All this shows is that by 2030 we still won't be ready. - Mars (2016) Discussion

[–] grishnakh77 8 years ago

Was thinking this myself and the fact they've spent 7 months on the voyage there and seem to have not done any system checks along the way

reply

[–] Dejay 8 years ago

Yeah a really stupid plot device.

And then the roboticist drives the rover to their landing site apparently in a surprise move. As if not everybody would know exactly what is going on right now. So cheesy.

reply

[–] ssllaasskk 8 years ago

Yeah, that was like something form a kids show.
Really weak childish writing.

<hr/>
Everything good dies here, even the stars.
┌∩┐

reply

[–] fivish-821-433205 8 years ago

Just as we saw in Space 1999 it takes a lot longer than expected to get things like this done. Perhaps 2049 would be more likely for this voyage.

Redundancy, triplication, it normal for aircraft let alone space ships.
To have just one critical component is criminal negligence.

We have had probes launched almost 40 years ago which are still working. So to have component failures after several months in the near future is very very unlikely.

reply

[–] sky-smarty 8 years ago

I agree with most of the comments.

My best gues is that they tried to add a bit drama and character development in this way.

Not realy working for me... Crew is pictured as a bunch of unorganised boyscouts, not as a team of well trained professionals.

It is a bit dissapointing show sofar, after 2 episodes my rating is still stuck at 4 stars for the efford...

reply

[–] MoviemanCin 8 years ago

I agree. I doubt seriously that we'll be able to launch this mission by 2033. 2050, maybe.
But then that's just me.

Schrodinger's cat walks into a bar and doesn't.

reply

[–] darkavenger77 8 years ago

... but we'll continue to sink billions of tax dollars into the program every year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
Funny line of the day:

NASA's budget has being cut yearly since 1966 when represented 4.61% of United States federal budget until today that represents only 0.5% of the budget.

Translation: Adjusted for inflation, actual spending has remained about the same since the early 70's. Other spending has grown so much that now it looks like we're cutting spending there.

This is a great example of something that should be 100% privately funded.

Ignoring politics doesn't mean politics will ignore you.
-Pericles paraphrased in <100 characters

reply

[–] ssllaasskk 8 years ago

Translation:
You don't know how inflation works.

┌∩┐(◕_◕)
Everything good dies here, even the stars.

reply

[–] darkavenger77 8 years ago

Translation:
You don't know how inflation works.

Ah, an Internet genius! What a rare find.  Enjoying that federal government job are you?  You must work for OMB with your skill set- the same people that tell us a smaller increase than expected is a "cut".
Look at the adjusted for 2014 dollars figures that were linked and explain it to the rest of us.

Perhaps you can explain how inflation and the purchasing power of money are unrelated?

This should be easy for a genius:
Solve for the unknown and tell us if overall spending (in 2014 dollars) has gone up or down by a huge amount since 1966-
1) If $43.5B in 2014 dollars is 4.61% of the budget in 1966, what is the total amount of the 1966 budget in 2014 dollars?

2) Then if $17.6B is .5% of the 2014 budget, what is the total amount of the 2014 budget?

Short attention span summary:
1) $943.6B
2) $3.5T, a huge increase in spending.

Ignoring politics doesn't mean politics will ignore you.
-Pericles paraphrased in <100 characters

reply

[–] ssllaasskk 8 years ago

Bet you have lots of holes in your walls.

┌∩┐(◕_◕)
Everything good dies here, even the stars.

reply

[–] darkavenger77 8 years ago

Bet you get added to a lot of ignore lists. 

Ignoring politics doesn't mean politics will ignore you.
-Pericles paraphrased in <100 characters

reply

[–] blueboomerang 8 years ago

So, you are one of those many IMBD posters who uses an entertainment discussion forum about fiction to push his political agenda.

It is clear you are the genius.

reply

[–] darkavenger77 8 years ago

So, you are one of those many IMBD posters who uses an entertainment discussion forum about fiction to push his political agenda.

It is called a discussion forum for a reason. Don't like the content? Either present a valid counterpoint or ignore it.

It's a sad reminder of the decline of the nation when presenting facts about federal space exploration spending is considered pushing a political agenda. There's always I Love Kellie Pickler (2015) or any number of similar shows if you're one of the many IMDB posters to whom my signature applies. 

Ignoring politics doesn't mean politics will ignore you.
-Pericles paraphrased in <100 characters

reply

[–] kensmith77 8 years ago

So because of something stupid in a fictional TV show, you think that shows we won't have the capability to get to Mars by 2030? That has to be about the dumbest thing I have read on this board in a while, and that is saying something. To believe that a future mars lander wouldn't have multiple redundant systems is just stupid. Even the space shuttle had redundant systems.

reply

[–] jeffextreme1121 8 years ago

I like how they almost ran out of cable. They are so prepared. Clearly they are ready for anything. Fire? No problem. Just nearly die to let it out. Massive crater? No problem. Use a string to get down there. Losing the ability to survive? No problem. Find a little water.

reply