It's TOTALLY possible for NASA to transmit a file with FULL HD video of Mars from the red planet to their servers here on Earth

Where does NASA claim it would be easier to get data from Curiosity if it were first routed through ISS?

there it is.

The claim I was referring to is the information NASA has given to us about mars. The claim its the truth and not complete and utter bullshit.

You don't have to read books to get this information, you can google enough "facts" to put Nasas own foot in their mouth.

But I guess we are beyond even that.

Go ahead keep em coming. You won't shut me up by over analyzing each word and trying to misinterpret it in front of others.

That trick I have long defeated my sly friend.

You might see a coca cola bottle cap or something? eg. from their Area 51 site where they are faking the thing?

it makes me laugh at the people that belive NASA use current tech? :P

impossible is nothing

You think that they can't do it? then you need to do a bit more research.

If they can give nearly LIVE footage on the moon (insert sarcasm)back in the 60's

they can't send footage HD or not from mars?


Obviously NASA tards

Go pro's website says it records 114MB/ min in 720p

the new go pro can be adjusted depending on FPS (frames per sec) with an option of 15fps from memory. So that drastically cuts down the compression rate.

My Chinavasion HD camcorder will do a 2 minute file in around 10-15MB, Compression is your friend

whereas my Canon 60D DSLR will do the same size file and it will be around 100MB

and I lie its 30fps not 15. I'm sorry for that fasle info. Just booted it up

That was exactly my point. There are far better antennas on the ground than you can put into space. And the atmosphere is largely transparent to radio waves, so there's no advantage to being in space.

No mas mas. Or no mars no mars. Fruad landing. 250 million miles away. Lie uopn lie. Whoscgot the party favors

you show me a 2 minute video <8 MB and ill show you a video that is NOT HD

I doubt that anyone is actually "over" analyzing your vague comments. Assumptions and guess-work may be your way of obtaining "information" from the all-wise Google Gods but some people actually like information based on rational logic.

You are asserting that there is "something" to be found on the vast Google Plane, and don't bother to even mention what that "something" may be.

Maybe your Google Gods are correct. No way of knowing unless you state exactly what you are talking about.

I've an idea.

Why don't you petition the experts in planetary exploration from Brasil send your own explorer to Mars and show us how it's done?

They can save a lot of money by buying off-the-shelf camcorders and webcams for the mission.

It's be like vacation photographs.

Maybe even catch some Martian Samba Schools practicing.
That's be nice.

Brasilian Space Agency...
snicker.


R.

Cue some shill in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

<cough>Dawe's Limit!</cough>

good point

I suppose I should read more carefully before posting.

The primary purpose of the rover is not to provide us with pretty HD videos, especially on basically static scenes. the best detail will be capable on static images. to transmit a highly compressed video stream will throw away the detail and render a poor quality result.

I always find it amusing when people want to find fault with things that don't really matter. Why don't more people want to know the details of WTC7?

This is useless thread to me,...... Bye.

Again, taking the google thing out of context. My point was even google with its vast amount of false information and lies you can still find enough credible information to disprove NASA.

Jesus who side are you shills on , or is that a rhetorical question?

and how many times are you going to put the word god into my words?

Second level shill here ladies and gentlemen. They called in a higher pay grade.

Get fucked sir .

I'm not stating facts merely promoting the idea that people ACTUALLY THINK FOR A SECOND. This debate could go on forever but I'm not trying say you're right or I'm wrong.

Simply trying to spread awareness.

You could easily disprove this with FACTS if you had any yet you choose to argue semantics and take the focus to Google.

SHILL BE SHILLS

they can give us full hd but wont since the super thermite barrels might show up in details.

Now you're changing claims completely. Previously you claimed it would be easier to get data from Curiosity if they routed it through ISS.

So you are saying that we need to find the information using Google to disprove NASA.

Disprove what exactly? Everything? Something specific? What?

Also, you are assuming that I am a shill. I am not. I am looking for answers from rational people.

I agree wholeheartedly with you that people need to stop and think about things. But simply saying something like, "go look on Google" doesn't actually help very much. Too vague a suggestion when there is so much information out there to research on so many topics. Some of us actually do research a multitude of topics and would appreciate a more specific suggestion versus "search Google".

So, be specific and more people may actually take you seriously.

fwiw (not backing anyone here, just sharing info)...

The same spot on Earth rotates to face Mars once every day.

Doesn't the ISS make 3-6 revolutions around the planet per day?

If so, the extra rotations of ISS should allow for additional data transmission windows, etc.

I think, in theory, even though there's no "wavelength benefit" for using ISS over direct-to-Earth, just simply having more transmit windows would be a benefit.

The DSN already has stations all over the world. ISS would still only have about half of each day with line if sight to mars, spaced out in multiple short segments, and without the huge dishes of the DSN.

It is the antenna on the rover that is data capped not the bandwidth. The first antenna used on the rover talks to the orbiting satellites around Mars. This is a low powered device that is used once landed. All the pictures we have to seen to date (to my knowledge) is from this antenna.

Once they do system checks and everything is working they then activate a stronger antenna on the rover that can "talk" directly to Earth. Even then, this antenna is not nearly as powerful as the orbiting satellites around mars due to power conversion of other utilities on the rover.

If you think you can just throw a Linksys box on the back of the rover to talk to Earth you are sadly misaken ... the signal has to travel 50 million miles to 400 million miles of cosmic interference from Mars to Earth depending on where the planets are in orbit. NASA does not have the luxury of using a high powered antenna with all the other scientific equipment on board.

Now I know you will say "but the orbiters and ISS can do it why not the rover?" All these machines were made for different purposes. The satellites receive more energy from the sun and their reactors then the rover does. Also the satellites are in a natural orbit and require little fuel to keep orbit. Each satellite has a fewer mechanical instruments on them for specific purposes. The rover has to use more energy to move, use lasers, scoop dirt, burn dirt, transmit data amongst many other things all while conserving as much energy as possible to keep it alive.

I know you think this is all a hoax, a conspiracy and we are all sheep. However these people are cutting edge scientist that are doing amazing things. If you really think that there is no man-made objects on Mars then you are really a minor of the majority. I find it absolutely amazing the difficulties, challenges, and obstacles the need to be overcome to accomplish such a feat.

$500?


No comment.



Have you ever wondered why you are so disinformed?

Thank you, kind Sir! Was unaware of the additional relays.



For the record (as recorded above), I never said it was a hoax and I'm not sure where this came from. Perhaps you were using a metaphorical "you" and not a specific (me) "you."

In any case, Curiosity is cool and I'm looking forward to many months of stories, pictures, and data analysis that'll come out of this. :)

Oh what a “Web” we weave, when we practice to deceive.

[link to now.msn.com]

Well, you would know all about deception.

Uh....oops....forgot what I wanted to say. Oh, yeah.....just how long do you think NASA will sit on all these “Mars” images before they are all scrubbed down, or doctored, for past incriminating evidence of coverups from past missions? I know....why don't we just have a press conference with real time questions, and answers? This way, they will not have as much time to prepare their usual “swamp gas smoke screen” fabrications, through written articles, of carefully chosen words. Believe me, there is no longer any shame, regarding false flags, or even the setting up of stage props, designed to deceive the general public. This is, indeed, very unfortunate, since our leaders have exhausted any opportunity to establish any kind of trust with the populous. This means any uttering of words emulating from the mouths of these lackeys, from here on, will be highly scrutinized....until by some miracle, a full disclosure, or apology from all the lies told to us, will allow them to win back some of the trust, and respect, from all the anxious individuals who have been patiently waiting to hear the “whole” truth.

Want to hear the real truth? There is a better chance of winning “Readers Digest Sweepstakes”, than to rely on any chance of EVER hearing the “real” truth from these birds.

Take for example the Mars video below, where instrumentation results showed an area with forests, lakes, ponds, and reservoirs to have a temperature of minus 220 degrees Fahrenheit. Obviously, we should know this could not possibly be true, with what looks to be tropical in nature.

[link to www.youtube.com]

Now, tell me you yourself are not getting fed up with hearing the same old “lies”, originating from NASA/JPL?

Be careful of what you say, though. You obviously do not wish to create an impression of being labeled a "shill", giving the notion your only purpose is to cause communicative disturbance, without having a rational thought.

I'd like to see your calculations on the actual link budget.

But better than that, I like to see you explain to all the other planetary scientists that their work has to be put aside for a sol or two while you indulge your curiosity.

Perhaps you might have wanted the last shuttle mission to do a fly-over of your house, too. Because that would be cool, and having to dump most of the cargo meant for the ISS from the mission profile takes second place to that!