I'll let the article say it all.
Organics On Mars: Curiosity Rover Finds Evidence Of Organic Compounds On Red Planet
Printable View
I'll let the article say it all.
Organics On Mars: Curiosity Rover Finds Evidence Of Organic Compounds On Red Planet
The latest findings on the break down of the organic compounds: A senior scientist confirms the lab results - "two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, on a sesame seed bun..."
Where there's even the possibility of life there will be MacDonald's....:p :D
James.
Very cool but sounds like they are opening up a new can of worms. For example, did the rover bring it over or was it other space debris. I would hope they find support for it because all the rovers would be is some nerds expensive science fair project. Well, maybe the tech used will have some more practical purposes too. I mean we are not colonizing any planets in near the future.
It is highly unlikely that organic compounds would travel to mars on the rover.
They kinda take care to avoid possible contamination :)
Coming soon: Walmart and starbucks MARS!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo
Btw, according to other articles including the nasa one, they found complex chemicals, but not organics.
Looks like Monsanto got there first. They'll have to be "organics in conversion".Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
Probably some dude from Bangladesh hid in the wheel wells thinking it was a free ticket to Canada. He fell out on mars and died and the remains were found.
I love the revoke, I can see them now...
"huh... Positive signs for life... That can't be right..."
"yeah, machine must be wrong"
"... Must be"
"betcha it was an error"
"... Gotta be an error"
"post it anyway?"
"post it"
That's it?
I want my $8.00 back
Mars Rover Curiosity Cost Each American $8 - Business Insider
Everyone (on earth of means) should pay a 'science tax' to fund these sorts of things - weather they find Martian metropolises or pretty dirt it's a damn sight more important to human development than most of the things we spend $8 on :)
I think $8.00 spent on a six pack of craft brewed earthly organics is a better investment.
Seriously - spending $2.5 Billion today, to poke around at martian dirt when people here on Earth are starving, and dying in the streets due to lack of sufficient health care? I doubt people living below the poverty line will be dancing in the streets over this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
Food for thought. NASA and space exploration is one of the reasons we have the technology we have on earth. We need a maned mission to mars imagine what that would bring to this economy. The tech that would be developed and the industry created.Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-...11425156_n.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bxxT2u0QWp...1600/r8Df6.jpg
Your right Endofab, that budget is nothing. We can buy 18 seats to the space station for what the president spends going to Hawaii for Christmas. Oh crap I said the C word. I mean winter holiday...don't want to offend anybody.
The defense budget is always a soft spot with everyone. But the bank bailouts where more than the NASA 50 year running budget. And what about govt waste and do politicians really need to get paid that much and failed social programs? From Neil Tyson and I am loosely quoting him, "its not that we don't have the money its that our priorities are all messed up."Quote:
Originally Posted by 10Pups
I recall reading some article in the mid-1980s that the U.S. Army was spending $400 per hammer and $800 per toilet seat. I wonder if this is still the case?
Depends where you are using the head :).Quote:
Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus
With that attitude, why bother doing anything?Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
Not entirely correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus
Those number only got that way due to budget allocation.
Let me explain. Suppose you have a department that is responsible for buying stuff.
As part of an imaginary contract, the department orders 1 apache helicopter and 1 hammer in a single bid. I know, this is a silly example but it allows me to show where those numbers are coming from. The total administrative overhead in paperwork and manhours is 1000$ for the total bid.
How do you allocate that overhead? Do you divide by the number of hours spent on filling in the paperwork for each item? Do you distribute it evenly based on price ratio? Do you divide it simply among the total number of items? You gotta do something because that monetary overhead has to be accounted for in the budget?
In the end, policy determines how the distribution is made. and in some cases you end up with a 400$ hammer simply because that was how the numbers worked out; not because someone actually charged 400$ for a hammer.
And in the case of the toilet bowls, those numbers usually reflect the cost to have that bowl at that particular place. And the total cost would include not only the administrative overhead, but also the cost of installing it and hooking up the plumbing.
So are you saying that my suggestion that we prioritize spending means that somehow we should just do nothing at all? I don't see how that comment makes any sense. Or were you intentionally asserting a fallacy to discredit my previous post?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
I am not Bruno but I think he was trying to point out just what you said.. Prioritized spending. This would mean increasing the NASA budget not cutting it off completely. Science and space exploration are what create discovery in this world you take away discovery and we live in the Stone Age. Not to mention it is better for the economy than defense spending or bank bailouts.Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
NASA currently gets .5 cents from one tax dollar that is for every tax dollar NASA receives one half of a cent. Is that a lot? I honestly thing we could afford 1 full cent but that is just me.
Is that what you got from his statement? I'd call that extrapolating, but good on'yas anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Endofab
So you think poking around on mars might result in a sort of gold rush? The next economic boom? Also, how did you derive that NASA spending is better for the economy than defense spending? Doesn't defense spending create jobs as well?
Then please explain how your $8 would be better spent? Taking I to account all the other govt. spending..Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
All the other gov't spending is really the point, isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Endofab
I don't know is it? Your comment gives the impression that you think an already underfunded program is wasting money.Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
Your argument was that it was a waste because there are hungry people.Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
By that logic we shouldn't do anything as long as there are hungry people, except feeding the hungry.
Scientific progress always pays off in the long run. And given the teeny amount of money allocated to nasa, there is no reason to play the 'hungry people' card over anything nasa does. DOD spending is orders of magnitude bigger.
Instead of complaining about the 8$ for nasa, why don't you complain about the 100s of $ of your money that was spent on the war in Iraq? You are complaining about cents and ignoring the dollars.
True. Is it a good idea to speculate on future ROI when you are in debt? I'd rather use my funds to pay my debts off and set my house in order before investing. It seems to me that governments make lousy stewards of other peoples money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Endofab
Since it wasn't your country that was attacked in 2001, I suppose I can understand your indifference about the war in Iraq. As to spending on NASA over caring for the needy, I think you should address that question to the needy. See if they would agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
We are talking pennies here. You want to pay off the debt but not loose your standing in the world.. There is an asteroid that will come in close orbit to earth sometime in 2037 there is a chance it might collide with earth. Russia has started a program to research this asteroid and also means to deflect it. Russia has in turn invited the U.S. to join them in this research.. We are loosing the world stage of discovery in science. Not a good thing and never will be. The super collider that was to be build in Texas should have been fully funded!! 2.5x more powerful than the large Hadron collider!Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
Instead of being "Merica" lets be "America!"
Think of that for a minute. You have a citizen of another country interested in the development of our NASA program.. No other citizen in other countries will be interested in the development of our military prowess!Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
Do we want to be known for discovering ways to kill people better?
Food for thought. I think there is a lot of FUD in our nation which causes us to feel we need to spend this. Or it is failed immigration policies or what not.
http://www.pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/~/...BEDD83651F.gif
America's ROI, for that matter the Worlds ROI when it comes to NASA is enormous!! Moreover - how do you put ROI price on man going to the moon? Well we do... and I bet were you to go back in time - American's would have been glad to pay ten times as much! That's called consumer surplus! Woot!!Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
But seriously, trickle-down does exist on R&D done by NASA. Every morning I wake up feeling better than ever because of the foams they developed :)! Seriously! :).
Ok - that's just wrong! By that standard I guess you don't care what's going on in Israel, or what happened in Spain or... wrong. Just saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
Also, we weren't attacked by Iraq. Iraq had nothing at all to do with it.
Reminds me of this great Jackie Gleason quote!Quote:
Originally Posted by maddafinga
the GOTDAMN GERMANS GOT NOTHIN TO DO WITH IT!! - YouTube
The war was catalyzed by 911. Whether we were attacked by them or not is irrelevant. It was believed at the time by both the US and Britain that Iraq posed a severe threat.Quote:
Originally Posted by maddafinga
By that logic, the U.S. should have attacked and invaded Columbia after the Battle of Oahu. Sheesh!:aargh:Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
To reinforce that point. One of the reasons popularized by the media was that the Iraq was friendly to terrorists. So the Philippines have a very high Taliban presence. Should we attack them?Quote:
Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus
Kind of a straw man argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus
So was Bush's. The biggest difference is mine didn't kill any innocents.Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
Now an ad hominem plus the fallacy of appeal to pity.Quote:
Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus
Merely a statement of fact.