a rover with built in laser blaster coming next year

[Eddo36]

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci...0,6263893.flash

 

An atomic-powered craft, being built at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and scheduled for a 2009 launch, aims to settle once and for all whether the planet has ever been suitable for life.

By John Johnson Jr.

Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

March 4, 2008

 

Wider than a Hummer, tall enough to roll over boulders and toting a laser "ray gun" that can zap rocks at 30 feet, NASA's next-generation Mars rover looks like something you would paint a skull and crossbones on and enter in a demolition derby.

 

Compared to Sojourner, the dowdy little robot that tooled around on Mars for three months in 1997, the atomic-powered Mars Science Laboratory rover being built at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Ca

Edited March 6, 2008 by Eddo36

[Gorth]

 

Sorry, couldn't resist

 

I wonder why they think "Bigger is better" when it comes to vehicles? If I were NASA, I would rain a dozen or two of smaller vehicles onto the planets surface for wider coverage. Also, I would be surprised if they manage to keep the cost of the project at or below the budget (1.8$ Billion). That sounds like a bargain in the context of space travel and exploration. There must be a catch somewhere.

[Walsingham]

I agree up to a point, Gorth. Multiple systems would add redundancy. However, multiple systems also means some subsystem duplication, like energy, controls and so on. Weight wise it may be better to have just one.

 

As an aside, you may remember that prior to volunteering for the Army I volunteered for the European space habitation trials (basically being squeezed intoa tube of toothpaste for a year). I really rate space exploration as the single most indeed possibly the only truly worthwhile human endeavour.

[Gorth]

I agree up to a point, Gorth. Multiple systems would add redundancy. However, multiple systems also means some subsystem duplication, like energy, controls and so on. Weight wise it may be better to have just one.

It's a choice of strategy

 

As an aside, you may remember that prior to volunteering for the Army I volunteered for the European space habitation trials (basically being squeezed intoa tube of toothpaste for a year). I really rate space exploration as the single most indeed possibly the only truly worthwhile human endeavour.

The long term future of humanity isn't/shouldn't be limited to Earth. Too many eggs in one basket so to speak (which Is why I prefer the above option that features some redundancy)

[Humodour]

****ing i dontm think thsat laser pistols existan any time soon yeah?

[Walsingham]

****ing i dontm think thsat laser pistols existan any time soon yeah?

 

If I understand your point you are incorrect. There are a wide variety of directed energy weapons available. As has been reported in the popular press.

[Dark_Raven]

Death Star laser? Wave Motion Gun?

[thepixiesrock]

A larger vehicle can probably get over terrain easier.

[Enoch]

As an aside, you may remember that prior to volunteering for the Army I volunteered for the European space habitation trials (basically being squeezed intoa tube of toothpaste for a year). I really rate space exploration as the single most indeed possibly the only truly worthwhile human endeavour.

The long term future of humanity isn't/shouldn't be limited to Earth. Too many eggs in one basket so to speak (which Is why I prefer the above option that features some redundancy)

Space exploration to help us understand the nature of the universe = good.

 

Space exploration as a first step toward human colonization = silly.

 

Really, what would have to happen to Earth in order to make the moon or Mars a better habitat for humans? Even the most disastrous nuclear war/comet impact/robot uprising scenarios would still leave Earth far more habitable to humans than any other hunk of rock that we can currently throw rockets to.

[thepixiesrock]

What about all three of those combined into one Nuclear Robot Comet Apacolypse?

 

That's the name of my next band.

Edited March 6, 2008 by thepixiesrock

[walkerguy]

I bet the U.S. CIA has a secret Jedi Order with all these laser weapons being known publicly. With our governments level of secrecy, they probably invented the first laser during the Civil War. NASA shouldn't go large or have a fleet of rovers, only enough to get the job done. I'm surprised they're not working on large scale space stations which would be easier than finding other habitable planets to colonize. How is the EU space agency doing?

[Walsingham]

As an aside, you may remember that prior to volunteering for the Army I volunteered for the European space habitation trials (basically being squeezed intoa tube of toothpaste for a year). I really rate space exploration as the single most indeed possibly the only truly worthwhile human endeavour.

The long term future of humanity isn't/shouldn't be limited to Earth. Too many eggs in one basket so to speak (which Is why I prefer the above option that features some redundancy)

Space exploration to help us understand the nature of the universe = good.

 

Space exploration as a first step toward human colonization = silly.

 

Really, what would have to happen to Earth in order to make the moon or Mars a better habitat for humans? Even the most disastrous nuclear war/comet impact/robot uprising scenarios would still leave Earth far more habitable to humans than any other hunk of rock that we can currently throw rockets to.

 

Hard point to argue with. But you must accept that duplication of locations improves total survivability?

[Humodour]

****ing i dontm think thsat laser pistols existan any time soon yeah?

 

If I understand your point you are incorrect. There are a wide variety of directed energy weapons available. As has been reported in the popular press.

 

yes i recall france adopted some sort of enerby beam weapon based on climate.

 

but there's always MEDUSA beam.

 

SEE NUMBER ONE

 

1. http://www.p2pnet.net/story/12661

[Walsingham]

The basic 'problem' with energy weapons, as with biological and chemical weapons, is that bang-for-buck you get so much more with explosives/kinetics.

[Humodour]

The basic 'problem' with energy weapons, as with biological and chemical weapons, is that bang-for-buck you get so much more with explosives/kinetics.

 

agreed

 

which i suppose coupled with not hearing about them is why i drunkenly discounted them

[Enoch]

Hard point to argue with. But you must accept that duplication of locations improves total survivability?

Well, sure. But in the event that all human life on Earth is wiped out by some catastrophe, do I really care if there are a couple dozen humans on Mars to carry on the species?

[Walsingham]

Hard point to argue with. But you must accept that duplication of locations improves total survivability?

Well, sure. But in the event that all human life on Earth is wiped out by some catastrophe, do I really care if there are a couple dozen humans on Mars to carry on the species?

 

You may not, mate. But I do. Because we share so much with other humans, in many ways a large part of who you and who I am would live on with them.

[Xard]

Mankind has no future if we don't spread out into starts

 

Thus space colonization = winrar

 

 

edit: Btw, why is the board so ****ed up right now?

Edited March 6, 2008 by Xard

[thepixiesrock]

Mankind has no future if we don't spread out into stars

 

What does that even mean?

[Xard]

our species will die, of course

[Amentep]

Mankind has no future if we don't spread out into stars

 

What does that even mean?

 

Even without some external/man caused catastrophe (giant asteroid, magnetic poles reversing, atomic war, minature black hole being created in a particle accelerator, etc) the solar system will only last so long; if we stay on earth (and assuming we're still there for the event) we'd be vaporized when the sun turns into a red giant (and frankly if we were just in the solar system we might still have some issues).

[thepixiesrock]

And I'm sure if we wait around long enough after that, the surviving human population will eventually come to an end in one way or another, and I can easily say we don't have a future regardless of whether or not we colonize space.

[Walsingham]

There is a (predictably) tedious sci-fi story examining this. But for myself, if the human race survives until the heat death of the Universe then I for one would regard that as a 'good innings'.

[Nick_i_am]

So ultimately, it's just about how long we can prolong the inevitable.

[Walsingham]

A more important angle is that given our unique experience of the Unicverse, when we die the Universe will cease to exist anyway.