Mars Hoax - Curiosity Rover Billion Dollar Movie

Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 9:50 am

PostSat Oct 12, 2013 10:00 pm » by DinorwicDan


DarkHeart wrote:
DinorwicDan wrote:
DarkHeart wrote:How about the rover thing is cover for the money they need for the other Mars mission viz the golden domes / bio spheres, our science / tech is way beyond remote control toys.


Upload to Disclose.tv



I am not sure I understand your question. Better sentence structure would be appreciated. It makes debates and conversations easier.


My mistake was not one of grammar, but of presuming that people on a forum like this would have a basic grounding in the topics disscussed and "conspiracy facts".

I take it you don't know that we have a space fleet called Solar Warden using ET tech and bases on other planets ?



There is alot I do not know. I understand and appreciate the language barrier things, I had not thought of that. The reply to you was not of an intelligence matter, more of an "I don't understand your question". The scientific method states that I can describe something, and you, a total stranger, can read it, understand it clearly, and reproduce it with the same results. That means, if you are going to quote or use information in partials you would need to cite your sources or explain. For example: When using a term in a paper or report, you must either define it and then use the short form or define the short form in a cite. Say you are writing this..."The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation(CMBR) is visible throughout the entire universe. The CMBR is at a consistent temperature of 2.725 Kelvin (K)" You would not write "The CMBR is visible...." People have no idea what you are talking about. Once defined, the shortform can be used throughout the document, but it must be defined.

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 1851
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:59 pm
Location: Under a Chemtrailed Sky

PostSat Oct 12, 2013 10:13 pm » by DarkHeart


DinorwicDan wrote:There is alot I do not know. I understand and appreciate the language barrier things, I had not thought of that. The reply to you was not of an intelligence matter, more of an "I don't understand your question". The scientific method states that I can describe something, and you, a total stranger, can read it, understand it clearly, and reproduce it with the same results. That means, if you are going to quote or use information in partials you would need to cite your sources or explain. For example: When using a term in a paper or report, you must either define it and then use the short form or define the short form in a cite. Say you are writing this..."The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation(CMBR) is visible throughout the entire universe. The CMBR is at a consistent temperature of 2.725 Kelvin (K)" You would not write "The CMBR is visible...." People have no idea what you are talking about. Once defined, the shortform can be used throughout the document, but it must be defined.


Are you Data off star trek ? :lol:
Canubis wrote:i wont be apart of this..my wagon sails into the sun rise! but im sunset passed out for days..while jesus sleeps in your pocket...

Writer
User avatar
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 8:11 am

PostSat Oct 12, 2013 10:36 pm » by Afireinside666


DarkHeart wrote:
DinorwicDan wrote:There is alot I do not know. I understand and appreciate the language barrier things, I had not thought of that. The reply to you was not of an intelligence matter, more of an "I don't understand your question". The scientific method states that I can describe something, and you, a total stranger, can read it, understand it clearly, and reproduce it with the same results. That means, if you are going to quote or use information in partials you would need to cite your sources or explain. For example: When using a term in a paper or report, you must either define it and then use the short form or define the short form in a cite. Say you are writing this..."The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation(CMBR) is visible throughout the entire universe. The CMBR is at a consistent temperature of 2.725 Kelvin (K)" You would not write "The CMBR is visible...." People have no idea what you are talking about. Once defined, the shortform can be used throughout the document, but it must be defined.


Are you Data off star trek ? :lol:


Lewl!

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 368
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:34 am
Location: Fredericton, New Brunswick -Atlantic Canada

PostSun Oct 13, 2013 2:03 am » by DmoniX_The_Destroyer


The only thing I could think of saying when I saw the title, was, 'Fuck off'.... Not in astounded "Fuck off" sense, but the go and take a flying fuckin leap sense...maybe this will be deleted, but it's my opinion and i'm sticking to it...
Oh I know I'm goin to Hell, I'm just working on how deep.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 3598
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:43 pm
Location: Avin a barbecue on Mercury

PostSun Oct 13, 2013 3:16 am » by Phoenix rising


Fatdogmendoza wrote:There seems to be an unusually high influx of big mouthed insulting noobs on different threads...coincidence?.. I think not..


My thinking exactly, you can spot the pattern a mile off :flop:
We live a one directional life in an omnidirectional existence
Image

Initiate
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 1:35 am

PostSun Oct 13, 2013 3:25 am » by SolStone


DinorwicDan wrote: YOU ARE AN IDIOT!


Hey Dan, go up into your User Control Panel and change your name to Dan Bartz. No point hiding behind a phony name when you were brilliant enough to place your real name on the world wide web now is there?

Not that there could be any legal consequences to the words you speak, now that you have decided to participate in a forum which is prosecutable in a court of law anyways. Right?

DinorwicDan wrote: I get a cick out of the retards that hide behind phony pictures and names to come up with uneducated, nonsensical unproven bullshit.


I get a cick out of it too! Let's share a laugh Dan!


Upload to Disclose.tv



DinorwicDan wrote:Sincerely Dan Bartz


Sincerely,
Uneducated, Nonsensical, Retard

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 7:47 pm

PostSun Oct 13, 2013 3:27 am » by pushtone


not sure if this was more or less convincing than the Apollo 11 press conference, nochalant versus freaked. :think:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro

Thanks.
- - -

"If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present.

Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 3598
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:43 pm
Location: Avin a barbecue on Mercury

PostSun Oct 13, 2013 3:32 am » by Phoenix rising


With all due respect DinorwicDan would you like to explain why a tried and tested method of landing a probe on another planet would go down the most complicated and untried route of landing a probe/rover, i'm not saying the rover did not land but i'm quiet curious to know why this particular landing method was used and why the tried and tested method was not, i mean its no time to experiment with new landing methods when billions of dollars are at stake, i can't help think that the presentation looks over hyped too, i'm very much on the fence on this
We live a one directional life in an omnidirectional existence
Image

Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 9:50 am

PostSun Oct 13, 2013 9:41 am » by DinorwicDan


SolStone wrote:
DinorwicDan wrote: YOU ARE AN IDIOT!


Hey Dan, go up into your User Control Panel and change your name to Dan Bartz. No point hiding behind a phony name when you were brilliant enough to place your real name on the world wide web now is there?

Not that there could be any legal consequences to the words you speak, now that you have decided to participate in a forum which is prosecutable in a court of law anyways. Right?

DinorwicDan wrote: I get a cick out of the retards that hide behind phony pictures and names to come up with uneducated, nonsensical unproven bullshit.


I get a cick out of it too! Let's share a laugh Dan!


Upload to Disclose.tv



DinorwicDan wrote:Sincerely Dan Bartz


Sincerely,
Uneducated, Nonsensical, Retard


I am not hiding, if I was I wouldn't have typed my name. Are you that fucking stupid? I see another person trying to be smart, but still using improper sentence structure. "decided to participate in a forum which is prosecutable in a court of law" WHAT?? deciding to participate in a forum is prosecutable? participating in a forum is prosecutable? the forum is prosecutable? WHAT??? I had no clue people where so fucking stupid.

Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 9:50 am

PostSun Oct 13, 2013 10:04 am » by DinorwicDan


Phoenix rising wrote:With all due respect DinorwicDan would you like to explain why a tried and tested method of landing a probe on another planet would go down the most complicated and untried route of landing a probe/rover, i'm not saying the rover did not land but i'm quiet curious to know why this particular landing method was used and why the tried and tested method was not, i mean its no time to experiment with new landing methods when billions of dollars are at stake, i can't help think that the presentation looks over hyped too, i'm very much on the fence on this


Good question. I am not sure which lading technique you are referring to, I remember the one with the parachute and the balloons. Also one with jets. I did not watch the video all the way through to see what they did for this particular scenario. There are many reasons why different methods would be employed. They can range from sensitivity of particular scientific instrumentation on the rover, be it shockability, temperature, wind speeds, collisions with debris in the atmosphere etc. Payload of cargo for delivery is a major factor, considering things such as cost of fuel, size of vessel, ease/difficulty of steering and control, room on the rocket/shuttle available etc. Also, the purpose of RND (research and development) is to continually look for new, improved methods. This could mean changing material of balloons, replacing balloons with jets, or the other way around. Reducing weight. Reducing volume. Reducing overall cost (perhaps jets are a better mode, but balloon method not needing fuel which may or may not ignite/explode could be way cheaper, easier to deploy, and safer). Methods may or may not interfere with communication devices and signals (without the ability to communicate with the rover, the mission is useless). There is nothing designed on a probe, rocket, rover or any other project that is not thoroughly researched and tested before it is sent. That's what makes it so expensive. The calculations and physics behind such projects would make your head spin. Literally every scenario is different, and many engineers design many different components. I hope that helps to shed some light on your question.
Dan


PreviousNext

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook