Mars Science Lab Curiosity Worth the Cost?

View Comments

• >It is hard to put a price tag on the knowledge and understanding we gain from the missions NASA executes

  one way to determine the value of NASA science is by the number of citations NASA science papers generate--which is low, and indicates this way of doing science is not cost-effective.

• Four Factual Errors about the Space Program by Darin_Selby@hotmail.com

  First Factual Error
  was in the disregard for all of life and the environment, by launching 10 POUNDS OF PLUTONIUM and risking an accident in the process.
  .
  So not only did NASA risk life and limb with launching 10 lbs. of Plutonium, what came out of the TAIL PIPE of the ATLAS ROCKET BOOSTER that lifted this spacecraft into outer space? Learn more about that environmental disaster here: http://darinselby.1hwy.com/MonsterMarsRocket.html

  Second Factual Error is what was finally chosen to be the way to land on Mars.

  I am simply amazed at the overly-complex, Rube Goldberg way that NASA has decided to land their rover named, 'Curiosity' on Mars.

  Watch this video, and at about the 2 minute mark, when the rockets get fired, everything gets WAY more complicated than it really needs to be.

  Does a Science lab on Mars to dig for rocks really warrant the $2.5 billion cost of taxpayer's money?

  And if it does, after all the environmental damage to our atmospheric envelope from solid rocket fuel pollution, and the risk of 10 lbs. of Plutonium dispersement from an accident, now Curiosity is almost ready to land on Mars, Aug 5th.

  So I watch this video, "Seven Minutes of Terror" and they're all 'biting their nails' in it because of all the things that could go wrong with the TOTALLY LAME landing sequence (in my opinion, of course), that the NASA technicians came up with.

  What has seemed to be completely forgotten on the drawing board for creating the entry module onto the Martian surface, was the 'Deployable Tensairity Inflatable Wing':

  This wing has already been built and tested by NASA, and totally eliminates the need for the use of the EIGHT rockets (that will all have to work without one glitch) for landing the Mars rover.

  The price tag would have also been a fraction of what was spent on this landing design, which has a HIGH probability of failure. And that is according to the engineers who built it!

  If a Deployable ‘Tensairity’ Inflatable Wing was used, the 200 mph parachute descent would have then be turned into a GLIDING descent, with the minimal use of small rockets to control pitch and yaw of the flying lander.

  These small rockets would also be utilized for short lift-offs, so that Curiosity could then take off and fly to another location. Then it glides once again to a soft landing. The Tensairity wings would deflate, roll back up and stow away, ready for the next short runway take-off.

  Third Factual Error People are continuously fed the B,S. that we need to go into outer space, or to Mars, or back to the moon. This propaganda was all started in the U.S. by a captured Nazi rocket scientist, Wernher Von Braun, who teamed up with Walt Disney back in the '50's.

  Through Disney media movies, they BRAINWASHED a good majority of the Baby Boomer generation into this totally INSANE way to treat the environment, & frivolously waste BILLIONS of dollars on unnecessary outer-space satellite projects.

  And one thing about every single satellite in orbit is that they ALL must eventually return in a decaying orbit, to burn up in the atmosphere, releasing TONS of TOXIC & RADIOACTIVE CHEMICALS in re-entry into our fragile atmospheric envelope.

  Instead this billions of dollars wasted on gathering some MOON and MARS ROCKS, couldn't it be better channeled, by using this voluminous scientific knowledge of information overload that has already been acquired, on the betterment of mankind here on Earth? Learn more about this here:
  http://darinselby.1hwy.com/NASASatelliteReEntryDanger.html

  Fourth Factual Error That we need satellites at 250 - 350 miles altitude, as well as at a 22,500 miles geosynchronous orbit. MILITARY advantages are the main reason. Because, almost EVERYTHING that we're doing with orbital space satellites can be done with Stratospheric Airships, and at a mere 25 miles altitude!

  As far as orbital satellites go, this ridiculous and environmentally unsound BLASTING OFF from the earth is no longer necessary. We can now FLOAT to the edge of space instead, and accomplish just about everything that we were doing at 10 times the altitude. Learn more about this here: http://darinselby.1hwy.com/floattospace.html