Curiosity Has Landed!!

reply to post by nine11


In all of your posts within this thread, you write with such certainty that it's all fake. You even have the nerve to call anyone who believes in it being real as "sheep".

I'm not asking you post "cold hard facts" or provide undeniable proof, but simply a single shred of evidence that it could be fake. Something to back up your authoritative comments.

reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher


Thanks for posting that link. The last picture I saw of that was so small I couldn't make any sense of it. This time I can see what they're talking about . That's good. Do you have one of the color panorama. What I've clicked on is really small and not very good. Not sure what I'm doing wrong! lol Thanks again!

reply to post by jra


I agree. I believe that we did land there. I think it's overwhelming evidence. The only thing that made me think it could possibly be faked was that they didn't perform a live sky crane test on earth? Again, I still think the rover is on Mars, but I can't wrap my head around NASA using only a computer simulation to test the sky crane with 2.5 billion dollars at stake. In my mind, it would be like the air force not doing test flights for new fighter jets...Only using computer simulations and if it passes those then ordering billions of dollars worth of jets. I realize that I'm feeding the trolls here. Sorry! But that part doesn't make sense to me.

No, that's cool dude, everybody has there doubt hey?? There would not be a site like this otherwise hey?

A good example of computer modelling would be examples like, Bridges, Ships, towers all were tested on a computer prior to being built.

I know from being a test pilot myself that sometimes you have to wait for bloody ages for the right weather conditions to come along before you can put an aircraft through it's paces. And that can lead to considerable downtime and cost. This way "like a simulator" you can throw all hell at an object and test every component to destruction without the huge cost should it go wrong!

reply to post by CaptainBeno


People don't get that pretty much everything in the universe can be solved with math. They think if something happened the way it did GOD made it do that.

They amuse me and I get quite a kick out of people when they think we need to build something with matter to test its physics. We know all physics are the same and are always constant.

But sometimes I wish we could use math to solve arrogance.

Originally posted by amazing
The only thing that made me think it could possibly be faked was that they didn't perform a live sky crane test on earth?

They can't do a complete test of the skycrane on Earth because it was designed to operate on Mars, with its thinner atmosphere and lower gravity. Since the conditions on Earth would be completely different, it would make the test more or less irrelevant. You can test all the individual components like the retro rockets and run the actual computer software in all sorts of simulations. You can also put all the components through temperature and vibrational tests that they would experience on Mars or in space. But you can't test the complete system and hope to get accurate test results on Earth.

>>
but I can't wrap my head around NASA using only a computer simulation to test the sky crane with 2.5 billion dollars at stake.
>>

How do you think they test/design airplanes before they actually fly for the very first time?

Originally posted by flexy123
>>
but I can't wrap my head around NASA using only a computer simulation to test the sky crane with 2.5 billion dollars at stake.
>>

How do you think they test/design airplanes before they actually fly for the very first time?

I don't think the mission was faked, but:


Curiosity Mission: $2,500,000,000
Most expensive fighter-plane: 150,000,000

I do think the decision to use the skycrane was risky with the entire program on the line.

Originally posted by flexy123
>>
but I can't wrap my head around NASA using only a computer simulation to test the sky crane with 2.5 billion dollars at stake.
>>

How do you think they test/design airplanes before they actually fly for the very first time?

How come nasa needs to test a moon lander and there's a video (in this forum) where it blows up and there's no video for the curiosity sky crane test?
Isn't moon gravity different from earth's? Also there's no atmosphere on moon.... so?

reply to post by starchaser


there is a video of the sky crane test. it was in the bbc documentary about this mission which aired a few days before it landed

Originally posted by starchaser

How come nasa needs to test a moon lander and there's a video (in this forum) where it blows up and there's no video for the curiosity sky crane test?
Isn't moon gravity different from earth's? Also there's no atmosphere on moon.... so?

Morpheus is not a Moon lander. It is a testbed for developing new propulsion and autonomous control systems.

Morpheus is a vertical test bed vehicle demonstrating new green propellant propulsion systems and autonomous landing and hazard detection technology.

morpheuslander.jsc.nasa.gov...

Yes there is less gravity on the Moon and it would not be possible to test an actual lunar lander on Earth just as it was not possible to test the MSL landing system on Earth. Only components can be tested.

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by starchaser

 

there is a video of the sky crane test. it was in the bbc documentary about this mission which aired a few days before it landed

I've seen it. It only shows (in a lab) the skycrane realeasing the rover to test the link between them. But there's no video of a real flight test of the skycrane while unlinking the rover.

reply to post by yeti101

You mean this?

reply to post by starchaser


oh right i see what you mean. in the documentary they said the first time they would do the whole thing together would be on mars

This thread is about "Curiosity has landed!", it's not about debunking NASA. So by definition you guys are OFF-TOPIC and OFF PLACE.

I appreciate your inputs on all this but PLEASE find a "FAKE CURIOSITY MISSION" thread to troll around. It's really unfair to hijack the OP original subject like this.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by yeti101

 

You mean this?

I know what half of the engineers are thinking as the curiosity drop test is conducted.

-" Isn't there a better way we can do this?"-

I'm glad it worked but i prefer the car airbag solution used on the other rovers.

It must have something to do with the 1 ton weight.

------------
Also, i would have installed an 8MP camera on the Sky Crane.

Land it and take a few high res pics.

Originally posted by LordAdef
This thread is about "Curiosity has landed!", it's not about debunking NASA. So by definition you guys are OFF-TOPIC and OFF PLACE.

I appreciate your inputs on all this but PLEASE find a "FAKE CURIOSITY MISSION" thread to troll around. It's really unfair to hijack the OP original subject like this.

edit on 10-8-2012 by LordAdef because: (no reason given)

Yes, we landed the other rovers just fine.

They have performed magnificently.

First pictures from Mars rover Curiosity 06 August 2012 FULL HD 3D


1st fake! Mars Curiosity has first mistake with BLACK AND WHITE images! HD 3D

xfacts.com...
True Colors Of Mars

Now, if you accept even on lie, you accept their capacity to be nothing but LIES.

reply to post by Unity_99


You're joking, right? The owner of the Youtube Channel said that they have the real images.

Why and how can people like this even exist? And believe stuff like that? I'm speechless. Nope, sorry- I'm a SHEEP! That's what I was about to get called, right?

reply to post by impaired


Joking about what? That the pictures are tampered with and that when corrected they look different? That NASA lies? Please get real.

By the way, I may be striving for politeness but I'm beyond furious with them and their act. Now lets see them get on with the real disclosure, and do a little better boys and girls from NASA. Hero's or zero's comes to mind.