Comments on: Spirit Rover is Switched Off to Save NASA Money (Update)

By: Jim K

Jim K — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:48:50 +0000

It is interesting to note that the Spirit was the rover that captured the image of the “Bigfoot” on Mars…and is now being shut down weeks later.

Hrm…

By: Chuck Lam

Chuck Lam — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 06:54:28 +0000

Hey everyone! Just what do you expect from the bunch of bureaucratic scienticically boarder-line illiterates making these wild decisions? We clearly require a higher level of common sense and intelligence within the government agencies that directly affect the advancement of science. Make certain you get out and vote for change this November. Gawd! Do we need change!

By: David

David — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 01:27:55 +0000

Good one Aqualung . . perhaps we could find a photo of “Noah’s Ark” sitting out on Cydonia, or a bunch of rocks in the shape of a Grail.

By: Aqualung

Aqualung — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:33:21 +0000

If life started on Mars. Isn’t there a possibility that beneath parts of Mars there are vast fields of gas and oil waiting to be found.

There you are. Now there will be no shortage of funds. JD.

By: Chuck Lam

Chuck Lam — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:31:01 +0000

A side thought to those of you who think we are going to set-up a permanent base on the moon, forget it, it aint going to happen. Technically we can do it, bureaucratically, we are really screwed I’d like to remind both the serious thinkers and sci-fi dreamers that our government, specifically NASA, is typically operated very much like FEMA and the Home Land Security bunch Do you remember those infallible agencies and the efficacious jobs they are doing? What is required for the advancement of science is clearly more intelligence, at the top on down, in the critical areas of money and project management that will make a difference. This (MER) nonsense is just the tip of the iceburg.

By: Guy Incognito

Guy Incognito — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 04:03:04 +0000

To put it into for perspective for you, we’re spending about four hundred million a day on the so-called war in Iraq.

By: Eduardo MariÃ±o

Eduardo MariÃ±o — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:26:19 +0000

No se supone que este paÃs es el ejemplo de la democracia en el mundo? que le pregunten a la gente si quieren gastar sus impuestos en armas, guerra, mentiras y asesinatos o en explorar y conocer mejor el universo, en aprender y valorar mas ese hermoso y unico recurso terrestre: la vida… a que no hacen un ejercicio de democracia, al menos alguna vez…

By: Astrofiend

Astrofiend — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:20:03 +0000

marcellus Says:
March 25th, 2008 at 4:55 pm

This is cool stuff. I like the “Let’s fund it ourselves” concept.

Actually, I think that this COULD actually be a goer! I’d be more than happy to drop a few % of my pay into some sort of NASA or ESA ‘fund’ to help with the cost of space missions. I’m absolutely positive, based on the opinions of friends and colleagues, that many others would too. Lots of people derive a great amount of pleasure from the findings and results of space exploration and science missions – in a way it’s akin to a hobby (or an obsession), so I think many would be willing to forgo a little pay for their passion.

Even if it was only a few % of members of all of the astronomy clubs around the world who contributed a few % of their annual pay packet, we’d quickly have a substantial amount of dough to throw behind projects. In reality I think there would be more than that flowing – those are fairly conservative estimates I imagine. Of course, such a system would raise its own issues like to which projects funds are distributed, but these could be worked out. The fundamental idea remains strong in my opinion.

By: GBendt

GBendt — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:59:00 +0000

Usually, space exploration is executed that way:
A spacecraft is designed and built for hundreds of millions of dollars such that it can perform a certain set of tasks. You bring it into space, activate it and hope that it performs fine and will do exactly the sophisticated job it was designed to do. And if it has done so, you build the next spacecraft for hundreds of millions of dollars, based on the results and the findings obtained from its predecessor, to reach out for the next step.

Spirit and Opportunity were intended to last within the martian environment for up to three months. But to the amazement of the public and the space engeneering society and beyond, these craft survived and performed in that environment 16 times longer than designed, and they still are in a very good shape.
As the two rovers performed 16 times longer than was scheduled by their mission designers, the cost of their operation has grown to more than 16 times the cost planned when these rovers were brought to Mars.
If you want to foster the replacement process of a craft, this task is difficult to accomplish if the craft to be replaced simply refuses to fail. If we want to promote the next generation of rovers, one has to accept that measures have to be taken.

Space exploration is a means to support and strengthen the space industry. Of course, it is also about science. But its main objective is building spacecraft, not running spaceraft forever, once they are built. And I think doing things this way makes sense.

Regards,

GÃ¼nther

By: Jim B

Jim B — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:57:58 +0000

It could be worse, they could be shutting both rovers off. I’m sure we could find the money by cancelling some congressman’s “EARMARK”. The Government should be spending our money on something that many of us actually want and indirectly benfeits all of us, rather then wasting the money. Remember all those FEMA trailers from Katrina ? It is time to replace The Government !