Article

2008-05-26 -Signs, Portents, and the Weather-

Mars Lander Transmits Photos of Arctic Terrain

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Glenmore 2008-05-26 09:07|| || Front Page|| [11132 views ] Top

#1 Start Drilling for oil/water

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2008-05-26 09:23|| 2008-05-26 09:23|| Front Page Top

#2 what a waste of money this mission is.....me thinks its pure largess to the contractor, a vehicle that cant explore beyond 6 feet of its landing point, has one camera to view the sourrounding panorama...sheesh what a waste of 450 milllion this is.

Posted by Thraviper Panda2099 2008-05-26 10:23|| 2008-05-26 10:23|| Front Page Top

#3 Yeah, like Maxwell's experiments in electric and magnetic fields, only more expensive.

So tell us, TP 2099, was the Apollo program a waste too, or was it faked?

Posted by Bobby 2008-05-26 11:15|| 2008-05-26 11:15|| Front Page Top

#4 (IIRC) it is a generation ago when the Viking mission made the last successful controlled landing on Mars, a critical element to almost any large missions. While this may not seem like much, it is nice to get back to where we were 30 years ago, and also maybe to prove we didn't just 'get lucky' then.

Posted by Glenmore 2008-05-26 11:32|| 2008-05-26 11:32|| Front Page Top

#5 what a waste of money this mission is.....me thinks its pure largess to the contractor, a vehicle that cant explore beyond 6 feet of its landing point, has one camera to view the sourrounding panorama...sheesh what a waste of 450 milllion this is.

Exactly, assuming the whole things not some damn fake cooked up by BigOil.

Posted by George Smiley 2008-05-26 11:47|| 2008-05-26 11:47|| Front Page Top

#6 This is left over stuff, that needed bookings. Maxwell how is that relevant to my comment. A waste is a waste, the Mars Rovers are hugely productive, this particular platform is a waste and should have been shelved as such in its planning. A Couple of UAV's could have been packaged into the same base platform....but no, that would have been to logical, expanding the reach of the probe to a few hundred miles, and a few hundred sampling locations....you must work for these guys to defend this waste of money.

Posted by Thraviper Panda2099 2008-05-26 11:54|| 2008-05-26 11:54|| Front Page Top

#7 The next mission is a rover that's supposed to be the size of a small truck.

Personally, I couldn't have been more thrilled, and watched the JPL coverage of the landing live. Heck, where I live, I had to stay up until 3 a.m. to do it.

When we're hemorrhaging money in Iraq, I think this kind of money is peanuts. And it's good to see the U.S. lead the international news with something that no one else has been able to do.

Posted by Mizzou Mafia 2008-05-26 11:59|| 2008-05-26 11:59|| Front Page Top

#8 Hey bobby here is some background on maxell for ya;

The Deliberate Discard of Asymmetric Maxwellian Systems, Thus Preventing COP>1.0
and Self-Powering Energy-from-the-Vacuum Systems

© T. E. Bearden and Leslie R. Pastor
21 June 2007

Foreword

This is the background of how the present electrical engineering model (and practice) was severely curtailed to exclude COP>1.0 electrical power systems taking their excess EM energy directly from their interaction with the active medium (the active vacuum/spacetime). The ruthless suppression of Nikola Tesla also set the stage for the major cartels continuing to suppress subsequent overunity inventors from the 1890s to the present day.

Introduction

Maxwell died in 1879 of stomach cancer, and at the time his own theory had not been accepted very much at all. Immediately the vectorists notably Heaviside, Gibbs, and Hertz began emasculating Maxwells 20 quaternion-like equations in 20 unknowns, into the present highly simplified vector algebra of much lower group symmetry.

(Quaternions also have a much higher group symmetry than tensors, for those who believe tensors are the answer). This occurred in the 1880s and 1890s. Heavisides equations were tentatively selected as the basis for the new electrical engineering, just being created and being slowly placed into our universities.

To see a glimpse of what can be done in quaternion EM, see T. W. Barrett, "Tesla's Nonlinear Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit (OSC) Theory," Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 16(1), 1991, p. 23-41. Barrett one of the cofounders of ultrawideband radar shows that EM expressed in quaternions allows shuttling and storage of potentials in circuits, and also allows additional EM functioning of a circuit that a conventional EM analysis cannot reveal. He shows that Teslas patented circuits did exactly this sort of deliberate shuttling and control of the potential energy, quite contrary to what is thought possible in our present regular circuits and theory.

Posted by Thraviper Panda2099 2008-05-26 12:03|| 2008-05-26 12:03|| Front Page Top

/Would like a ride home, now ...

Posted by Mizzou Mafia 2008-05-26 12:13|| 2008-05-26 12:13|| Front Page Top

#10 Its about time we sub contract design to Toy companies, afterall transformers were a great example for engineers, and still could be. DARPA is on a power trip that just wont quit, chaos amongst potential breakthrough technologies has become the norm, not the exception. This state of affairs should be rectified internally, some self awareness of the present methods would have the top guys fired. We cant progress under a system of systemic largess, and that is where we are right now. too much power directed toward inserting inertia, so that inertia prevails, is bad for all of us. a system is only as good as its sensory organs, and this present system is all about self preservation at the expense of everyone not already annointed to the big table of largess.

Posted by Thraviper Panda2099 2008-05-26 12:30|| 2008-05-26 12:30|| Front Page Top

#11 I'm a highway guy, TP2099, but I admiore their creativity.
The Maxwell remark was naot as clever as that of Ben Franklin - "A quoi sert un enfant nouveau-né?" (What use is a new-born baby?)in 1783. I think Faraday said it to the Queen, too.

Posted by Bobby 2008-05-26 13:04|| 2008-05-26 13:04|| Front Page Top

#12 bobby likes trucks, and doesnt understand the potential of a new born baby? Well from my point of view, Its about Love.....and truth and all that can be.

Posted by Thraviper Panda2099 2008-05-26 13:10|| 2008-05-26 13:10|| Front Page Top

#13 A Couple of UAV's could have been packaged into the same base platform.

Uh huh. And those UAVs just pop off the shelf for re-use in Mars gravity and atmosphere, right?

Pfeh. I just LOVE people whose expertise comes from sites alleging Tesla's great breakthroughs were and continue to be suppressed by Big Electricity despite de-regulation a couple decades ago ....

Posted by lotp 2008-05-26 13:16|| 2008-05-26 13:16|| Front Page Top

#14 All a plot to establish hegemony by the Big Red Dirt oligarchies

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2008-05-26 13:19|| 2008-05-26 13:19|| Front Page Top

#15 How long ago was the Mars Lander designed and sent out? UAV's are pretty new -- as far as I can tell most of what we have today has been designed post March 2003... and most of those are being shipped to the troops while still in the development stage, to test possibilities before going into large-scale production.

Thraviper Panda2099, I think Bobby likes trucks and babies equally. 'Twas Ben Franklin he quoted, talking about either the use of the new science of electricity, or about the new country he was representing at the French Court, I don't remember which.

Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife 2008-05-26 13:29|| 2008-05-26 13:29|| Front Page Top

#16 lotp; the history channel( i believe) just recently did a piece on Tesla which was an apology of sorts, it contained everything a system would say, when it was cought with its pants down, and a clock was ticking to clean up its mess. RO/RS=CF

the site reference I posted contained the contents of that show, in nearly its entirety.....edited of course to prevent a lawsuit for plagerism.
my role is input....i am a go fer. most here are enrolled to output....there is a huge difference.

locards exchange principle would be a good place for you to start understanding yourself..

anyway, happy Memorial day to all!

Posted by Thraviper Panda2099 2008-05-26 13:50|| 2008-05-26 13:50|| Front Page Top

#17 frank your on your message. a subject your enlisted too....cynicism not with standing.

Posted by Thraviper Panda2099 2008-05-26 14:00|| 2008-05-26 14:00|| Front Page Top

#18 Twife UAV's are pretty new -- as far as I can tell most of what we have today has been designed post March 2003... and most of those are being shipped to the troops while still in the development stage, to test possibilities before going into large-scale production

that is almost funny, we have a park near hear that have been flying RV planes for 20 years, but then again those type systems were toys, and brought costs way below systemic need. understanding uav isnt tough, and it should be clear why its taken so long to get them flying in milapps. i have no illusions, as a gofer, i go where the smoke is to warn about potential fire.

Posted by Thraviper Panda2099 2008-05-26 14:08|| 2008-05-26 14:08|| Front Page Top

#19 Hooboy .... while we have indeed had military UAVs flying prior to 2003 on a limited basis, the idea that RV planes are their equivalent ranks right up there with regarding the History Channel as an authoritative source.

That would be the same History Channel that regularly runs a breathless series on Nostradamus and BigFoot. IIRC they've got a couple on Freemason conspiracies too.

Posted by lotp 2008-05-26 14:34|| 2008-05-26 14:34|| Front Page Top

#20 the history channel outputs information, just like you they do so for profit, u for self preservation.......
i never mentioned big electricity....u did, why?
now u bring big foot and nostrademus into this, why? trying to be smart? or a smart alec?

u never heard of action at a distance? Nostrademus must have...

as for the big foot, keep it out of your mouth and u'll be just fine.

Posted by Thraviper Panda2099 2008-05-26 14:40|| 2008-05-26 14:40|| Front Page Top

#21 Rantburgers live for good information and for snarking at silly conspiracy theories and uninformed assertions.

As for my knowledge re: military UAVs, well ... it's my field so to speak. Not space systems tho - for that I rely on Mr. Lotp whose work was in military space systems and who worked alongside NASA on a number of critical national defense launches. Oh, and I also rely on the insights from a physicist colleague of mine who used to be a senior member of NASA's robotics / intelligent systems team.

Yeah, I'd rank them a bit above the History Channel for credibility ...

Posted by lotp 2008-05-26 14:47|| 2008-05-26 14:47|| Front Page Top

#22 That would be the same History Channel that regularly runs a breathless series on Nostradamus and BigFoot. IIRC they've got a couple on Freemason conspiracies too.

So basically you're saying I'M in the same category as Nostre-dumbass and all those idiotic Stonecutter conspiracies?

(I'm not going to mention the warehouse upon warehouse of top-hats resulting from Tesla's failed transporter thingey).

Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2008-05-26 15:16|| 2008-05-26 15:16|| Front Page Top

#23 Nah, oh Snowy One - we all know they never even got a good pic of you ....

Posted by lotp 2008-05-26 15:34|| 2008-05-26 15:34|| Front Page Top

#24 Oh, and those tophats? I'm not sure but I think they maybe got picked up for recycling into soda cans.

Posted by lotp 2008-05-26 15:36|| 2008-05-26 15:36|| Front Page Top

#25 lotp you have the habit of inserting non transaction commentary onto your replies. I am happy to know your a uav maven, i analyse companies who make em, and then i watch systemic action at a distance. You should realize that all history channel produced output is paid for....do you understand that?

Your in the mil uav trade so that makes you an expert on good or bad output? my job is input, perhaps u dont understand, sources are convenient....if history or discovery does a program you might be used as a source of input, and what u say could be true or false based on your employment, my input started by calling the phoenix mission a waste of money....i stand by that and call for better oversight before funding such limited missions.....

i am not impressed by all authority, some abuse authority more often than not, there are huge numbers of scientists employed as geologists who claim oil is made from fossills, that is authority being stupid, so why pretend it does not happen?

science has many creibility problems, they output science on history channel and discovery and a host of other places routinely. If the information is half truths or missing truth entirely, its up to us to discover that.

The world is a social system, it has inputs and outputs......you would do well to begin understanding that in your roles in life, you can not escape the fact that you might be executing within a role, that has its own limitations that are unknown to you due to compartmentailzation.

science has many limitations as this dialog has shown today....rationalizing a 450.00 million dollar boon doggle, according to subjective criteria with only a strong apeal to authority....isnt particularly flattering when your own opinion, is invested to a bought and paid for purpose.

Lets start over, tell me about actuators and where i might find non prime companies to invest.....

Posted by Thraviper Panda2099 2008-05-26 15:50|| 2008-05-26 15:50|| Front Page Top

#26 lotp you have the habit of inserting non transaction commentary onto your replies. I am happy to know your a uav maven, i analyse companies who make em, and then i watch systemic action at a distance. You should realize that all history channel produced output is paid for....do you understand that?

And it's about time you humans started asking yourselves the really obvious questions: who's paying for the History Channel, and why do they want you chasing failed _power transmission_ experiments by Tesla as a method of power generation instead of all the technologies we've made over the past fifty years and thrown away? LIke, say, fission reactors?

Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2008-05-26 16:25|| 2008-05-26 16:25|| Front Page Top

#27 The truly funniest part of this day, is how Tesla and not Maxwell's missing Quaternions, became the subject of later posts, many here have outted themselves.....to the extent that your vested in changing the subject, whenever possible. In making the History channel then Tesla important focus of criticism, you've failed to listen.....
now you have a CF.....and its fundamentally skewed toward blatant obfuscation.

oh well, sources of output, always fails this test.

Posted by Thraviper Panda2099 2008-05-26 16:41|| 2008-05-26 16:41|| Front Page Top

#28 I can't argue that those cute little radio-controlled airplanes haven't been around for a while, because I remember something like that when I was a child, back in the Dark Ages (or perhaps it was cars -- I never got into that set of applied physics). And I do believe that some of the troops brought over such things and attached cameras or something to them, to look around corners for bad guys and to trundle up to potential IEDs. The key point, however, is that the kind of thing we have now was not available even a year ago when the Phoenix Mars Lander was sent into space, nor likely do we even yet have such things manufactured to the quality necessary to survive a several year trip through space, landing on another planet, and acquiring and transmitting information the 422 miles back to Earth. If I'm wrong, which is entirely possible as I haven't been paying close attention to NASA for a while, I apologize.

Does NASA misspend their money? I'm sure they do, just like every other government agency. For instance, the last I heard they were still using computers from back in the 1970s, when for a $2000 per person investment at Dell they could get laptops that would suit all but the most avid gamers... and for a little more they could turn in their slide rules for TI-10 calculators, enabling much more ambitious calculations. ;-)

On the other hand, NASA's purpose is to explore space. Give the technology of at least two years ago so that there would have been time to build the equipment, Thraviper Panda2099, and your personal expertise, how do you think they could better have accomplished a Mars Lander type mission? And how much would your proposal have cost, compared to the Phoenix? You know the basis for your opinions, but because you haven't shared that, you have done nothing to guide the thoughtof those following this thread.

P.S. You wouldn't really want lotp to share insider information, I'm sure.

Posted by trailing wife">trailing wife 2008-05-26 16:49|| 2008-05-26 16:49|| Front Page Top

#29 you would do well to begin understanding that in your roles in life, you can not escape the fact that you might be executing within a role, that has its own limitations that are unknown to you due to compartmentailzation.

I'll be sure to let my 'company' know we're being analyzed by a true systems expert and that we can't put a thing over on you.

Posted by lotp 2008-05-26 16:50|| 2008-05-26 16:50|| Front Page Top

#30 Don't feed them, lotp.

Posted by Bobby 2008-05-26 17:56|| 2008-05-26 17:56|| Front Page Top

#31 Sending a lander to Mars and performing a tricky landing on a pole with a piece of equipment light enough to launch yet strong enough to dig and analyze soil, to me, is a bargain at $450 million - if the federal government is going to spend money I would rather it be on projects like this than a museum at woodstock.

Posted by swksvolFF 2008-05-26 18:16|| 2008-05-26 18:16|| Front Page Top

#32 On the other hand, NASA's purpose is to explore space. Give the technology of at least two years ago so that there would have been time to build the equipment, Thraviper Panda2099, and your personal expertise, how do you think they could better have accomplished a Mars Lander type mission

outsource it! might prove more efficient in terms of capital and payback.

Posted by Thraviper Panda2099 2008-05-26 20:10|| 2008-05-26 20:10|| Front Page Top

#33 u know what......ive watched what 6 folks come to your defence here.....obviously this isnt a place to input, when everyones momentum is to output...bobby says dont feed them....feed what?

nasa explore space? please. nasa avoids exploration, favoring wasteful spending to facilitate avoidance with the things they know they are ill equipped to handle.

pure systemic inertia defines nasa.

dont blame me, i am just a lowely messenger.

Posted by Thraviper Panda2099 2008-05-26 20:15|| 2008-05-26 20:15|| Front Page Top

#34 fred....cancel this id. ive gotten all i can out of this experience.

Posted by Thraviper Panda2099 2008-05-26 20:17|| 2008-05-26 20:17|| Front Page Top

#35 Output. Yeah, that's an appropriate description for your input.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-05-26 20:23|| 2008-05-26 20:23|| Front Page Top

#36 by #17 - I'm pretty sure you've been around enuf to know my tired schtick. My advice - pick a nym, keep it? That way peeepuls know who they're discussing with and histories stick. You'd be more respected if you used the same nym, day-after-day, taking the slings and arrows or accolades for repeated demonstrations of insight and intelligence. Excepting some juvenile attempts at humor (hard to believe, I know...) using nyms of our infamous (Vince Foster, Madeleine "I drank cognac with Kimmie", etc...) I've had the same nym for nearly 6-7 years here. Most know where I'm coming from when I say something, and it helps

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2008-05-26 20:26|| 2008-05-26 20:26|| Front Page Top

#37 I has output in muh teefs. Ima transmitting. Breaker braker 19, Come in large aboreal primate what is sentinent and outputting. Ima inputting and has the frequency. Toby? Are you there Toby?

Posted by George Smiley 2008-05-26 20:30|| 2008-05-26 20:30|| Front Page Top

#38 AAAAAAAARRRGGGGHHHH! LIMEYS!!!!!!!!

Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2008-05-26 21:25|| 2008-05-26 21:25|| Front Page Top

#39 The Phoenix spacecraft was originally going to go to Marss equatorial region as Mars Surveyor 2001, but after investigations of the Polar Lander failure turned up major flaws in the design, that mission was canceled and the almost complete Surveyor spacecraft was put into storage.

Dr. Smith proposed resurrecting the Surveyor spacecraft as Phoenix for a new mission. Testing identified more than a dozen flaws in the lander design, and mission managers believed they had fixed the problems. NASAs budget for Phoenix is $420 million, which includes testing and retrofitting the spacecraft, outfitting it with new instruments, launching and operating the mission. The Canadian Space Agency contributed $37 million for one of the instruments, a weather station. In addition, the development and construction of the original Surveyor 2001 spacecraft cost $100 million.

So basically a nearly complete and essentially-paid-for craft that already cost $100 million was taken from mothballs, refurbed, given new equipment and sent on a new mission. Total cost: $420 million. Actually less than that, because the Canadians chipped in $37 million. So the US cost is $383 million. $100 million of that was already spent and sitting in storage collecting dust. So it's basically $283 million.

The second Mars Rover costs about $200 million (the first one was 300-450 million). Assuming that the now-closed Rover program could be reopened, it's unlikely that a new one could be built for less than Rover #1. Factor in the amount of time for the project, and it'd be 2012 at the earliest.

And as far as the 'private sector' - nothing has stopped them from offering to design a craft, or doing their own exploration. Where are they?

fred....cancel this id. ive gotten all i can out of this experience.

Come back when you've leaned some social skills... Spiny G.

Nobody likes a snot.

Posted by Pappy 2008-05-26 21:36|| 2008-05-26 21:36|| Front Page Top

#40 And as far as the 'private sector' - nothing has stopped them from offering to design a craft, or doing their own exploration. Where are they?

I know of about three-four companies I believe are credible that are working on suborbital RLV's that would eventually make somewhat decent first-stages for light satellite launchers.

Bigelow Aerospace Co. is working on inflatable space stations; their sub-scale prototypes are in orbit now.

I also know there have been various private proposals for lunar and/or asteroid missions. (Many in response to the Google Lunar X-Prize).

Then again, AFAIK none of them are using scalar wave technology, so they're probably wasting their time.

Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2008-05-26 22:55|| 2008-05-26 22:55|| Front Page Top

23:59 Redneck Jim
23:39 Pappy
23:15 JosephMendiola
23:09 trailing wife
22:55 Abdominal Snowman
22:50 JosephMendiola
22:49 trailing wife
22:44 JosephMendiola
22:43 mom
22:43 mom
22:31 JosephMendiola
22:29 trailing wife
22:25 Chinegum McGurque5166
22:19 Chinegum McGurque5166
22:13 Frank G
22:12 Frank G
22:05 DMFD
21:38 McZoid
21:36 Pappy
21:33 www
21:29 twobyfour
21:25 Abdominal Snowman
21:25 jds
21:21 jds