Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: michaels
Get your panties out of a wad, I am a shitty typer.
No, you seem to simple be an awful writer in general. And firefox has built in spell check now. You have no excuse. Except not caring about the quality of your writing. But I wouldn't call that an "excuse."
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: michaels
Get your panties out of a wad, I am a shitty typer.
No, you seem to simple be an awful writer in general. And firefox has built in spell check now. You have no excuse. Except not caring about the quality of your writing. But I wouldn't call that an "excuse."
Dude, it's michaels. Does anyone even care any more? :laugh:
Originally posted by: XZeroII
I wonder how much that amounts to in terms of $$$ per picture. I think that would be an interesting statistic. I mean, assuming that they cost $250,000 each, that means that each picture cost $2,500. Not great, but it's still thrilling.
Originally posted by: michaels
I wish Nasa would cut they shit, they know therer is life or signs of life out there somewhere in the Universe.
Originally posted by: XZeroII
I wonder how much that amounts to in terms of $$$ per picture. I think that would be an interesting statistic. I mean, assuming that they cost $250,000 each, that means that each picture cost $2,500. Not great, but it's still thrilling.
Originally posted by: OdiN
Wow..that's a combined average of .0002226 MPH.
That's rather slow.
Originally posted by: Shawn
Originally posted by: OdiN
Wow..that's a combined average of .0002226 MPH.
That's rather slow.
You do realize they stop for extended periods of time to take and analyze samples right?
Originally posted by: five40
What I don't get about these is can't someone at NASA tell us what they estimate is the maximum life span of these things. They keep saying 90 days was the mission and bla bla bla. They have to know how long they can possibly last. I'm figuring that before the mission they calculated that at a minimum the robots should last 90 days, but they should also calculate....OK it'll last 10 years in the best case scenario. It's not like the robot is a human living in the middle of the arctic tundra who's only hope is to find food and water. The robot needs sun and that's about it.
Originally posted by: OdiN
Originally posted by: Shawn
Originally posted by: OdiN
Wow..that's a combined average of .0002226 MPH.
That's rather slow.
You do realize they stop for extended periods of time to take and analyze samples right?
I wasn't aware that time stopped while they did that...and therefore no longer counted in MPH calculations.
Originally posted by: jagec
Originally posted by: OdiN
Originally posted by: Shawn
Originally posted by: OdiN
Wow..that's a combined average of .0002226 MPH.
That's rather slow.
You do realize they stop for extended periods of time to take and analyze samples right?
I wasn't aware that time stopped while they did that...and therefore no longer counted in MPH calculations.
It's called a "moving average"![]()
Originally posted by: silverpig
Originally posted by: five40
What I don't get about these is can't someone at NASA tell us what they estimate is the maximum life span of these things. They keep saying 90 days was the mission and bla bla bla. They have to know how long they can possibly last. I'm figuring that before the mission they calculated that at a minimum the robots should last 90 days, but they should also calculate....OK it'll last 10 years in the best case scenario. It's not like the robot is a human living in the middle of the arctic tundra who's only hope is to find food and water. The robot needs sun and that's about it.
I guess it'd be until the solar panels were killed by cosmic rays or something.
The reason why they said 90 days is because they thought that the solar panels would get covered in dust and be less effective. Then over the martian winter they wouldn't be able to generate enough heat at night to keep them warm and they'd be toast.
However they found that something was seemingly clearing the dust off the panels at night so they were fine![]()
That will be $1, sir.Originally posted by: dsity
Originally posted by: silverpig
Originally posted by: five40
What I don't get about these is can't someone at NASA tell us what they estimate is the maximum life span of these things. They keep saying 90 days was the mission and bla bla bla. They have to know how long they can possibly last. I'm figuring that before the mission they calculated that at a minimum the robots should last 90 days, but they should also calculate....OK it'll last 10 years in the best case scenario. It's not like the robot is a human living in the middle of the arctic tundra who's only hope is to find food and water. The robot needs sun and that's about it.
I guess it'd be until the solar panels were killed by cosmic rays or something.
The reason why they said 90 days is because they thought that the solar panels would get covered in dust and be less effective. Then over the martian winter they wouldn't be able to generate enough heat at night to keep them warm and they'd be toast.
However they found that something was seemingly clearing the dust off the panels at night so they were fine![]()
darn those martians
Originally posted by: silverpig
Originally posted by: five40
What I don't get about these is can't someone at NASA tell us what they estimate is the maximum life span of these things. They keep saying 90 days was the mission and bla bla bla. They have to know how long they can possibly last. I'm figuring that before the mission they calculated that at a minimum the robots should last 90 days, but they should also calculate....OK it'll last 10 years in the best case scenario. It's not like the robot is a human living in the middle of the arctic tundra who's only hope is to find food and water. The robot needs sun and that's about it.
I guess it'd be until the solar panels were killed by cosmic rays or something.
The reason why they said 90 days is because they thought that the solar panels would get covered in dust and be less effective. Then over the martian winter they wouldn't be able to generate enough heat at night to keep them warm and they'd be toast.
However they found that something was seemingly clearing the dust off the panels at night so they were fine![]()