China lands on Mars

a reply to: Violater1

That object filmed from the USS Omaha does not give off any heat at all. What material is it made of as it looks ice cold on that camera. don't know what kind of engine, motor, it is using. As to not produce any heat at all.

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
I just wonder which country’s tech and ingenuity they stole to get there.

Did NASA steal Russian tech to land on Mars 5 years after The USSR ?

Just asking.

What ?

1975 Viking 1 Orbiter/Lander US Success Located landing site for Lander and first successful landing on Mars

Log - Mars Missions

Denying ignorance.
Why ?
Just cause it was in print .

What are you on about ?

Did i say The USSR landed on Mars 5 years before NASA ? Yes i did.

Facts for you to check.

en.wikipedia.org...

Crash landed which is not a successful landing.
By no means
(You used Wikipedia. I used NASA)

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
I just wonder which country’s tech and ingenuity they stole to get there.

Did NASA steal Russian tech to land on Mars 5 years after The USSR ?

Just asking.

What ?

1975 Viking 1 Orbiter/Lander US Success Located landing site for Lander and first successful landing on Mars

Log - Mars Missions

Denying ignorance.
Why ?
Just cause it was in print .

What are you on about ?

Did i say The USSR landed on Mars 5 years before NASA ? Yes i did.

Facts for you to check.

en.wikipedia.org...

Crash landed which is not a successful landing.
By no means
(You used Wikipedia. I used NASA)

No, it didn't " crash land " it was a Soft Landing. Try reading it again.

Good of you to use NASA, or should i say " Never A Straight Answer " as it is commonly known as.

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
I just wonder which country’s tech and ingenuity they stole to get there.

Did NASA steal Russian tech to land on Mars 5 years after The USSR ?

Just asking.

What ?

1975 Viking 1 Orbiter/Lander US Success Located landing site for Lander and first successful landing on Mars

Log - Mars Missions

Denying ignorance.
Why ?
Just cause it was in print .

What are you on about ?

Did i say The USSR landed on Mars 5 years before NASA ? Yes i did.

Facts for you to check.

en.wikipedia.org...

Crash landed which is not a successful landing.
By no means
(You used Wikipedia. I used NASA)

No, it didn't " crash land " it was a Soft Landing. Try reading it again.

Good of you to use NASA, or should i say " Never A Straight Answer " as it is commonly known as.

The "green eyed monster" got a hold on you

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
I just wonder which country’s tech and ingenuity they stole to get there.

Did NASA steal Russian tech to land on Mars 5 years after The USSR ?

Just asking.

What ?

1975 Viking 1 Orbiter/Lander US Success Located landing site for Lander and first successful landing on Mars

Log - Mars Missions

Denying ignorance.
Why ?
Just cause it was in print .

What are you on about ?

Did i say The USSR landed on Mars 5 years before NASA ? Yes i did.

Facts for you to check.

en.wikipedia.org...

Crash landed which is not a successful landing.
By no means
(You used Wikipedia. I used NASA)

No, it didn't " crash land " it was a Soft Landing. Try reading it again.

Good of you to use NASA, or should i say " Never A Straight Answer " as it is commonly known as.

The "green eyed monster" got a hold on you

I know it hurts your ego to think that America is not always the first to do something, but to be honest i don't really care if it does.

Have a nice day.

a reply to: alldaylong

No, it didn't " crash land " it was a Soft Landing. Try reading it again.

Good of you to use NASA, or should i say " Never A Straight Answer " as it is commonly known as.

Soviet Mars 6 "landed" on March 12 1974 the probe transmitted 224 seconds during descent before contact was lost

Much of the data returned was garbled do to issue problems with electronics

Contact was lost when retorrockets fired - speculation on whether craft reached surface intact or crashed at estimated
speed of 61 m/s (200 feet per second, 150 mph)

Either way no useful data was returned from surface

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: alldaylong

No, it didn't " crash land " it was a Soft Landing. Try reading it again.

Good of you to use NASA, or should i say " Never A Straight Answer " as it is commonly known as.

Soviet Mars 6 "landed" on March 12 1974 the probe transmitted 224 seconds during descent before contact was lost

Much of the data returned was garbled do to issue problems with electronics

Contact was lost when retorrockets fired - speculation on whether craft reached surface intact or crashed at estimated
speed of 61 m/s (200 feet per second, 150 mph)

Either way no useful data was returned from surface

The " Mars 3 " was actually the first to land in December 1971.

After a decade of misfires and failed flyby missions, the U.S.S.R. made 14 seconds of history in 1971, when its Mars 3 lander transmitted radio signals and a fuzzy image -- or signal -- from the surface of Mars before cutting out and going silent forever.

www.rferl.org...

The price of 1 gram of lunar rock, delivered ala meteorite... ranges from $50 to $1000 depending upon type of rock.

Pick up a few thousand pounds, and not only pay for the trip, but sell it on the open market for huge bucks.

Over time, it will reduce the intrinsic value of what people already have here.... but business is business and China is a master of it.

a reply to: alldaylong

Ah MARS 3, December 1971, transmitted for less than 15 seconds. Only few garbled lines from TV camera received before contact lost

Again nothing useful was received

Viking probes which landed in July 1976 returned thousands of images and scientific data

So the probe technically "landed" , but returned no useful information ..

Its like Columbus reaching America only to have his ship(s) sink and never return back to Spain ……...

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: alldaylong

Ah MARS 3, December 1971, transmitted for less than 15 seconds. Only few garbled lines from TV camera received before contact lost

Again nothing useful was received

Viking probes which landed in July 1976 returned thousands of images and scientific data

So the probe technically "landed" , but returned no useful information ..

Its like Columbus reaching America only to have his ship(s) sink and never return back to Spain ……...

The historic perspective is more important.

It was the first " man made object " to land on another planet intact.

And by the way, i believe you celebrate Columbus Day, so it must mean something to you.

a reply to: putnam6

The problem is there is a lot of danger involved not to mention expense. If your going to be in the inner solar system solar power works well. If your visiting pluto like new horizons the solar power won't work so you use a reactor. The reactor not only needs to make electricity but it needs to provide heat for the craft. Cant have your probe freeze and stop working. lThe other problem is plutonium for example the US stopped making it in the 60s and I believe is now officially exhausted its supply. They have weapons in stockpile but not easy to get permission from congress to dismantle them. The US even shut down their breeder reactors if I'm not mistaken that leaves japan and Russia with active reactors. So limited availability as well.

Now using it for propulsion isn't really practical a huge problem is you need to disperse the heat it creates somehow not easy to do in space. the other consideration is weight soar panels by far provide more energy per kilogram. Then their is sheilding the rocket would need to protect a crew again more weight. And you also need heat radiating panels as well to get rid of the heat a reverse solar cell basically which again adds even more weight.

China Launch chinese lanterns form mars.
if thay can do a helicopter we can do chinese lanterns.

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
I just wonder which country’s tech and ingenuity they stole to get there.

Did NASA steal Russian tech to land on Mars 5 years after The USSR ?

Just asking.

What ?

1975 Viking 1 Orbiter/Lander US Success Located landing site for Lander and first successful landing on Mars

Log - Mars Missions

Denying ignorance.
Why ?
Just cause it was in print .

What are you on about ?

Did i say The USSR landed on Mars 5 years before NASA ? Yes i did.

Facts for you to check.

en.wikipedia.org...

Crash landed which is not a successful landing.
By no means
(You used Wikipedia. I used NASA)

No, it didn't " crash land " it was a Soft Landing. Try reading it again.

Good of you to use NASA, or should i say " Never A Straight Answer " as it is commonly known as.

The "green eyed monster" got a hold on you

I know it hurts your ego to think that America is not always the first to do something, but to be honest i don't really care if it does.

Have a nice day.

Soft landings don't count if they are upside down .
I was a teen then .
And did not succumb to Russian propaganda.
I guess the later generations did.
Much later.

a reply to: Gothmog

Soft landings don't count if they are upside down

Who told you that nonsense, or did you just make it up ? LOL

I would bet that if it had been landed by America, you would be saying what a fantastic achievement it was.

You are too obvious. Something i can expect.

originally posted by: firerescue
Its like Columbus reaching America only to have his ship(s) sink and never return back to Spain ……...

Maybe St. Brendan.

First pix from Zhurong (Chinese rover on Mars). The delay was caused because the direct link between earth and the rover is awful. The rover has a link speed of 2 bps vs NASA's 500 bps. The Chinese had to use the orbiter to relay data back. The US does this, too, but we have several orbiters to give pretty continuous coverage. China only has the one. The orbiters are in low orbits, so they pass from horizon to horizon pdq. This limits the data being sent back.





Two things need to be kept in mind. CNSA (China's space agency) is NOT NASA. The way they operate isn't like NASA. There was a lot of "pix or it didn't happen" online. People forget ESA didn't release data and images immediately either with the Huygens probe when it landed on Titan. Just because China doesn't release their data immediately doesn't mean they didn't do it.

That said, China is not handling the media campaign very well. CNSA ought to have set expectations better.

a reply to: anzha

That ramp looks awfully narrow , wonder if it's made it to the surface yet ... right way up.


I hope China are forthcoming with their images on this mission , it'll be interesting to see how their location differs from Percy's.

Long March 5 + Chang'e 5 combo brought back the first moon sample since 1976. Long March 9 + Tianwen 2 combo should be good to go before 2030 to bring back the first ever Mars sample. Exciting days ahead for the Chinese space program.

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: alldaylong

Ah MARS 3, December 1971, transmitted for less than 15 seconds. Only few garbled lines from TV camera received before contact lost

Again nothing useful was received

Viking probes which landed in July 1976 returned thousands of images and scientific data

So the probe technically "landed" , but returned no useful information ..

Its like Columbus reaching America only to have his ship(s) sink and never return back to Spain ……...

The historic perspective is more important.

It was the first " man made object " to land on another planet intact.

And by the way, i believe you celebrate Columbus Day, so it must mean something to you.

There is no proof Mars 3 landed on Mars intact.

a reply to: TaiHaChen

There is no proof Mars 3 landed on Mars intact.

And what proof do you have that it didn't ?