
What a fantastic answers. With compliments. ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 2, 2005 13:12:56 GMT -4
What would you have done when you were close to Mars?
It doesn't matter what you would do, or I. It matters what the goals of the principal investigators are.
Intelligent answer:
No. An answer is not "intelligent" simply because you thought of it. You have envisioned different goals than the Mars rover principal investigators. Your goals are not necessarily better than theirs or more worthy of exploration. Just because they didn't do it the way you would have done it doesn't make them wrong.
with some Sony camcorders (the most expensive, not those made in Congo that jerk along)...
The cameras aboard the Mars rovers are considerably more hardened and capable than consumer models, although specialized. What is your experience in engineering machines for a space environment?
we would have filmed Mars raising from the darkness of universe slightly illuminated by the sun and more and more close to us, we would have filmed that fantastic, exciting, wonderful, marvellous sight.
First, NASA is not Hollywood. You're expecting NASA to entertain you, thrill you, and generally pander to your idle curiosities. That's not their mission. Their mission is to explore the universe scientifically, not to make pictures some random guy might think are pretty.
Second, as Bob has pointed out, it is extremely difficult to design space missions within our capacity that have even limited functionality. Getting spectacular pictures of the approach to Mars is not a simple matter of adding a "camcorder" to the spacecraft. Such requirements ripple through the entire design and add unnecessary complexity. Not every spacecraft must be a Swiss army knife in order to be successful.
Third, the rovers were in their entry shells during the approach and couldn't see Mars anyway.
Nasa's answer:
No, this is not NASA's answer. This is you condescendingly putting words in NASA's mouth.
...we don't take trouble to film that insignificant sight.
I agree. Just because you think it's cool doesn't mean a mission that doesn't do it must have been faked. Most of science and engineering is not "cool" -- it's mean to solve meaningful problems that may not be exciting, but are necessary nonetheless.
When we will be on Mars we are going to film some thousands of stones of incredible beauty.
Yes and no. Yes, the purpose of the mission was to acquire geological data. A geological survey mission -- whether done in person or through remote presence -- is not a failure if it fails to observe trees or sky.
No, the aim was not to take "pretty" pictures of "pretty" stones. The survey was to examine the rocks in a scientific fashion. This means chemical analysis. This means photography in a spectrographic mode. It is unfortunate that you consider hard science to be boring. Science's role is not to entertain you.
But your argument boils down simply to your trying to paste your expectations and motives onto someone else. How is that not presumptuous?
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jun 2, 2005 14:31:08 GMT -4
But your argument boils down simply to your trying to paste your expectations and motives onto someone else. I can prove hoax backers do not exist when I can use axioms like this Martin
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 2, 2005 15:21:39 GMT -4
Hey, JeyUtah, you have a problem, you are too verbose, try to be more succinct. I wrote: "we would have filmed Mars raising from the darkness of universe slightly illuminated by the sun and more and more close to us, we would have filmed that fantastic, exciting, wonderful, marvellous sight". You wrote: "First, NASA is not Hollywood. You're expecting NASA to entertain you, thrill you, and generally pander to your idle curiosities. That's not their mission. Their mission is to explore the universe scientifically, not to make pictures some random guy might think are pretty". Hey, NASA IS HOLLYWOOD. Nasa showed on TV the faked landing on the moon like a hollywood film.Why has not Nasa made another faked movie and has not filmed Mars when Spirit was close to the planet? Because today we are more witty and we can understand if a movie is faked, and it's still too difficult to make a film using Softimage, Maya or 3D Studio Max so real that they don't understand it is faked.Go to marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/video/spirit01.html and see the videos. Also a child understands those films are faked. ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jun 2, 2005 15:36:24 GMT -4
You are begging the question, rather than offering any evidence for your claims that lunar and Mars landings have been faked. You have not yet offered any evidence for your claims, nor have you responded to the corrections to your numerous errors of fact. You can't impress the educated laymen and engineers hanging out here by saying "a child understands...", when a child who actually read up on the subject could see through your claims. You have to back up your attitude with something other than more attitude. If you can't or won't actually produce any evidence to back up your claims, then at least tell us what your qualifications are to judge what was faked. And Jay isn't verbose. He's explaining where you're wrong, in detail. You can learn from that, if you choose. If you don't, fine, but please don't think you're the first person who came in here spouting nonsense, and that we're bamboozled by your arm-waving and subject-changing.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 2, 2005 15:42:21 GMT -4
Hey, NASA IS HOLLYWOOD. Nasa showed on TV the faked landing on the moon like a hollywood film. How convenient, you've created a no-win situation for NASA. If they don't sent back pretty Hollywood-type pictures, then they faked it because that is what you would have done if you were in charge. But if they do send back pretty Hollywood-type pictures, then NASA faked it because it all looks like a Hollywood film. What's your real motivation for claiming it is all faked? Do you disagree with US politics? Do you feel the government screwed you over? The evidence you claim is so flimsy that it can't be the real reason. You seem to be latching on to these hoax claims in a vain attempt to justify a pre-existing belief that was formulated on some basis other than the evidence itself. What’s your reason for hating so much?
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 2, 2005 15:54:30 GMT -4
sts60 wrote: "You are begging the question, rather than offering any evidence for your claims that lunar and Mars landings have been faked..."
Hey, sts60, have you seen the movies? Well, it seems that Spirit is moving on a sphere of a few yards of diameter. ;D ;D ;D Moreover, what is that movie in the movie? An enlargement of the ground? If you film very close to the ground you can't see those images that seem like caves. ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 2, 2005 16:05:35 GMT -4
Bob B. wrote: "What's your real motivation for claiming it is all faked? Do you disagree with US politics?"
US should increase very much researches on hydrogen and electrical engines, should not make wars to seize oil, should stop drugs. But this is what all countries should do. I hate swindlers, all those who say a lot of craps. That is all.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jun 2, 2005 16:09:15 GMT -4
I hate swindlers, all those who say a lot of craps. So do I. I am sure others here do also. Martin
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 2, 2005 16:17:25 GMT -4
Hey, JeyUtah, you have a problem, you are too verbose, try to be more succinct.
I am thorough. Deal with it.
Hey, NASA IS HOLLYWOOD. Nasa showed on TV the faked landing on the moon like a hollywood film.
Circular reasoning.
Your expectation that NASA should entertain you instead of doing scientific research remains unsupported.
Also a child understands those films are faked.
But a child may also believe in the Tooth Fairy and the boogey man.
Here you are attempting the standard evasion of expertise. That is, you argue that if an unskilled or lay person believes a certain thing, then a skilled expert must believe the same thing more emphatically. In fact, that is rarely true. A layman employs intuition and rules of thumb that are often overly simplistic or just wrong. Because the expert's knowledge derives from actual practice it is less predicated on guesswork and supposition and generally more trustworthy. That is the nature of expertise: to save us from what we wrongly believe to be true.
We are not interested in whether children believe the films are fake, because children are not presumed to be experts in image fakery. We would be interested if professional photographic analysts doubted the authenticity of the photos, since their expertise in this matter would be more difficult to dispute and less likely to be wrong. And of course we find that professional, trained photographic analysts do not dispute the authenticity of these photographs, or of Apollo photographs.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 2, 2005 16:25:52 GMT -4
I hate swindlers, all those who say a lot of craps. That is all. Sounds like circular reasoning to me. Your reason for accusing NASA of perpetrating a Moon/Mars hoax is apparently because of a hatred of the US government. Yet you claim to hate the government because they are swindlers; presumably because of their role in the alleged moon-landing and Mars hoaxes.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 2, 2005 16:50:16 GMT -4
I hate swindlers, all those who say a lot of craps. That is all.
Does that include the hoax authors from whom who have taken most of your arguments?
Do you realize that people like Bill Kaysing, Ralph Rene, Bart Sibrel, Richard Hoagland, David Percy and Mary Bennett typicaly lie about their qualifications and expertise? That they seriously misrepresent the Apollo record? That they, like you, completely misunderstand and misrepresent our view of the physical world?
They can only make their points by deception, by selective quoting, by innuendo, and by all manner of shady techniques. They are swindlers themselves. Not necessarily in the legal or commercial sense, but they are undoubtedly intellectual swindlers -- promising rigor and honesty but delivering only guesswork and half-truths.
So the question still stands: why do you believe what you believe?
It's obviously not because you were convinced by scientific proofs. As soon as we scratch the surface of your scientific claims we discover that you can't discuss them at a knowledgeable level. So clearly you were just told that information and told that it was scientific, but you didn't arrive at it yourself in a scientific fastion.
And it's obviously not because you detest the company of swindlers and talkers of crap, because you have borrowed the arguments of just such people and believed it uncritically.
So why really do you believe the U.S. never went to the moon?
|
|