×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Shatner and Wheaton Narrate Mars Rover's Landing Sequence

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the to-boldly-narrate-where-no-one-has-narrated-before dept.

Mars 114

SternisheFan tips news that William Shatner and Wil Wheaton have each narrated a NASA video titled "Grand Entrance," which documents the upcoming descent and landing of Mars rover Curiosity onto the Red planet. Curiosity is the nickname for the Mars Science Laboratory, the largest rover ever sent to another world. It is scheduled to land on Mars on August 5 at 10:31PM PDT (August 6 at 05:31 UTC), and the event will be broadcast live on NASA TV. The landing process documented in the video will take about 7 minutes, and it has to go perfectly all on its own — the time delay caused by the 154-million-mile distance to Earth means that signals will take 14 minutes to even reach us. For further details, check out Wil's video or William's. NASA's fact sheet (PDF) has more information as well.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

114 comments

Expected TL:DR Transcript (5, Funny)

Narnie (1349029) | about a year and a half ago | (#40830267)

Wheaton: We're still waiting for the first signal.
Shatner: The... probe... must have... broken... up.

Re:Expected TL:DR Transcript (4, Funny)

Tanktalus (794810) | about a year and a half ago | (#40830535)

I was actually expecting Shatner to start with "Mars... The NEXT ... frontier."

Re:Expected TL:DR Transcript (2)

davidwr (791652) | about a year and a half ago | (#40830583)

Wheaton: We're still waiting for the first signal.
Shatner: The... probe... must have... broken... up.

Earth life-forms that hitched a ride but escaped into the Mars atmosphere at the last minute: But thanks to the MarsLine Negotiator(TM), we got 50% off of our trip!

Re:Expected TL:DR Transcript (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#40830609)

Shatner: I'm talking with native Martian life. I want to get to the raw nerve.

Re:Expected TL:DR Transcript (3, Funny)

EdIII (1114411) | about a year and a half ago | (#40832077)

Shatner: I'm talking with native Martian life. I want to get to the raw nerve.

Yeah, somehow I doubt that. I've seen what Kirk does with the natives....

Oh Dear God No (0)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about a year and a half ago | (#40830319)

I don't want Shatner narrating anything. Couldn't we have Nimoy instead? Heck Nemoy and Spiner or Stewart would rock.

Re:Oh Dear God No (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40830351)

You'll take what you get an like it! Now shup the fuck up!

Re:Oh Dear God No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40832141)

you'll get nothing and like it!

Re:Oh Dear God No (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40830547)

I disagree, Shatner is an excellent narrator. I was quite surprised by his talent for it in "Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie"

Re:Oh Dear God No (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#40830623)

He's actually done a few narrations over the years and I have to agree, he's rather good at them. I have no problem with him narrating.

Re:Oh Dear God No (3, Interesting)

EdIII (1114411) | about a year and a half ago | (#40832099)

I've heard him narrate before, but nobody narrates like Nemoy.

Re:Oh Dear God No (2)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | about a year and a half ago | (#40833417)

So who is this 'Nemoy' everyone is talking about?

Re:Oh Dear God No (-1, Flamebait)

EdIII (1114411) | about a year and a half ago | (#40833681)

Really?

Leonard Nimoy [wikipedia.org]

Re:Oh Dear God No (1)

bigkahunah (1093791) | about a year and a half ago | (#40833933)

Apparently you didn't catch the joke. The parents are misspelling 'Nimoy' as 'Nemoy'.

Re:Oh Dear God No (1)

EdIII (1114411) | about a year and a half ago | (#40835759)

No... I did not. I kept misspelling it even after I linked to the wikipedia page.

Yeah...... I get it now.

Re:Oh Dear God No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40833847)

Captain Nemoy? From 20,000 Leagues Under The Seay?

What do you people read these days?!

acting != narrating (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40830603)

His... acting... style... isn't.... his narrating... style.

You could have said the same about Wheaton. His character in ST was an annoying git, but the actual guy behind the character turned out to be pretty cool, and involved in a lot of interesting projects after ST.

Don't confuse the character with the dude.

Re:acting != narrating (2)

VGPowerlord (621254) | about a year and a half ago | (#40831019)

One of Wil Wheaton's current projects is his Tabletop [geekandsundry.com] board game show that appears bi-weekly on Fridays on the geekandsundry Youtube channel [youtube.com].

Speaking of Geek and Sundry... it's Felicia Day's channel. 3 Felicia Day

Re:acting != narrating (1)

ethanms (319039) | about a year and a half ago | (#40833863)

Speaking of Geek and Sundry... it's Felicia Day's channel. 3 Felicia Day

+1 :)

Re:acting != narrating (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about a year and a half ago | (#40833291)

Shatners Acting style. Isn't... This... Bad... as.. the... Parities.... Portrait... it... But it comes from a more traditional acting style which stemmed for the day of acting in a large room with an echo, or on TV or Radio that had about the same sound your standard laptop has, with some static based on your location. You needed to enunciate each word, so the viewers can get it. That and the TV had a lot less technical editing tricks, so he had to get his words right more often, and with TOS budget getting the words remembered often long and complicated and said without reference of the big ship in front of them.

Re:acting != narrating (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40833995)

". Parities.... Portrait... "

Sigh, why am I wasting my time correcting such simple and obvious spelling mistakes?

Parodies....Portray...

sigh.

Re:Oh Dear God No (4, Funny)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a year and a half ago | (#40832391)

Considering the time lag in sending instructions to the rover, getting Shatner to... issue... the... commands... would probably fix the time delay problem (assuming he could synch up with the rover's communications lag).

Re:Oh Dear God No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40836289)

William Shatner did a GREAT JOB narrating Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie [imdb.com] as himself.

Playing the starship captain James T. Kirk in STAR TREK is just his 'day job' he is most famous for.

To boldly go (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year and a half ago | (#40830347)

I wonder which future NASA project will be narrated by Jeri Ryan

Re:To boldly go (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40830727)

I wonder which future NASA project will be narrated by Jeri Ryan

Pluto - no longer 1 of 9

Re:To boldly go (5, Funny)

VGPowerlord (621254) | about a year and a half ago | (#40831067)

I wonder which future NASA project will be narrated by Jeri Ryan

Back when Voyager was created, Uranus was the 7th of the 9 planets in the Solar System.

Therefore, she'll narrate when NASA goes to probe Uranus.

Transcript: (1)

sconeu (64226) | about a year and a half ago | (#40830399)

MSL Directory: You wouldn't crash a multimillion dollar rover just to win a bowling game!

Wil Wheaton: Keep on thinking that!

Hey Mister Tambourine Man! (1)

stevegee58 (1179505) | about a year and a half ago | (#40830427)

The Shatner version of that song is indelibly etched in my neurons for all eternity.

Mars Lander Party! (2)

cplusplus (782679) | about a year and a half ago | (#40830429)

Is anyone else having a Mars lander party? It's like a geek sporting event, a virtual Super Bowl of space exploration. I'm having a bunch of friends over for a BBQ, beer, and then the main event - Curiosity vs. Mars - who will win?! Anyone betting on Mars is officially uninvited :-)

Re:Mars Lander Party! (1)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#40830541)

Is anyone else having a Mars lander party? It's like a geek sporting event

More like gladiatorial combat, at least if Mars wins this battle in the lithobraking round. Those who are about to re-enter salute you, Caesar!

As for BYOB are the guests supposed to bring liter or quart booze bottles? Don't want to mix up imperial and metric again.

Re:Mars Lander Party! (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year and a half ago | (#40831365)

It's like a geek sporting event, a virtual Super Bowl of space exploration.

Indeed. It's a battle of Wils.

Re:Mars Lander Party! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40833797)

The Planetary Society is having a landing party ("Planetfest"); check out their web site. You can join at your local planetarium or they might offer web access to their "Planetfest".

FrisT stopJ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40830499)

dying. AAl major Fact: *BSD IS A every chance I got

Amazing (4, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about a year and a half ago | (#40830517)

Leaving the discussion about Shatner's narrating abilities to the side for a moment, I am shocked at how little excitement this rover is generating.

From my nerd perspective, I think about how freaking hard it is to launch something into orbit, get the payload into the right trajectory, travel nearly 600 million kilometers and then land on a relatively small and fast moving rock. The landing must be controlled, but cannot be done remotely becuase light itself takes several minutes to get from Earth to Mars. That in and of itself is freaking amazing.

The rover itself is about the size of a compact car and filled with electronics that have been optimized to run off of solar power. This solar power is mich weaker than on earth in terms of Watts/m^2. Also amazing. I understand it also has a small nuke reactor so it won't freeze in the winter, but I'm not sure if it supplements the electrical capactity for the toolsor not. Also amazing.

Other countries are partnering up to provide instruments that measure atmospheric pressure, temperature and other attributes of Mars. Also pretty darn cool.

Yet I hear very little about it on the news and surprisingly little in even tech websites like this one. I don't get it.

An onboard laser will vaporize rocks (okay, really small rocks) looking at chemical composition including organic compounds. We are looking at answering questions that have been around for centuries. Very exciting stuff.

Re:Amazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40830607)

...Sorry, what was that you were sayi-OOOOH shiny....

Re:Amazing (2)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#40830711)

Yet I hear very little about it on the news

"The news" is no longer relevant culturally anymore. Even among the luddites. What is a great news show rating, like 1% of the population?

surprisingly little in even tech websites like this one. I don't get it.

Too many recent lithobraking outcomes. Combined with the usual data silence period for a year (or so) all we'll know is pretty much binary, did it land or crash. Boring. It would like like if superbowel football coverage was minimized to one binary bit of which team won.

Now on the other hand if I had a live telemetry data feed to watch and we could all gather around the /. campfire (virtually, or real, if the /, effect smoked the servers) and debate NMR spectra and gas chromatagraph peaks live with each other... and the odds were better than 50% that it would not crater...

I think the greatest PR thing NASA could do would be to say "F all this data blackout shite, taxpayers get a live "CBS big brother" feed of whatever we download, as it arrives". Of course that would result in their webservers melting, and a lot of idiotic comments, but it would also result in explosive interest levels.

Re:Amazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40831883)

Speaking of superbowels, that's quite a bolus of juvenile shyte you just crapped on the web there, yeah?

Re:Amazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40833947)

There is a live telemety during the landing (during the Odyssey passes); I don't know where you get all this blackout stuff.

The real reason of the poor coverage is that the press is scientifically illiterate, Brown University Semiotics grads and the like. And when they do try to cover it, they mess up the details. 150 years ago Thoreau said he did not read the paper because it was mostly gossip; it is worse today. More people know about Snooki than MSL.

As far as lithobreaking, the press will only pay attention if MSL crashes; they have a hidden agenda to portray NASA as a waste of money. A successful and scientifically bountiful mission is not what they want.

Re:Amazing (1)

LVSlushdat (854194) | about a year and a half ago | (#40835589)

I think the greatest PR thing NASA could do would be to say "F all this data blackout shite, taxpayers get a live "CBS big brother" feed of whatever we download, as it arrives". Of course that would result in their webservers melting, and a lot of idiotic comments, but it would also result in explosive interest levels.

It appears that is EXACTLY what the MarsOne organization has in mind http://mars-one.com/en/ [mars-one.com].. They plan on getting major funding thru making the astronaut selection (supposedly to begin in a few years) and everything else in the initial planning and execution stages between now and 2023, as essentially a reality-tv series.. From reading their website, they seem to have their act together.. Admittedly, they are going for a VERY far-fetched goal, but geez.. if you wait for NASA or even other governments to do a Mars misson, you'll be waiting forever... I for one, wish them the best, and will consider donating when I have the finances to be able to...

Re:Amazing (4, Informative)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about a year and a half ago | (#40830885)

No solar power on this rover. It uses a radioisotope thermoelectric generator.

Re:Amazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40835635)

No solar power on this rover. It uses a radioisotope thermoelectric generator.

A Thermo-Nuclear Detonator??! Oh-No!.... Oh, never mind.

Re:Amazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40831415)

The design doesn't look that fault tolerant and really relies on active control. I would wait until it lands before calling it a success. That is just my point of view. The fact it got there in 8 months is amazing though. I wonder if it was using one of those ion rockets.

Re:Amazing (3, Insightful)

Yaztromo (655250) | about a year and a half ago | (#40831691)

Yet I hear very little about it on the news and surprisingly little in even tech websites like this one. I don't get it.

Well, we have had two articles on it this week on /. that I recall, so it isn't as if there is no discussion or awareness that it's on its way.

I think the general lack of excitement is due to a number of factors, including what I perceive to be a general distrust of science by a significant part of the American population. However, the two biggest issues I see are the following:

  1. "Almost there" is virtually a non-story. Other than the sorts of information presented in the videos linked to this article, there really isn't much to talk about when it comes to this story at this time. The rover is still on its way, and how it intends to land probably isn't exactly general interest. Your average human probably doesn't care about the mechanics of the rovers landing. To use an analogy with the event currently dominating much of the news, "will land next week" is about as interesting as "Canadian Olympic Team plane to land in London tomorrow".
  2. NASA's landing record on Mars. Don't get me wrong -- NASA has done some amazing stuff on Mars, and IMO should be applauded long and heartily for their achievements ont he red planet over the last several decades. The performance of Spirit and Opportunity in particular has been way beyond expectations. They're doing some of the most awesome engineering and science out there. However, Mars is notoriously difficult to land on (for all the reasons mentioned in the videos), and there is still the chance that Curiosity is just going to slam into the surface at high speed, never to be heard from again. It's somewhat hard to get emotionally invested into something that could be shattered into millions of tiny bits in the blink of an eye.

I think you'll see much more interest when Curiosity a) lands safely and b) sends its first pictures/videos back to Earth. That's something people can sink their teeth into. For my part, I know I'll be keeping a keen eye on the news next weekend around landing time to hear if the rover was successful in its manoeuvres.

Yaz

Re:Amazing (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year and a half ago | (#40832985)

I think the general lack of excitement is due to a number of factors, including what I perceive to be a general distrust of science by a significant part of the American population.

It has little, if anything, to do with a "general distrust of science".

More like a "lack of interest" in something that fits well within the "been there, done that" part of reality.

Mars won't be "exciting" again till we discover life (and then only for a few days), or send people there (and then only now and then - how long can you be excited by "astronaut Jim took a dump today"?).

And if we do Mars the way they did the moon (send a dozen people there, then give up on it), then it won't mean much even to those of us who would like to see men on Mars.

Note, by the way, that doing the same thing again and again doesn't get people to pay attention - doing it for the first time does....

Re:Amazing (1)

johnny cashed (590023) | about a year and a half ago | (#40832139)

I'm excited about it, but I'm also not getting my hopes up. In the original "Seven minutes of Terror" they tell you the success rate of Mars missions. I'll be getting more excited once the thing lands and is functional. Otherwise I'm just keeping my fingers crossed that everyone did the job right and the mission will land successfully. Otherwise it is a lot of counting chickens before they hatch.

If the things lands like the Genesis spacecraft, it will be very anti-climactic. (That isn't a cheap shot, I'm just saying that it isn't a sure thing).

Re:Amazing (1)

cmiller173 (641510) | about a year and a half ago | (#40834545)

If it lands safely and becomes functional as planned, THEN I'll get excited. Until then it is Schrodinger's probe ... both dead and alive until it is observed. Kind of hard to get excited at this point.

To simulate the listening experience (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40830521)

The headline needs about 8 periods.

Opposite ends of the spectrum... (1)

wermske (1781984) | about a year and a half ago | (#40830719)

My first impression when I read the subject line was, "Wow, what an odd couple selection." Who would have thunked that in the aftermath, my childhood hero (Shatner) would have such a devistating fall from grace; while, at the same time, as an adult...my contempt for the young brat (Wheaton) would turn into admiration (if not respect). What they have done with their fame/notoriety... what they model in real life, as role constructs for the impressionable, could not be more diametrically opposed.

Wheaton... models, Be honest. Be kind. Be honorable. Work hard..." [typepad.com]

While Shatner, well... I don't have much to say that stays within the framework of, "Be kind."

Real News (4, Insightful)

DaKong (150846) | about a year and a half ago | (#40830723)

I can't spare a moment to watch the advertising debacle that is the Olympics; I won't waste a second of my time to endorse or support the corruption of the IOC by watching; I can't be bothered to weather 25 minutes of backstory, 30 minutes of commercials, to see 5 minutes of competition quick-cut between 15 different events, none of which NBC will ever let me witness the beginning or conclusion of; and furthermore as much as I can appreciate supreme human effort in pursuit of a goal, these athletes are the very class of people we geeks were neglected and abused for in school, while we tried to solve the problems that plagued civilization and tried to improve mankind's lot, so I don't have a whole heck of a lot of sympathy. Sorry.

But for all that, the Olympics are about *games*. That is, they don't matter. They produce no outcomes that advance the human species, beyond tertiary considerations.

The Mars landing, now, that represents a new frontier. Everything we do within our solar system or the universe to understand our place within it matters. Our grandchildren will wonder that we found the time to explore other worlds while most of the world's governments' attention was absorbed with worthless things like the Olympics. They'll shake their heads at the unfathomable naivete of beggaring the future to satisfy the momentary, ephemeral impulses of manufactured demand.

It's like pooh-poohing Columbus's discovery in favor of the local bull-fighting results.

I, for one, will be awaiting this landing with the ardor that others watch football. Football doesn't matter. This does (tm). Hope all you other /.-ers are there with me.

Re:Real News (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40831515)

"these athletes are the very class of people we geeks were neglected and abused for in school"

Here is where you lost me. If you are saying you got beat up in school by an athlete and are now lumping in all athletes into the same category, you are guilty of stereotyping. I agree we have far too great an emphasis on professional athletics, but your statement is off base.

Re:Real News (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40833077)

The point remains that sports in school are promoted to the detriment of all other aspects of the school. Its supposed to be a distraction, not a focus.

Re:Real News (2)

Antipater (2053064) | about a year and a half ago | (#40831831)

If you were as much of a self-righteous ass in high school as you are now, I would've shoved you into a locker too.

Re:Real News (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40832579)

Your grandchildren will not be shaking their heads because they'll be waist deep in the same kind of thing we're knee deep in today. Somehow, somewhere we've made up this idea that there is going to be a glorious enlightened society that is going to manifest itself out of thin air. Probably from watching too much Trek. But it's not going to happen. People are too absorbed in the celebrity life too bother with other things. If anything, this slippery slope will slide for a long time in coming until the unemployment rate is replaced with the starvation rate. At that point they may give a hoot but much will be lost in between these times and rebuilding will take a few generations.

Re:Real News (1)

Trogre (513942) | about a year and a half ago | (#40836801)

You, sir, have beautifully tied "News for nerds" with "Stuff that matters". Well done.

Oblig. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40830893)

Shut up, Wesley.

I really fear this landing is not going to succeed (1)

capedgirardeau (531367) | about a year and a half ago | (#40830911)

Considering how complicated this landing is going to be, all the different parts that come into play, and the inability to really test the full blown procedure, I just don't think this is going to be a successful landing.

I understand literally some of the best minds in the world are working on this project, but that still doesn't negate the inherent difficultly of having such a complicated system work perfectly.

I really want this to succeed, but I just don't see the landing working out. The bad part is, this is a 2.5 billion dollar bet and if it fails I think it will be a serious set back to the funding that is so desperately needed for space research.

Re:I really fear this landing is not going to succ (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about a year and a half ago | (#40831589)

Why do you think this will fail? Just because they have tested ALL of it, but not the full thing? Well, I hate to tell you this, but that is how ALL missions occur.

Re:I really fear this landing is not going to succ (1)

capedgirardeau (531367) | about a year and a half ago | (#40833023)

I think it will fail because it is probably the most complicated robotic landing sequence ever attempted in the history of robotic space missions.

I also see no evidence they tested other than via simulation the heat shield blowing off, the parachute separation, the rocket hovering and the lowering of the rover from the hovering rocket platform.

I don't blame them for not testing it, I understand it is next to impossible to test those things, but that doesn't change the fact they are untested.

Hopefully I'll have egg on my face come Aug 6th, I am rooting harder than ever for NASA to pull this off, I am just really pessimistic about it succeeding.

Re:I really fear this landing is not going to succ (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | about a year and a half ago | (#40833251)

That may well be. But one difference between those missions and this mission is the number of steps involved.

Consider the current Mars rovers. What had to work? Heat shield and parachute and inflators. Consider the Mars Polar Lander. What had to work? Heat shield and landing rockets. Consider this mission. What has to work? Heat shield and parachute and hovering rockets and crane. There's a lot more that can go wrong.

That's not to say it will go wrong. It's easier to predict gloom and doom because if it happens, you're right and if it doesn't happen, nobody will care.

Please John de Lancie and Leonard Nimoy next. (1)

BadgerRush (2648589) | about a year and a half ago | (#40830925)

I like the idea of actors well known for scifi characters to narrate those videos. I'd love if they did one with John de Lancie and Leonard Nimoy. Their "Spock VS Q" performance was amazing.

How about Dr Carol Marcus from the Wrath of Khan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40831149)

Here is a much more detailed video the rover. What makes it a hoot is that the narrator (Carol Meier) sounds similar to Dr Carol Marcus: "The Genesis project will take a barren moon..." Nice touch by JPL:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUQ91fdYbP4

A better landing time, please (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | about a year and a half ago | (#40831177)

Their landing time is 1:31 AM, Monday morning, here on the Eastern side of the U.S. It would have been nice, NASA, since you're also on this side of the country, to have done a better job of planning when the rover was going to land.

Don't you guys ever think of this? I mean, you're NASA for crying out loud, you put a man on the moon, you're geniuses! You're the guys that're thinking shit up! I'm sure you got a team of men sitting around somewhere right now just thinking shit up and somebody backing them up!

Yet you couldn't have your landing at a more convenient time. Gees, typical government work. Always make it more difficult than it has to be.







j/k Good luck! Hopefully you can avoid the Martian Planetary Defense systems.

Re:A better landing time, please (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40832411)

Their landing time is 1:31 AM, Monday morning, here on the Eastern side of the U.S. It would have been nice, NASA, since you're also on this side of the country, to have done a better job of planning when the rover was going to land..

Yeah you are right... The Director of NASA should have contacted the local Deity and had the orbit of Mars/Earth adjusted to suit your viewing pleasure !

Love watching these things (1)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about a year and a half ago | (#40831377)

Not because of the making of history, but to watch the change of facial expressions when they finally realize they neglected to convert Imperial units to Metric.

Humans are strange creatures (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year and a half ago | (#40831537)

Funny how a pretend space program has a much bigger and loyal audience than a real space program. Just goes to prove that people are more willing to believe garbage and lies than the truth.

Re:Humans are strange creatures (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40832075)

People don't have the attention span it takes for pretty much anything in real life. Why do you think so many trailor trash and ghetto rats would rather play The Sims than lead their own productive life?

Re:Humans are strange creatures (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40832091)

You are insane.

Re:Humans are strange creatures (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year and a half ago | (#40834451)

That's quite possible, however you are going to have to qualify that if you expect me to believe you.

Re:Humans are strange creatures (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year and a half ago | (#40833125)

Funny how a pretend space program has a much bigger and loyal audience than a real space program. Just goes to prove that people are more willing to believe garbage and lies than the truth.

Hint: the "pretend space program" is...wait for it...interesting.

The real one is, alas, mostly boring. Wow, VW-sized robot goes to Mars. Yah, that'll get people excited!

Or not.

Put some men there, people might get excited. Or even send men back to the moon. But you don't get breathless anticipation and excitement out of "this again!?"....

Something (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40832821)

There's... something on that planet. Some ... thing!

BBC Horizon documentary is much more interesting (1)

hackertourist (2202674) | about a year and a half ago | (#40833007)

This week the BBC had a one-hour special on Curiosity. Despite entirely too much focus on "ZOMG the landing sequence is soo complicated" (*) it's worth watching (**) as it gives an overview of the whole project.

*: Deplorably, even Horizon has fallen prey to the same decline we've seen on the Discover and NatGeo channels, where documentaries are poisoned with faux suspense at the expense of information. In this case, Horizon forgets to mention WHY the landing sequence is so complicated.

**: finding the torrent is left as an exercise for the reader.

While nice (1)

gagol (583737) | about a year and a half ago | (#40833237)

I would have prefered the comments to be made by actual astronauts/boffins instead of star trek actors...

LEM! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40833777)

The landing looks like that old 8bit (or 4 bit?) LEM game!

Re:LEM! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40835911)

The landing looks like that old 8bit (or 4 bit?) LEM game!

You're thinking of the game "Lunar Lander".

Is Wheaton a decent narrator? (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year and a half ago | (#40834139)

I've heard Shatner's work and I think he's really good. I'm a little skeptical about Wheaton as I've seen some terrible celeb narrators like Christian Slater, Sigourney Weaver, and John Goodman.

Searching for life on Mars is a mistake (1)

PingXao (153057) | about a year and a half ago | (#40834641)

Evidence of life on Mars is the kind of thing you find by accident. Serendipity. It's the kind of thing you find when you least expect it.

These missions should be about finding gold, or oil. Yeah, yeah.... I know, I'm not stupid. But most people are and support for these programs among the taxpayer citizens would increase dramatically.

Then maybe we'd really have a chance of finding something cool up there.

Sky crane? (1)

multi io (640409) | about a year and a half ago | (#40835291)

Oh man. So the descent stage, hovering on its own exhaust plume, is supposed to lower the rover down on a bunch of wires? Who came up with that idea? Kudos to NASA if this all works, but are these decisions really guided by the desire to (statistically) maximize the (Mars) science output, rather than a bunch of engineering/robotics geeks testing out their newest toys?

Re:Sky crane? (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#40835867)

Yeah, that does look like a little risky to me too, but not being a rocket scientist (heh), what do I know? I thought the inflated airbags landing was kid of risky too, and that worked well. I have to figure the 'wired' landing is NASA's best workable soft landing. Maybe it's just that it reminds me of a scene out of "The Terminator" that bothers me.

Science Channel show (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#40836029)

The "Science" channel will be airing an in-depth program on this landing on Monday, August 6, at 10pm Eastern time.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...