NASA tries a dropship

[Red Devil]

We're NASA and We Know It:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFvNhsWM ... r_embedded

[Psychedelic Rhino]

Nothing to see. . .yet. . .but HERE's the promise and capability of what's to come . . . an incredible 1080P, (or higher) 360 pan of the second day.

One thing I found odd, was all the exposed connectors that are not involved with any kind of articulation, when there's no real need. I don't know enough, but I suppose that could be dead hardware that was involved in the landing.

I have no doubt the risk of a failure is probably miniscule, either way, since they were tested extensively. I do realize there's not going to be any fauna climbing around on it. Just appears unnecessary.

[Nielk1]

Those look like components related to the sky-crane.

[MrTwosheds]

Tsk, obviously that's where the guns will be mounted...

[Psychedelic Rhino]

Complete MSL entry in 1080P

Cool to watch the transitions. . . .my favorite is the chute release and subsequent smooth and stable video at 0:27

[TheJamsh]

Even now the enormity of what was achieved by this still hasn't set in. I've recently been reading up on Cassini too, and the way it was "slingshot" around multiple planets in the Solar System to reach it's goal.

And here I thought only the cast of Red Dwarf played Pool with planets...

[Red Devil]

i couldn't get the sound to work on the video, PR...

[Psychedelic Rhino]

No sound. But you can make shhhhh noises and flap a napkin really fast and get close.

One thing I'm excited about. . .is on that terrain, they should be moving almost 100% of the time between experiments.

[Psychedelic Rhino]

The Alcubierre Drive getting some new attention.

[TerenceHopkins]

All of the US probes sent to Jupiter or further have had to use a small radioactive power source. Voyager 1/2 are the spacecraft sent furthest away from earth. The sun is really small from their perspective:

The sun is not large as seen from Voyager, only about one-fortieth of the diameter as seen from Earth, but is still almost 8 million times brighter than the brightest star in Earth's sky, Sirius.

See also this.

Solar energy falls off proportional to 1/r^3, or one divided by the radius cubed. Voyager 1/2 would probably need at least a football field's total area of solar panels to generate the same power as their radioactive sources, and that solar panel would have to get bigger by the day. Even on Mars, the falloff in solar power (i.e. photons) available per square meter is quite noticeable.

NASA has exemptions for launching small radioactive power sources. The usual nitwits have protested such launches. Nukes meant to go *boom* are far different from radioisotope thermocouples. There'd be more danger from debris falling on your head from a failed launch than from the power generators.

There's also Ion Thrusters which don't involve radioactive substances. Ion thrusters have very low thrust per second (i.e. don't use them for braking in-atmosphere), but they're really efficient in generating thrust-per-pound of fuel.

Only the Project Orion nuclear pulse propulson would use actual *boom* nuclear power to move anything. Basically, make a ginormous steel plate. As in dozens of meters thick. Put your crew/capsule on top. Put a nuke (yes, bomb) underneath.

Release the canned sunshine.

You'll lose a small percentage of your steel plate, and your whole stack of capsule and plate will move upwards. Now the trick is, before gravity starts pulling you back down, send another nuke out the bottom, and fire it off, too. Repeat, until velocity is achieved.

The Project Orion drive has never been tried in action. Really illegal under current international law. Do not try this at home, kids.

-- GSH

NASA is just wasting money in my opinion.. There is not much benefit from these projects and we have not seen any good results till now.