I’m from the west, and perceive Russia as a country that likes to invade other countries, but very poorly, such that they’re getting their assess handed to them by said country.
Which parts are inaccurate?
Carbon based. Not overly precocious.
I’m from the west, and perceive Russia as a country that likes to invade other countries, but very poorly, such that they’re getting their assess handed to them by said country.
Which parts are inaccurate?
The relative sizes of adult and juvenile cobra chickens, Justin Bieber for scale.
I have the same safety concerns for billionaire space tourists as I do for billionaire deep sea exploration tourists.
What was the car wearing when it was stolen?
So you’re unimpressed with what’s been going on at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory? Where they’ve induced a fusion reaction for a net energy gain? And repeated with better results?
Were we achieving net energy gain a decade ago? The decade before that?
Is net energy gain the goal? If so, does repeatable demonstration of the phenomena mean that we are closing in on it, or does it mean that we are moving further away from it?
Most highly sought-after technologies ‘take time’, and develop in an iterative fashion called ‘successive approximation’.
Heckling from the sidelines is what is known as ‘being unhelpful’.
This is one of those products that very much lives up to the hype. Even if you already use a safety razor, the upgrade is well worth it.
We would have new life popping up all the time don’t you think?
Depends. You’d have to have the right soup, and the right environmental conditions to make the the relevant reactions probable.
If those conditions exist currently, those proto-life fragments would probably need to be in niches devoid of life, as they wouldn’t be able to compete/survive with DNA based lifeforms around.
Doubt that you read the article. It’s short, but quite interesting.
Sadly, most of the skilled workers needed for this project were pressed into military service, and got blown up in Ukraine.
Choose your words with no regard to tone, I guess.
Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.
You thought (incorrectly) that I was arguing that the helicopter probe by itself was as technologically impressive as the entire mission that delivered it.
That’s why you used the “feel free to explain” verbiage.
Mars does indeed have an atmosphere, which would be a requirement to generate lift with the propeller blades.
My point is that delivering something as delicate as a helicopter drone intact and functional on another planet is rather impressive, as far as space exploration goes.
But feel free to explain why they’re the same.
This is you being rude and condescending, because you think I was claiming that flying the helicopter on Mars was somehow technologically equivalent to an entire launching of a probe.
You telling me to “feel free to explain” is based entirely on you thinking that you’re dunking on me. Since that isn’t my arguement, you aren’t.
You’re not legitimately confused about it either.
I’m not grasping how flying a helicopter on Mars takes the same sort of technology, software and control as landing a probe on Mars. But feel free to explain why they’re the same.
Are you really unable to talk to me without being needlessly rude?
Are you?
Actually it does, since much of the success attained, is a direct result of what was learned from previous launches.
It’s part of an iterative process called “learning from past mistakes”.
If it’s any consolation, I doubt that you’d qualify for any space mission, so you’ll be quite safe from space travel related harm.
The point that you appear to be trying to make, is that it’s really difficult to successfully land probes on the Moon and Mars, and therefore have little faith in human missions to either.
I countered with the fact that NASA was able to fly a land based probe, and something as delicate as a helicopter on Mars, intact. That’s how good the landing was. That’s how good the entire mission has been so far. A rather solid counterpoint to your pessimistic viewpoint.
You seem to be under the impression that I’m touting flying a helicopter probe on Mars as equivalent to launching a probe. That’s a you problem, unrelated to my point.
Flying a helicopter on Mars was in fact, predicated on successfully flying to, and landing a probe successfully on Mars.
What exactly are you not grasping here?
How many Mars probes have we lost though?
Enough to gain the know-how to deploy a helicopter that has had multiple successful flights on another planet.
Without a doubt, that was a long string of words that I didn’t read.