[gDGwm8BC]

NASA’s Curiosity Rover has had a historic week on the surface of Mars, executing a flawless landing on the Red Planet and firing up for its mission. But under the hood, the interplanetary explorer is powered by a pair of computers built by BAE Systems. They’re called RAD750′s. And it turns out that the radiation hardening that they need to operate on Mars isn’t all that different from the protection that some of today’s largest supercomputers need to keep chugging along.

The RAD750 isn’t much when measured by terrestrial PC metrics. It’s a customized take on a 10-year-old IBM PowerPC chip design, and its 132 MHz clock speed would have been impressive around the time of the Windows 95 launch. It comes with just 120 megabytes of RAM. But like the other electronics components on Curiosity Rover the RAD750 has one thing going for it: It’s tough enough to withstand launch-time shaking, wild temperature fluctuations and levels of ionizing radiation that would fry the machine that you’re using to read this story.

Curiosity Rover’s RAD750′s use specially built chips that are built to survive one-off collisions with high energy particles that can flip the energy charge in the computer’s memory. And while the cosmic-ray problems that exploration vehicle is facing are many times worse than anything you’d see here on Earth, they’re also the kind of problem that chipmakers are increasingly having to confront as they build smaller and smaller components that are used on very large clustered systems. More - http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise...08/cosmic-rays

Quite interesting how they deal with all the nasties out there.

[Patgaepx]

Not sure if this has been posted:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-1...-obama/4197274

Contains a link to a video:

stunning new colour 360-degree panorama


Though I can not view the video at this point in time so am unable to comment on its stunningness or otherwise...

[corkBrobe]

A short video of the heat shield from the Mars rover impacting the surface.

[bushomeworkk]

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/soc...=1345298766668

Mars? A mere Curiosity in days of thrift


'It offers prestige, but it is showy and expensive and pointless.' Photo: Reuters

The US has more important things to worry about than NASA.

THE landing of the Curiosity rover on Mars earlier this month was a great success. But it ought to be a bittersweet one, too. Rather than giving NASA a new lease of life, the landing underscores a big problem: the world's premier space agency no longer has any idea why it exists.

This is not a controversial claim. At the same time Curiosity was landing on Mars, NASA was holding an independent investigation into the agency's strategic direction. One former NASA chief put it this way: ''I am utterly confused.''

Does NASA exist to put humans into space? The space shuttle program was cancelled last year and a replacement is probably a decade away - if there will be one at all. The shuttles were mothballed with no alternative in mind.
Advertisement

Is it to develop new technologies? Sending rovers millions of kilometres across space is a very roundabout way to subsidise innovation. Anyway, NASA deserves little credit for the inventions commonly attributed to it - Velcro was invented in Switzerland in 1948, Teflon by a New Jersey commercial chemist in 1938.

Is NASA's job investigating basic science? This is certainly the most plausible purpose. But then why did NASA spend half a century symbolically placing people in capsules in the sky? And the agency's public support - such as it is - is based on a romantic notion of humanity touching the stars. Voters prefer astronauts - those demigods with The Right Stuff.

So the US Congress doesn't have much desire to fund a never-ending procession of robo-jeeps on Mars taking photos and doing chemistry - no matter how impressive that is. Support for a future rover program, a joint venture with Europe and Russia, disappeared when Congress realised it wouldn't even deliver samples of Martian soil back to earth for a decade. Barack Obama's budget dropped any American support of this ExoMars program in February this year.

America's thrift is understandable. The US federal budget deficit is likely to be well above $US1 trillion this year for the fourth year in a row. Nobody has any real idea of how to pull the deficit back down. And parachuting cars onto distant planets is the ultimate discretionary spend.

NASA's lot wasn't always so dire. In the beginning the agency and its supporters knew exactly what it was all for: to demonstrate American capitalism was superior to Soviet communism. The space race and the arms race were two sides of the same coin. From Sputnik to Apollo 11, the space program was less about extraterrestrial exploration and more about terrestrial geopolitics.

It has been decades since NASA had that sort of clarity. Every other justification has been added later; awkwardly and uncomfortably welded on to rationalise NASA's budget requests.

The firmest congressional backers of the future Mars program happen to represent districts with space-related industries. Entire programs - such as the space shuttle itself - have been the result of dubious claims about protecting manufacturing jobs and supporting local industry.

The space program exists to perpetuate NASA and the politically connected corporations that feed off it, not the other way around.

Hence the claims that NASA's mission is ''to open human hearts to the Martian frontier'' (as one planetary scientist wrote recently) or to ''rethink our place in the universe'' (in the words of a current NASA manager). No one doubts the impressive achievements of all those space missions. But basing major government programs on ''feelings'' just isn't a good use of scarce resources.

Australians might be OK with all this. We get to enjoy the wasteful fruits of a dying superpower without having to pay for it.

The economist Robin Hanson, himself a former NASA researcher, has described the space program as ''mostly like the pyramids''. That is, it offers prestige, but it is showy and expensive and pointless.

But it certainly is a monument. The moon landing will be forever tied to John F. Kennedy. Both Obama and George W. Bush tried to replicate JFK's legacy by promising to put humans on Mars, and soon. Surely they knew this was fantasy. There's no taste for an exotic and expensive space program in our austere century.

There once was a political reason to be in space. Now there is not. Politicians need political reasons if they're going to pay for things. That's how democracy functions, and that's why NASA is lost.

But the private space industry is growing, rapidly. Commercial uses of space flight will be more sustainable than the goodwill of the American Congress.

And robotic missions are much cheaper than manned missions. Putting Curiosity on Mars cost little more than Victoria's myki ticketing system. The global research and philanthropic community should easily be able to raise that sort of money. (Sounds far-fetched? Then perhaps our imagination needs to start on the ground before it can dance among the stars.)

They'd probably be able to do it cheaper than the bloated, politicised, and hopelessly confused NASA anyway.

[pseusawbappem]

But the private space industry is growing, rapidly. Commercial uses of space flight will be more sustainable than the goodwill of the American Congress.

And robotic missions are much cheaper than manned missions. Putting Curiosity on Mars cost little more than Victoria's myki ticketing system. The global research and philanthropic community should easily be able to raise that sort of money. (Sounds far-fetched? Then perhaps our imagination needs to start on the ground before it can dance among the stars.)

They'd probably be able to do it cheaper than the bloated, politicised, and hopelessly confused NASA anyway.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>


:-)
Ahhh, I needed a good laugh.
The private industry will get bigger and bigger...Check out the "Rocket technology and VTVL thread. I applaud such endeavours.

And of course robotic missions will continue just as they should. They have been responsible for some fantastic successes and that will also continue.
But as most of us know, robotic missions are generally really a precursor to manned efforts.
Our Martian robotic friends are doing a great job preparing the way for such an effort...great stuff!

And finally as I have said many times, despite economic situations and some short comings of NASA, they will change over time....Good times will come again, and NASA will continue probably with changes much needed including increased funding.

All in all, it can be safely said that progress and technological achievements will continue overall, and some pessimistic opinion by some one from "the age" will not change that.


And finally ignoring any possible catastrophic occurrence to our planet
We will go to Mars...
We will continue space endeavours and achievements...
And one day we will get to the stars.
Nothing surer...

[DoctorTOneery]

"Earth is the cradle of humanity, but it is impossible to live forever in the cradle." ~ Tsiolkovski, 1912 (Russian rocketry pioneer & futurist)



Behind all the cool technology and allure of universal unknowns, the quest for interstellar flight is really about people. This is a goal for, and by, humanity. Our survival as a species depends on learning how live beyond our -one- and only home, Earth. And it's up to us to make it happen. As much as it might be appealing to think that some benevolent alien race will save us someday, that's not the best way to get things done. But the quest for interstellar flight impacts humanity in more ways than just living beyond Earth. It is also about making life on Earth better right now. By reaching for these grand and honorable goals we stand more to gain in the process. Would you rather help humanity conquer new frontiers, or be left with no other prospect than for humans to conquer each other?

This plays both ways. As much as interstellar prospects affect humanity, the nature of humanity affects what we choose to do and how we choose to do it. Consider the popular appeal of science fiction and its inspirational affect on past pioneers. Consider the nature of how we work together, how society evolves and on how this affects if, and how, we work to ensure our survival beyond Earth. Imagine the collaboration required to get the diverse cultures and governments on Earth to jointly launch a colony ship. This is the human element in action.


Imagine the benefits from having the technology to cross interstellar space – comprehensive and self-sustaining habitats for enduring the journey, ample energy, and the ability to move objects across vast distances. If a lone spacecraft could sustain its crew without re-supply for long interstellar journeys, then why not apply these same techniques to sustain people on Earth? Could this end world hunger? Would this provide the technology for pollution-free life-support? In much the same way that prior advances in communication & transportation brought the world closer and forced us to face the responsibility of using our newfound powers wisely, so too will such future technology further the maturation of our society.

This is a hopeful vision; an alternative that looks beyond the limits of short-term returns and beyond an Earth-only humanity. Given our ever more crowded and strained Earth, it would be socially irresponsible to neglect such ambitions. These are the stakes of our future and they are astronomically high. Answering this unmet need is the purpose of the Tau Zero Foundation.





http://www.tauzero.aero/html/human_impact.html

[Grenader]

And finally as I have said many times, despite economic situations and some short comings of NASA, they will change over time....Good times will come again, and NASA will continue probably with changes much needed including increased funding.

This BC, is the point you continue to miss is...

There once was a political reason to be in space. Now there is not. Politicians need political reasons if they're going to pay for things. That's how democracy functions, and that's why NASA is lost. It's more than likely that over the next decade the functions NASA perform will slowly be absorbed into the private sector. As this happens the priorities of space exploration/travel will move towards more commercial ends. That is, you'll likely see less emphasis on expensive manned space flight programs and see more emphasis on reusable LEO flight and commercial satellite technologies.

No one here is saying we should stop investment in space science, only that the priorities of this work are now changing, and will continue to. This isn't an example of pessimism, it's pragmatism.

[DYjLN8rF]

No one here is saying we should stop investment in space science, only that the priorities of this work are now change, and will continue to. This isn't an example of pessimism, it's pragmatism.

I have often seen BC rail against naysayers and he seems to think that everyone on the forum is opposed to space research. When he launches into these diatribes I wonder who they are directed at?

AFAIK no one on the forum is against SPACE SPACE SPACE but there is room to disagree on methods and practicalities which is usually what happens. But then BC instead of debating those objections or corrections, instead points to a manifest destiny and his forward jutting chin that can see into the future and launches (ha) into his patented imagination speech which is as useless as invoking god to explain how things happen.

In short after you read his cut and paste, nothing BC posts afterwards adds to any information or knowledge, just a vehicle for his mad sermons.

[excivaamome]

I have often seen BC rail against naysayers and he seems to think that everyone on the forum is opposed to space research. When he launches into these diatribes I wonder who they are directed at?

AFAIK no one on the forum is against SPACE SPACE SPACE but there is room to disagree on methods and practicalities which is usually what happens. But then BC instead of debating those objections or corrections, instead points to a manifest destiny and his forward jutting chin that can see into the future and launches (ha) into his patented imagination speech which is as useless as invoking god to explain how things happen.

In short after you read his cut and paste, nothing BC posts afterwards adds to any information or knowledge, just a vehicle for his mad sermons.

Best summary I've heard on B.C.

[neictscek]

There once was a political reason to be in space. Now there is not. Politicians need political reasons if they're going to pay for things. That's how democracy functions, and that's why NASA is lost.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>


And tell me, [1] does that mean we always need a political reason? [2] Does that mean if it wasn't for politics, space science/endeavours would never have got started? [3] Did the Wright Brothers start their endeavour due to political pressure?

The Realiity is, political pressure got man to the Moon, sooner then he normally would have, that's all....simple as that!

And whatever the future of NASA is, we will still go back to the Moon, go to Mars and one day to the stars,..that's the future.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It's more than likely that over the next decade the functions NASA perform will slowly be absorbed into the private sector. As this happens the priorities of space exploration/travel will move towards more commercial ends. That is, you'll likely see less emphasis on expensive manned space flight programs and see more emphasis on reusable LEO flight and commercial satellite technologies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Firstly I don't believe for one instant the US will allow NASA to disappear, and secondly, these private companies are already constructing craft for manned efforts...see "Space X....see Sierra Navada and others.
So as I have said before, robotics will still be used and always will, but most as a precursor for manned efforts.
They do a great and necessary job.



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No one here is saying we should stop investment in space science, only that the priorities of this work are now changing, and will continue to. This isn't an example of pessimism, it's pragmatism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>


No one??
That's not true.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I have often seen BC rail against naysayers and he seems to think that everyone on the forum is opposed to space research. When he launches into these diatribes I wonder who they are directed at?

AFAIK no one on the forum is against SPACE SPACE SPACE but there is room to disagree on methods and practicalities which is usually what happens. But then BC instead of debating those objections or corrections, instead points to a manifest destiny and his forward jutting chin that can see into the future and launches (ha) into his patented imagination speech which is as useless as invoking god to explain how things happen.

In short after you read his cut and paste, nothing BC posts afterwards adds to any information or knowledge, just a vehicle for his mad sermons.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>

Well first let me say that my cut n pastes will continue despite your continued diatribe, and any "sermons" as I see fit, to convey the message that progress and technological advancement will continue.
Again I will continue to point out orginizations such as "Tau Zero Foundation" and their's and mine predictions for the near and distant future.
To quote them again...
"This is a hopeful vision; an alternative that looks beyond the limits of short-term returns and beyond an Earth-only humanity. Given our ever more crowded and strained Earth, it would be socially irresponsible to neglect such ambitions. These are the stakes of our future and they are astronomically high. Answering this unmet need is the purpose of the Tau Zero Foundation."
Barring some catastrophic happening...
The future is inevitable....It is our destiny as we have no where else to go [other then maybe the deepest parts of the Oceans] and man will always want to go where no man has gone before [as corny as that may sound] for simple adventure, as well as exploration, the gaining of knowledge, and the future of all mankind. [again as corny as that may sound]
Funny, some of this corny stuff is so relevant and true.

[arcaniagainee]

Best summary I've heard on B.C.

Heheheh...Funny, how I didn't expect anything else from you.
I'm mortified! :-)

[houkbsdov]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No one here is saying we should stop investment in space science, only that the priorities of this work are now changing, and will continue to. This isn't an example of pessimism, it's pragmatism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>


No one??
That's not true.

Well who here has said to stop the space program?

[Opislossy]

And tell me, [1] does that mean we always need a political reason? [2] Does that mean if it wasn't for politics, space science/endeavours would never have got started? [3] Did the Wright Brothers start their endeavour due to political pressure?

The Realiity is, political pressure got man to the Moon, sooner then he normally would have, that's all....simple as that!

And whatever the future of NASA is, we will still go back to the Moon, go to Mars and one day to the stars,..that's the future. [1] well if we want government to be involved then yes, we do need a political reason - that's the way government works

[2] no one said that

[3] I'm not sure if they did or they didn't, but anyway I'm unsure how that is relevant

I look at manned space flight to the moon and I see it effectively finishing with the cold war, why is this do you think??

In regards to the future for NASA, I agree, I doubt it will disappear entirely; however its functions will slowly be adsorbed into the private sector.

I'll point out that there is currently no formal plan to return to the moon

[nmnrIjGB]

[1] well if we want government to be involved then yes, we do need a political reason - that's the way government works

OK, then let's say there is no need for "cold war political type" reasoning or c%$# waving...But you knew what I meant.

[2] no one said that

Well why mention that we achieved what we have for political reasons?
The point is we would have got there later, that's all.


[3] I'm not sure if they did or they didn't, but anyway I'm unsure how that is relevant

I look at manned space flight to the moon and I see it effectively finishing with the cold war, why is this do you think??

????? Again, you seem to be saying, we "NEED" a cold war and political motivation all the time...We don't, even with government involvement.

In regards to the future for NASA, I agree, I doubt it will disappear entirely; however its functions will slowly be adsorbed into the private sector.

To some extent yes...

I'll point out that there is currently no formal plan to return to the moon

No firm plan on sending men to Mars yet either, but I bet my house we'll do it.
There'll even be Aussies up there one day!

[gechaheritt]

????? Again, you seem to be saying, we "NEED" a cold war and political motivation all the time...We don't, even with government involvement. by definition there needs to be a political reason for governments to be involved... of could that reason could be as simple as political posturing (as per the cold war) or it could be because a government simply chooses to be involved because they see it as part of some national interest (what ever that might be). but yes, these need to be a political reason in order to justify the expenditure of public funds.

This is the exact reason there is no manned space program at the moment... it's because it simply offers nothing to the national interest.

we can crap on about how "it will happen at some point in the future" but until there is a change in the political landscape or there is a direct commercial reason to go... we aint going to the moon or mars any time soon...

[GenrieAB]

if curiosity found evidence of life on mars then i would think that might act as an impetus to send a manned mission there.

[Fiesialenp]

if curiosity found evidence of life on mars then i would think that might act as an impetus to send a manned mission there.

Why? You could do way more robotic science for the same cost...

I'm not sure I understand why economic efficiency is seen as such a bad thing...

[Trercakaressy]

or it could be because a government simply chooses to be involved because they see it as part of some national interest (what ever that might be).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Or they are just plain and simple a forward looking govennment that knows what is to be gained...Is that political, OK...*shrug*



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
This is the exact reason there is no manned space program at the moment... it's because it simply offers nothing to the national interest.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""



No, it's just difficult beyond earth orbit, but we'll get there.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
we can crap on about how "it will happen at some point in the future" but until there is a change in the political landscape or there is a direct commercial reason to go... we aint going to the moon or mars any time soon...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>


We will do both within the next 30 years or so, irrespective...If it's not NASA, it maybe the Chinese.
If not, at some point in the future.
[The future is important and is all we have]

[Talicoabilk]

why, i think that people would want a human to actually look and be more sure than having a robot do it.

I'm not sure I understand why economic efficiency is seen as such a bad thing... not sure i see that as pertaining to what i said.

[brandiweb]

We will do both within the next 30 years or so,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


That maybe a little bit pessimistic, but I'm playing it safe.