Mars Rover Shot

NASA has reported today that the Mars Rover did not land on Mars,
but somehow landed in Iraq, where yesterday two enlisted men filled it
full of holes when its extended arm made a threatening gesture.

He He

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 04:29:36 -0600, "S. Sampson" wrote:

NASA has reported today that the Mars Rover did not land on Mars,
but somehow landed in Iraq, where yesterday two enlisted men filled it
full of holes when its extended arm made a threatening gesture.

So *that* is the reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq... they needed a "safe" place
to stage the "mars landings" where no nosey reporters could get too close and
bust it. But then, apaprently, they didn't succeed after all.

;-)

--
__________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke
\_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
_H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com
'-_____|(

remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying

machf wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 04:29:36 -0600, "S. Sampson" wrote:


NASA has reported today that the Mars Rover did not land on Mars,
but somehow landed in Iraq, where yesterday two enlisted men filled it
full of holes when its extended arm made a threatening gesture.


So *that* is the reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq... they needed a "safe" place
to stage the "mars landings" where no nosey reporters could get too close and
bust it. But then, apaprently, they didn't succeed after all.

;-)

Although it now seems "Spirit" is on the mend, or at least can
be used in such a way that it can continue to serve its purpose
(apparently some bad memory areas), there has been speculation
on why the malfunctions occurred.

One current theory is that the perfidious Europeans, desperate
to keep any success from attaching itself to George Bush, sent
a command to Beagle2 to "stab" the rover.

Beagle has a spring loaded arm that could do some damage if
the rover roved by. The fact that Beagle doesn't move doesn't
matter. It need only wait quietly and ambush the rover as it
ambled by. Perhaps the rover might interpret Beagle as an
interesting geologic feature, thus being lured within stabbing
range?

Now it is said that Beagle and [now both] rover(s) are quite
far separated on the planet, but this may simply be a ploy on
the part of the US government to hide the dastardly deed of the
Euros against the peace loving rover in an effort to dupe the
American people into continuing to believe we and Europe are
still in happy alliance.

What do you think Michael P?


SMH

Stephen Harding wrote:

: Although it now seems "Spirit" is on the mend, or at least can
: be used in such a way that it can continue to serve its purpose
: (apparently some bad memory areas), there has been speculation
: on why the malfunctions occurred.

IIRC the success rate of Mars landings so far is only
30%... Which indeed makes one wonder whether there is
something about the planet we ought to know. At least
this rate needs to become very much better before
one can even seriosuly consider manned exploration...

: ambled by. Perhaps the rover might interpret Beagle as an
: interesting geologic feature, thus being lured within stabbing
: range?

Wasn't the rover about to attack 'an interesting geological
feature' when it failed? So it would be legitimate self-defence,
or at worst a legitimate pre-emptive strike...

Emmanuel Gustin

Emmanuel.Gustin wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote:

: Although it now seems "Spirit" is on the mend, or at least can
: be used in such a way that it can continue to serve its purpose
: (apparently some bad memory areas), there has been speculation
: on why the malfunctions occurred.

IIRC the success rate of Mars landings so far is only
30%... Which indeed makes one wonder whether there is
something about the planet we ought to know. At least
this rate needs to become very much better before
one can even seriosuly consider manned exploration...

Geez Emmanuel. I actually agree with you!

Given problems with landing on the planet, and the fact
that characterizations of the planet seem to change dramatically
every 10 years with additional knowledge, I really can't see
how *anyone* could get a man *on* the planet *and* safely back
inside of 20 years. Just too much unknown about the place and
not enough time to learn in a mere 20 years.

: ambled by. Perhaps the rover might interpret Beagle as an
: interesting geologic feature, thus being lured within stabbing
: range?

Wasn't the rover about to attack 'an interesting geological
feature' when it failed? So it would be legitimate self-defence,
or at worst a legitimate pre-emptive strike...

But was there UN authorization to do so?


SMH

"Emmanuel.Gustin" wrote in message
...
Stephen Harding wrote:

Wasn't the rover about to attack 'an interesting geological
feature' when it failed? So it would be legitimate self-defence,
or at worst a legitimate pre-emptive strike...

A much more likely source of failure is the lack of EEs at NASA, as outlined
in the Shuttle crash investigation board report. Until the areo mafia is
rooted out of NASA, there can be no forward movement. Aero's havn't
controlled a successful aerospace company since the 1970s, as it has been
all EE since then.

Tarver Engineering wrote:
"Emmanuel.Gustin" wrote in message
...

Stephen Harding wrote:


Wasn't the rover about to attack 'an interesting geological
feature' when it failed? So it would be legitimate self-defence,
or at worst a legitimate pre-emptive strike...


A much more likely source of failure is the lack of EEs at NASA, as outlined
in the Shuttle crash investigation board report. Until the areo mafia is
rooted out of NASA, there can be no forward movement. Aero's havn't
controlled a successful aerospace company since the 1970s, as it has been
all EE since then.



Mmm. Nurse! More meds for Mr Tarver please!

John

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
Tarver Engineering wrote:
"Emmanuel.Gustin" wrote in message
...

Stephen Harding wrote:


Wasn't the rover about to attack 'an interesting geological
feature' when it failed? So it would be legitimate self-defence,
or at worst a legitimate pre-emptive strike...


A much more likely source of failure is the lack of EEs at NASA, as
outlined
in the Shuttle crash investigation board report. Until the areo mafia
is
rooted out of NASA, there can be no forward movement. Aero's havn't
controlled a successful aerospace company since the 1970s, as it has
been
all EE since then.

Mmm. Nurse! More meds for Mr Tarver please!

You didn't know?

As the ex-chief scientist of Dryden said in his final speech to their
community, it has all been done, from an aerodynamic perspective.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Emmanuel.Gustin" wrote in message
...
Stephen Harding wrote:

Wasn't the rover about to attack 'an interesting geological
feature' when it failed? So it would be legitimate self-defence,
or at worst a legitimate pre-emptive strike...

A much more likely source of failure is the lack of EEs at NASA, as
outlined
in the Shuttle crash investigation board report. Until the areo mafia
is
rooted out of NASA, there can be no forward movement. Aero's havn't
controlled a successful aerospace company since the 1970s, as it has
been
all EE since then.

Actually, it now appears highly likely that it's a problem with the
FLASH memory management
software module. The FLASH hardware is apparently ok. In short, it
appears to be either a
bug or something corrupted it, such as a high energy particle impact.

The CO