What? No talk about the Mars Rover? [Archive]

David E. Gervais

January 6th, 2004, 09:55 PM

I for one am very happy that this mission is turning out to be a great success. I don't see much difference in the Mars landscape since the Last one, but I guess that was to be expected.

I just hope that 'Sleepy Hollow' doesn't turn out to be quicksand http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

What do you all think of the mission so far?

Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Loser

January 6th, 2004, 10:03 PM

Looks like Utah.

narf poit chez BOOM

January 6th, 2004, 10:16 PM

wonder how long this one will Last before J'onn gets to it...

come on, all those probes lost and your gonna tell me it's natural causes? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Narrew

January 6th, 2004, 10:37 PM

PBS is supposed to have some special tonight with the new pictures comming from there. Looking forward to it.

gregebowman

January 6th, 2004, 10:42 PM

I've been a big NASA fan since I was 6, when men were landing on the moon. I'm glad we've finally got a successful mission to Mars in the past few years. Don't know what it is about Mars and space missions. Maybe someone doesn't want us snooping up there?

Fyron

January 7th, 2004, 12:26 AM

Well they just aren't interesting unless they fail for some innane reason. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Captain Kwok

January 7th, 2004, 01:12 AM

I think things will get much more interesting once the rover starts roving. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Kamog

January 7th, 2004, 09:19 AM

So when is the rover going to start driving around, exploring?

Atrocities

January 7th, 2004, 10:02 AM

Sh*t that thing didn't land on Mars. It's sitting in my Uncle Bob's back 40 in lower Texas. He has been taking pot shots at it with his varment rifle. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

All I can say is it is about time they succeeded. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I guess the new calculators worked.

Growltigger

January 7th, 2004, 10:20 AM

Full credit to NASA for landing Spirit. I think that the initial photos are phenomenal, and look forward to some even better shots when the rover starts trundling around. Even better when Opportunity lands.

Over this side of the pond, we are a bit gutted that our very own British Beagle 2, which landed (or was meant to) on Christmas Day, has disappeared off the face of the planet. They are going to try and contact it again over the next week, but if it does not get in contact by 14 Jan, all bets are off (apparently) - is it the intervention of little green men or just bloody bad luck??

narf poit chez BOOM

January 7th, 2004, 10:33 AM

i'm voting it's little green men, just because.

dogscoff

January 7th, 2004, 01:41 PM

Over this side of the pond, we are a bit gutted that our very own British Beagle 2, which landed (or was meant to) on Christmas Day, has disappeared off the face of the planet. They are going to try and contact it again over the next week, but if it does not get in contact by 14 Jan, all bets are off (apparently) - is it the intervention of little green men or just bloody bad luck??
Yeah I know, I would love to have seen it succeed if only to see the guy running the Beagle2 project catapulted to international fame. You know the one, he looks like he should be into organic gardening, real ale and steam engines rather than space-robotics. He's got utterly insane facial hair and a broad west country accent (alroight tharr moi luvvlies?) and I was really looking forward to the look on america's face when he suddenly appeared all over international news. I'm pretty sure that guy would need subtitles on US telly.

Seriously though, how is this rover so different from that one that landed a few years back? That sent back images very similar (to my eyes) to the ones we are seeing now.

EDIT: A Beagle2 press conference to announce the results of the latest contact attempt to be held in about 2 hours... http://www.beagle2.com/news/index.htm

[ January 07, 2004, 11:44: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

Loser

January 7th, 2004, 01:53 PM

This rover is much, much bigger. Much bigger.

It also does new and different things.

Captain Kwok

January 7th, 2004, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Cipher7071:
I missed the PBS show Last night, but I did see the one on Saturday. It's true that these rovers weigh 50% more the Last ones. The big problem that they had to overcome was that they had to fit them into the same sized capsules, which meant they had to figure out how to fold them up for transport, and unfold them on landing. They had to rework both the airbag and the parachute designs. So far, it looks as though it worked. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif Don't worry - the Nova show on Saturday was the same as the one on Tuesday except they showed a single colour photograph.

dogscoff

January 7th, 2004, 04:45 PM

OK, so it's bigger than the Last lander, but how is it better?

Cipher7071

January 7th, 2004, 05:59 PM

The new rovers are better because:

1. It has a much wider suspension for better stability.

2. The robotic arm carries a grinder that is able to take specimens, plus instruments to test them.

3. There is a much larger solar array to power the extra equipment.

4. The computer hardware and software are better.

There are probably other things that I have forgotten, or that weren't mentioned in the show. I guess I'll have to wait for some of the results to be published to learn the rest, unless anyone else knows...

Loser

January 7th, 2004, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
OK, so it's bigger than the Last lander, but how is it better? Only weighs 50% more, but is now the size of a golf cart, as opposed to a RC racer.

More room for more stuff. More stuff to do more things. More things doing to be find more things out.

[ January 07, 2004, 16:02: Message edited by: Loser ]

David E. Gervais

January 7th, 2004, 06:58 PM

Anyone know of some good sites to follow the mars mission? The NASA site seems a bit 'lacking' and the photos are actually quite small.

Cheers!

Narrew

January 7th, 2004, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by Captain Kwok:
Don't worry - the Nova show on Saturday was the same as the one on Tuesday except they showed a single colour photograph. Yea, quite lame...hopefully things will be shown soon, probably Discovery or Learning Channel

Cipher7071

January 8th, 2004, 02:41 AM

I missed the PBS show Last night, but I did see the one on Saturday. It's true that these rovers weigh 50% more the Last ones. The big problem that they had to overcome was that they had to fit them into the same sized capsules, which meant they had to figure out how to fold them up for transport, and unfold them on landing. They had to rework both the airbag and the parachute designs. So far, it looks as though it worked. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Atrocities

January 8th, 2004, 02:46 AM

I just heard on the news that the images, the color ones, are fantastic. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Big smiles.

Growltigger

January 8th, 2004, 02:47 AM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
[QB] [QUOTE]
alroight tharr moi luvvlies?What worries me is that they will get photo's of Wurzel's wrecked spaceship, with a small martian standing there with a ray gun saying "Geetttt Orrrfffff Moii Lannnnndd Yeww Wazoks"

What is wrong with organic gardening and real ale? Guilty on both counts m'lord. And I have no facial hair, infact I have no hair on my head anywhere (except up the nose and in my ears I suppose)

Reality check - Wurzel becomes Captain on the next series of Enterprise, "alroight yewww klingon bahhhhstaahhds, preepair too foir that ol' muck spreader, roight"

Taz-in-Space

January 8th, 2004, 06:55 AM

I'll be interested seeing what kind of landing the next rover makes.
If sucessful, does anyone know how far apart they will be? Or how fast and far they can go?
Would be way cool to see them taking pictures of each other! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Captain Kwok

January 8th, 2004, 04:37 PM

I think it was mentioned that the rovers' missions will Last about 3 months. That gives lots of time to explore once they start roving.

The problem with the previous "Pathfinder" mission was that the NASA guys said there wasn't enough "science" on/from it. The new rovers as mentioned already are much larger and packed with lots of excellent instruments!

Let's just hope the other rover lands safely too!

Narrew

January 8th, 2004, 10:00 PM

I wish we had a camera crew there to watch the landing in real time not computer generated. I could see some alien on Mars looking into the sky thinking WTH? That is one HUGE piece of hail. Oh well I digress.

Loser

January 9th, 2004, 02:25 AM

Originally posted by Taz-in-Space:
I'll be interested seeing what kind of landing the next rover makes.
If sucessful, does anyone know how far apart they will be? Or how fast and far they can go?
Would be way cool to see them taking pictures of each other! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif I believe they are on opposite sides of the world.

Atrocities

January 9th, 2004, 02:29 AM

I wonder if the Discovery Channel will do somthing on this? It seems like a prime oppurtunity for a good hour long feature or documentary.

David E. Gervais

January 9th, 2004, 01:29 PM

I was thinking, if they had a permanent satalite in orbit around mars, the future landers could save on payload by using it as a relay to send info back to earth. That way they wouldn't need such big bulky transmitters. The space could be used for more scientific equipment.

Just a thought, Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

geoschmo

January 9th, 2004, 01:45 PM

Captain Kwok

January 9th, 2004, 01:52 PM

geoschmo

January 9th, 2004, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by David E. Gervais:
I was thinking, if they had a permanent satalite in orbit around mars, the future landers could save on payload by using it as a relay to send info back to earth. That way they wouldn't need such big bulky transmitters. The space could be used for more scientific equipment.

Just a thought, Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif There are several permanent orbitting sattelites areound Mars. I am not sure but I suspect they can relay Messages in a pinch. To do that for all the communications isn't that efficent I don't think though. It's easier for the rover to track in on the Earth far away then to track a sattelite whipping about in a close mars orbit. Especially since the orbiters useally go into a polar orbit to make coverage of the entire planet easier. Your windows of communication would be much smaller than with direct comm back to earth. The limiting factor in bandwith isn't the transmitting power as much as it is the line of sight window. Unless you put the mars orbitter in a geo-synch orbit, and then it's not much good for anything but relaying Messages, which is an aweful waste of resources.

With a big enough antenna on Earth you could probably pick up a transmitter on mars not much bigger then a cell phone. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo
I'm not a sattelite communications expert, but I play one on tv...

[ January 09, 2004, 11:57: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Ragnarok

January 9th, 2004, 03:00 PM

gregebowman

January 9th, 2004, 11:47 PM

Hot diggity damn!! We're finally getting a president that's talking about expanding the space program. Although i doubt if men will land on the moon again before Bush leaves office, let alone before I die, it's still good to hear something like this from a sitting president. I can't wait to see what happens.

Baron Munchausen

January 9th, 2004, 11:59 PM

His father said something similar and nothing came of it. NASA estimated that getting to Mars would cost $400 Billion and suddenly everyone forgot about space programs. Rather than make some big, vague, grandiose statement of 'values' and 'idealism' we need a concrete and reachable goal. A genuinely reusable orbital vehicle would be a good, solid goal. The current shuttles are just experimental vehicles forced to serve as working shuttles. They are essentially disassembled and rebuilt after each flight. NOT cheap and not genuinely re-usable! We need that 'space plane' to actually get developed so that the cost of going into orbit can drop by 90 percent or so. From there it will be dramatically easier to get to Mars or anyplace else we want to go.

[ January 09, 2004, 22:26: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Narrew

January 10th, 2004, 05:53 AM

I was thinking that the "space plane" was pretty close to being done (as far as development goes) and that they were going to use a SCRAM jet/rocket engine. Been a while but I can't remember the name otherwise I would do a google search.

Also, we will see many people saying why spend that kind of money for science fiction (not me by the way) when we need to do X,Y,Z. But I heard a great come back, If the King and Queen of Spain decided NOT to fund Christopher Columbus, where would the world be today.

The pessimist in me thinks that there are too many people that would like to go back in time and stop Columbus from discovering the new world, sorry Rutha, though I don't doubt Erickson made it over here earlier, but they didn't have the cash to capitalize on it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I have read some books from people that think by-passing the moon and just head straight to Mars is the best way to go, but hell I can see the moon almost every night, what a symbol if we can set something up permanently.

I hope we do it, I really do.

[ January 10, 2004, 03:55: Message edited by: Narrew ]

oleg

January 10th, 2004, 03:32 PM

It is not THAT expensive. $400 billions are not going to be spend in one year. War in Iraq alone costs around ~100 billions. I think Mars landing is feasible in next 20-30 years.

PvK

January 11th, 2004, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by Narrew:
... But I heard a great come back, If the King and Queen of Spain decided NOT to fund Christopher Columbus, where would the world be today.

The pessimist in me thinks that there are too many people that would like to go back in time and stop Columbus from discovering the new world, sorry Rutha, though I don't doubt Erickson made it over here earlier, but they didn't have the cash to capitalize on it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
... Well I wouldn't have turned down Columbus for budget reasons...

... on the other hand, wiping out all the indigenous cultures of the Americas wasn't cool in my book.

I also don't think "lack of cash" explains why the Scandinavian colonists left.

But I'm mainly just being contrary. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

PvK

Fyron

January 11th, 2004, 12:50 AM

Those English, French, Spanish and Portugese conquerors were nasty people... Of course, you have to keep in mind that most of the indigenous peoples that died died from diseases carried by Europeans for which they had no immunity to at all, and so the diseases were fatal, rather than just inconveniences.

[ January 10, 2004, 22:51: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Cipher7071

January 11th, 2004, 05:06 AM

A few years back, there was a program to design a truly reusable space vehicle called "Venturestar," or perhaps "Venture Star." That may be what was Narrew was referring to below for the topic of a Google search.

[ January 11, 2004, 03:08: Message edited by: Cipher7071 ]

Kamog

January 11th, 2004, 11:10 AM

According to this article, it is expected that Bush will announce a manned mission to Mars. Also, a Moon base is to be constructed within the next 15 years.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994551

Captain Kwok

January 11th, 2004, 09:12 PM

Isn't it interesting to see how the administration is quick to "latch" on to the early success of the latest Mars mission and grab the positive publicity and make all these grand statements about future exploration...when the real guys are making it really happen at NASA despite facing cuts and cuts for the Last two decades?

Narrew

January 12th, 2004, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by Captain Kwok:
Isn't it interesting to see how the administration is quick to "latch" on to the early success of the latest Mars mission and grab the positive publicity and make all these grand statements about future exploration...when the real guys are making it really happen at NASA despite facing cuts and cuts for the Last two decades? I was listening to Coast to Coast on the way home late one night a month or 2 ago and who ever was speaking said that Bush was going to make an announcement to get back into space, the thing is he may be using the the recent success as the "right" time, but it sure beats talking about it right after the Last shuttle disaster or a "lull" in news, because you can be sure that there will be many people saying why spend the money to go "back to space, lets spend it at home", so I am glad he has brought it up because we will need all the positive momentum we can get.

Of course I am biased, I wish we hadn't stopped working in space all those years ago, the longer we take to get back at it, the longer it will be until private enterprises get involved, and until then it will just be governments doing it.

And of course I have read too many Sci-Fi books about space yards and exploration, so I can be labeled naive.

ps yea I think it was the Venture Star, going to look it up now...

Narrew

January 12th, 2004, 09:31 AM

yep it was VentureStar, but it was cancled in 2001, doh, I could have sworn that I heard that a place in eastern Washington (in the flat planes west of Spokane) was in the running for a space port/launch site, damn that sucks, now what they going to use, the shuttle cant Last much longer, maybe if there is some funding, they will restart VentureStar, but more than likely someone else will have a "pet project" and they will start all over.

I swear, who ever thought it was a good idea to destroy all the Saturn Rocket blueprints should be whipped with a wet noodle *sigh* http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

geoschmo

January 12th, 2004, 04:03 PM

Right, as Oleg says not only were the plans not destroyed, I'd venture a guess that you could probably buy a set of the schematics yourself if you looked hard enough. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif But the difficult part would be recreating all the factories and tooling used by the thousands of subcontractors making components all over the place. It would probably be more expensive to do it the second time around, even adjusting dollars for inflation.

[ January 12, 2004, 14:03: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Cipher7071

January 12th, 2004, 06:24 PM

Say what you want about the politics of the situation, but it would be nearly impossible to achieve anything in the space program without presidential support. I'm glad the current president approves, and hope the next one does. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

It's also good that we have those old programs to look back at. We generally learn more from our failures than our successes.

[ January 12, 2004, 16:28: Message edited by: Cipher7071 ]

Narrew

January 12th, 2004, 07:43 PM

DOH http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif can't belive I was a dupe of an urban legend. Well, the Saturn might be 60's tech, but I thought they were still the highest thrust ability next to them massive Russian rocket?

It till be interesting to see which way they go, maybe they will use a huge magnetic rail gun to throw large payloads into space http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

oleg

January 13th, 2004, 02:43 AM

Originally posted by Narrew:
...I swear, who ever thought it was a good idea to destroy all the Saturn Rocket blueprints should be whipped with a wet noodle *sigh* http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif That's an urban legend. We can make an exact copy of SaturnV now. But that would be insane - where will you get all that 60's technology http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif It is far more cheaper and effective to start from scratch and take full advantage of 40 (!!!) years of progress.

Taz-in-Space

January 13th, 2004, 06:51 AM

IF we get a larger space program, it will probably be rockets again.
The Space Shuttle fleet was originally only going to be a temporary measure. There is very little that we did with shuttles that we couldn't have done with rockets.
Given that Maglev is fairly new, would YOU want to be the first to try it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
I only wish we would have found Gold nuggets the size of baseballs on the moon way back then.
We'd probably would have operational MINES on the moon by now... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

narf poit chez BOOM

January 13th, 2004, 11:50 AM

I only wish we would have found Gold nuggets the size of baseballs on the moon way back then.
you really want to give control of that much gold to a government? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

geoschmo

January 13th, 2004, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
I only wish we would have found Gold nuggets the size of baseballs on the moon way back then.
you really want to give control of that much gold to a government? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif <hr /></blockquote>I think the point is if we had found vast resources lying around on the moon, then by now industry and private enterprise would have found a way to get there. Rather then waiting on the government to do it all. And that would mean access to space for the rest of us that aren't in NASA.

Narrew

January 13th, 2004, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by Taz-in-Space:
Given that Maglev is fairly new, would YOU want to be the first to try it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
Well, I was just thinking of large payloads, not people. I picture a huge rail running up along the side of some tall mountian. I remember reading a book (it may have been "The Moon is a harsh Mistress") where the moon was a prison colony that was raising grain and mag-railed capsules back to the earth full of grain, but then the prisioners took control and then started shooting huge bolders back at earth ect...

JurijD

January 14th, 2004, 07:21 PM

I do recall that Bush senior proposed going back to the Moon way back during the end of the 1980s or beginning of 1990s... what happened to that anyway? Maybe sonny here is just doing what dad started http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Maybe someone should get the blueprints of that big ol' russian Rocket... Nositel 1 I think it was called. I mean balancing out those 30 odd engines shouldn't be a problemn today with all the computing power we have... and besides those rockets looked so COOL. Too bad so many blew up in their faces on take off... no wait I think they all blew up hehehe... maybe we'd also need to talk to some of the former KGB officials that had all the spare parts destroyed and buried after the moon program was abandoned... correction ERASED http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Yeah I too was SO annoyed when they canceled Venture Star... I mean why the hell did they do that. It was almost working and they had several ful-size engies and a smaller prototype of the thing built and estimates said it would reduce the cost of goin to space by 70%-90% compared to the space shuttle. Those stupid %#&#"!"$#! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

[ January 14, 2004, 17:38: Message edited by: JurijD ]

geoschmo

January 14th, 2004, 07:25 PM

New NASA space plane (http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,12543,573370,00.html)

Loser

January 14th, 2004, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by JurijD:
Yeah I too was SO annoyed when they canceled Venture Star... I mean why the hell did they do that. It was almost working and they had several ful-size engies and a smaller prototype of the thing built and estimates said it would reduce the cost of goin to space by 70%-90% compared to the space shuttle. Those stupid %#&#"!"$#! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif It was canceled because it wasn't working, wasn't going to work. The entire project depended on a whole suite of unobtainable technologies. The folks that sold the idea to the government budget people led them to believe that each of these technologies only needed a little more time, just a little more money thrown at it, before they would all be ready and work together.

Well, they didn't. It sucked and should have gotten the boot a hell of a lot sooner. Instead it sat around eating up money that could have been spent on projects with real world potential. Tragic.

The simple fact is that we, the humans of Earth, simply lack the technology required for single-stage-to-orbit. Anyone who tells you otherwise is blowing smoke in your ear.

Oh, and the Soviet Rocket worth attention is the Energia (http://www.energia.ru/english/energia/launchers/vehicle_energia.html). It is the largest rocket in the world and is capable of getting enough mass far enough out to put a man on Mars, if I recall correctly. Unfortunately, the trip would be made with minimal shielding against radiation and there would be no provision for a return.

geoschmo

January 14th, 2004, 10:09 PM

Space elevators. Once we get the tech working on those babies we'll really start making some progress in space. Once the infrastructure is up, the cost to orbit will be pennies on the dollar over anything else we can think of today. A vacation to an orbiting space hotel will be not much more expensive then a first class vacation today, and not any harder physically on the body then a conventional airliner flight. I am holding out hope yet of retiring to an old folks home up there. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Cyrien

January 15th, 2004, 01:00 AM

I just loved Bush Jrs speech on going back to the moon. Robots by 2008. Of course a nice year considering that even if Bush gets reelected it will be at the far tail end of his Last possible term. Lets just push it off to the next guy. And 2015 for manned landings building upto a base. What are the odds of that going uninterrupted.

Oh well. We can still hope.

henk brouwer

January 16th, 2004, 01:25 PM

I don't see much difference in the Mars landscape since the Last one, but I guess that was to be expected.
[/QB]Well, it seems that NASA knows people are expecting mars to have a red-coloured landscape, and they seem to have processed al pictures using a red filter to meet our expectations. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
Here is the url of a website that has tried to convert the pictures to how mars would look if you saw it with your own eyes:

http://www.keithlaney.com/spirit_color_images.htm

It's still red, but it doesn't hurt your eyes like the red/orange nasa pictures.

There's a panel on the lander for which the colors are known. They converted the picture to the right colors using this panel as a reference.

[ January 16, 2004, 11:28: Message edited by: henk brouwer ]

gregebowman

January 16th, 2004, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by Cyrien:
I just loved Bush Jrs speech on going back to the moon. Robots by 2008. Of course a nice year considering that even if Bush gets reelected it will be at the far tail end of his Last possible term. Lets just push it off to the next guy. And 2015 for manned landings building upto a base. What are the odds of that going uninterrupted.

Oh well. We can still hope. I'm glad Bush made that speed. What I'm dreading is that the next Democrat to get elected will drastically reduce NASA's budget and basically wreck Bush's plans for outer space. Hopefully, his plans will survive the next few elections, and maybe my son will be able to become an astronaut and go to the moon or Mars. he's only 3, but one can hope....

Phoenix-D

January 17th, 2004, 02:24 AM

And now we have the first casulty of the Bush program- the Hubble Space Telescope. all the shuttle flights from now until thye are retired will be going to ISS. When Hubble needs servicing again, it won't get it.

geoschmo

January 17th, 2004, 03:08 AM

Actually they were talking about having to phase out the Hubble before this. It's more a result of the Columbia disaster then any change in priorities.

Narrew

January 22nd, 2004, 09:36 PM

humm, this Saturday the second rover was to land and NOW NASA lost contact with the first one, the Martians are comming!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Azselendor

January 23rd, 2004, 12:05 AM

Given the republican party is unable to commit any money to the space program, I've heard many calling for its dismantling after Columbia and after bush's speech, I doubt any of his plan will happen.

Wardad

January 23rd, 2004, 12:20 AM

Check out this view from the Hubbles replacement. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

http://www.crisium.com/images/map.gif

Kamog

January 23rd, 2004, 06:53 AM

Sure hope they restore contact with the rover. Those Mars missions seem to have a lot of bad luck...

Captain Kwok

January 23rd, 2004, 01:33 PM

I sure hope if they can figure out what's wrong with it they'll be able to fix it (if it's software of course. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif )

Ragnarok

January 23rd, 2004, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by Wardad:
Check out this view from the Hubbles replacement. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif How dare you post a image from Stars! on this board! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

That is from Stars! right? I haven't played that game in ages.

David E. Gervais

January 23rd, 2004, 03:38 PM

darn, those time-traveling souveneer hunters stole another rover. Or did they put too much AI in the software and the rover decided to start it's own colony of mechoids? hmmmm.

Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Wardad

January 23rd, 2004, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by Ragnarok:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Wardad:
Check out this view from the Hubbles replacement. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif How dare you post a image from Stars! on this board! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

That is from Stars! right? I haven't played that game in ages. <hr /></blockquote>Right it is from Stars!
It is pretty decent multiplayer.
In fact, I am signed up to play in Popgun Navies and we could use 3 more players:

---------
All players must have weapons expensive.

Other stuff:
REGISTERED Version JRC4.
All player levels invited.
Host will not be playing.
Medium,Normal,Distant
Slow Tech on
ACCBBS on
Events on
Clumping on
Chaff & split fleet dodge allowed only.
Winner by consensus.
Passwords must be supplied with race files.
-------

It should be interesting with Weapons expensive and Slow Tech.

To sign up start here http://library.southern.edu/stars/stars.htm and go to the forum.

EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro

January 23rd, 2004, 08:08 PM

So we're going to the moon to make Helium 3? Why can't we make Helium 3 here? Does going to Mars next require the use of Helium 3? Will Halliburton get the contract for developing the Moon? Does inhaling Helium 3 make my voice 3 times funnier? When is Major Tom comming home? If the Chinese get to the moon first, will they play joke, will they put pee pee in our Coke (or Helium 3)?
Just more things that make you go hmmm.