PS, I make those observations too……

Ivan.

Anyway, I’ll not let it (ahem) dampen my enthusiasm.

Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?

So, which part of “outrageously offensive” did you not understand?

What the “Rover” needs is a winch system that is anchored by widely positioned stakes at the top of the slope, and being able to traverse along that cable between them, as it is let out from the vehicle. This would enable the sensors or other sampling tools to cover a larger spread of the slope, not just below the anchor point only, (that is, if only one stake was used), but be able to “crab” sideways at different distances from the top.

Monitoring equipment could be left there, and if the anticipated moisture is seasonal, then collected and analysed and the results transmitted. If it is water, maybe visual monitoring of actual flows down the slope, instead of just the darkening of the soak, would be a bonus.

Anyway, I suggest this for what it is worth.

Ivan.

You don’t climb up a 35 degree slope; you design a rover that can rappel down one. NASA has been toying with the idea of a two segment rover with one segment acting as the anchor with the other being winched down to investigate steep slopes. Hopefully now with a tempting target, they may try to build one.

Your questions was about IQs dropping?

(If English is not your first language, you are merely rude rather than semi-literate.)

Evidence of flowing water on Earth:

http://climatide.wgbh.org/2011/08/50-years-of-change-in-cape-cod-national-seashore/
50 years of change in Cape Cod National Seashore
by Heather Goldstone — 5 August 2011

And… flowing grape juice?

No, from the photo I’m sure it’s black carbon from the grass fire that took place on the level some time before.

I don’t see the relevance to current missions and objectives that Surveyor and Apollo 12 bear. Certainly we are not at a point yet where we can return samples from the surface of Mars.

By “going backwards” I mean sending up probes that are identical to what’s already sent doesn’t really gain anything. Likewise, there are no real “faster, better, cheaper” missions. No one is going to send, for instance, a probe with a single sensor for a single purpose (an extreme example). The cost savings are minimal, and the return for the investment will be minimal. I understand these comments go beyond your response, and their really directed toward other comments made.

In general, it’s patently wrong to blame any single politician for the current state of NASA. The state of NASA is the result of contributions from Congress, lobbyists, and presidents since NASA’s inception. Anyone claiming otherwise is just offering political propaganda. The public is also to blame, since it is us, the electorate that put those people in DC in office. It is also the public that displays very little interest in things related to space travel and has offered so little support for NASA endeavors.

People who are really interested in getting science done are the people who, hopefully, the least likely resort to spewing invective and flaming.

“59. Robin Says:
August 5th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
Unimaginative cretins? Have a look at MSL (Curiosity). I’d wager to say that machine is the result of loads of creativity. ”

And what I said was:

“Too bad we are led by a bunch of unimaginative cretins. Otherwise we might fly one or three high risk faster, better, cheaper missions to this region.
…
Anyway, here’s to the lip service to science and engineering from our gutless unimaginative “Democratic” President and his crony capitalist brethren.”

understand, or is it too tough for you?

Regarding whether we go forward and are scared to back, no one is suggesting going back. I am suggesting using successful designs and successful ideas and getting a lander in the crater in 12 months, not in 10 years.

But I can understand that for a bunch of low iq hobgoblins who find the good the enemy of the perfect that getting a massively overpriced superlander on mars by 2050 to study this might be the more appropriate approach.

The rest of us just was some science done.

With successive missions improving on the science done on previous missions, there’s hardly any point in going backwards to previous generations’ probes.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by “going backwards”. Consider Apollo 12:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_12/experiments/surveyor/

With successive missions improving on the science done on previous missions, there’s hardly any point in going backwards to previous generations’ probes.

An Atlas V rocket lofted the Juno spacecraft toward Jupiter from Space Launch Complex-41. The 4-ton Juno spacecraft will take five years to reach Jupiter on a mission to study its structure and decipher its history. Liftoff occurred at 12:25 p.m. EDT.

JPL manages the Juno mission for principal investigator Scott Bolton. The Juno mission is part of the New Frontiers Program managed at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala. Lockheed Martin Space Systems of Denver built the spacecraft. Launch management for the mission is the responsibility of NASA’s Launch Services Program at the agency’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. JPL is a division of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.

According to: wuh wuh wuh nasa.gov/mission_pages/juno/launch/index.html