Josh

Is anyone else disappointed with the results of the 5 billion dollar rover... I'm just tired of hearing.."yep water use to be here"... I wouldn't be so disappointed if they didn't have plans to send another rover, I mean come on...I'm so over hearing about water on Mars (we new that since the 30's(if not before)).... Who here thinks NASA needs to start thinking bigger when it comes to Mars?

Don't try and compare the US to other countries because the "other" countries don't even seem to care..hence there lack of a space program that even get man of the ground.

Who here wants to find life on mars not more water... sorry guys but someone needs to start putting a fire under there ---.. you know what I'm saying.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/14031...

.

I don't see anything in the form of a "wave"...Twisting or not.., and if it is supposed to be twisting like they say... doesn't that imply 2 objects..? I thought the "big bang" was from a single object and then "inflated" outward.

When I factor in the price for "special" part, labor,fuel,Communications, Testing ext... I com up with a $ amount that is way way way lower than the prices that NASA says things cost... For instance the curiosity rover...I didn't even get to 1 billion....how did it get all the way to 4 billion+...?

The James web ...I got 2 billion ...How did it get to 9 billion+..?

Any way... is it just me that thinks this kind of budget spending is going to brake us... How can any country sustain this kind of spending when the future is calling for better stuff..

I mean I always hear people at NASA complaining about how little they get paid..? where is all the money going?

and then make comments about how nothing can go faster than light.....isn't it obvious that things can travel faster than light....if we all agree that in the beginning things did travel faster than light.

I'm talking about when the strong force separated from the union at around 10^-32 and then the universe somehow "grew exspenetaly bigger than the observable universe we see today.

Why is this part always skipped like it's some kind of taboo to go there..

Am I wrong in pointing this out...

Am I wrong in saying that E is not equal to MC^2 if this is true.

.

I guess it just upsets me because not talking about it has led to a major ignorance in understanding for the common person in school...

is this proof that we are missing even more of the picture..?

What could be the cause...

http://weather.yahoo.com/plastic-could-protect-ast...

.

This is why I'm losing faith in NASA....no maned missions and now to hear this, da we spend billions and billions, yet this is just now coming to light.

Does this upset anyone else...stuiped stuff that a 2 years old could of figured out 50 years ago.

If the proton and neutron have no E/M repulsion, and a strong nuclear force binding them, then the neutron should be more difficult to separate from the nucleus than the proton.

I give them a ... 15 ....

http://www.nasa.gov/missions/future/index.html

.

2 more rovers for Mars (would be exciting ....if they ever found something of significance). this last rover (curiosity) seems way less interesting than the spirit rover and its twin...

and I'm sorry but if there not going to ever finish the James Webb why do they still yammer on about it like we haven't been waiting for it for the last 15 (if not longer) years.

Maybe it's just me but I was not impressed with the Spitzer telescope.... Example...Anyone here heard of the Spektr-R telescope..?..1000+ more powerful than Hubble..? Yet hardly anyone has heard of it since it's launch... The Spektr is a radio wave telescope and the James web will be inferred... there's the kicker radio waves propagate way better than inferred... yet hardly anything has been heard of this telescope...any ideas why...

Is it just me or does it seem like NASA is having trouble with new ideas..

Supermassive black holes have properties which distinguish them from lower-mass classifications. First, the average density of a supermassive black hole (defined as the mass of the black hole divided by the volume within its Schwarzschild radius) can be less than the density of water in the case of some supermassive black holes. This is because the Schwarzschild radius is directly proportional to mass, while density is inversely proportional to the volume. Since the volume of a spherical object (such as the event horizon of a non-rotating black hole) is directly proportional to the cube of the radius, the density of a black hole is inversely proportional to the square of the mass, and thus higher mass black holes have lower average density. Also, the tidal forces in the vicinity of the event horizon are significantly weaker. Since the central singularity is so far away from the horizon, a hypothetical astronaut traveling towards the black hole center would not experience significant tidal force until very deep into the black hole.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_massive_black_h...

.

Any one have any ideas how dense black hole would be at the largest ones..?

The unified force singularity described in the beginning would of exerted how much more force on it's singularity rather that our normal black hole singularities governed by gravity alone.

My reasoning for this question is from the fact that all the other forces are so much stronger, wouldn't this mean that the forces acting on that singularity would of been stronger.

I was kind of hoping to hear your thought as to what it implies, but that's up to you.

ten points to who ever... I always pick a best answer out of respect for people taking there time for me....thanks

The unified force singularity described in the beginning would of exerted how much more force on it's singularity rather that our normal black hole singularities governed by gravity alone.

My reasoning for this question is from the fact that all the other forces are so much stronger, wouldn't this mean that the forces acting on that singularity would of been stronger.

I was kind of hoping to hear your thought as to what it implies, but that's up to you.

ten points to who ever... I always pick a best answer out of respect for people taking there time for me....thanks

So how may solar masses would a black hole have to be to become as dense as normal space at 3 atoms per square meter.

.

Do you guys see what I'm getting at..?

Is it just me, but haven't we pretty much new since before the Apollo missions the Mars had water..?

Is it just me or is anyone else disappointed with the lack of..."meat" .. I'm tied of milk, I need something that's better than .."yep ...there was water here"...Stuff Ray Charles could of spotted a mile away, and then they try and pawn it off as "Ground Braking News". woooo..

can I get some evidence of a microbial life please..... Anything beside..."yep there was water here".

You will give me a star..!..

They say they need to find the "spin" of the boson they found to be able to tell if its a higgs or not...yet here we are years and years ...and years later... Is it just me, or am I wrong for saying that I need a job working at the LHC... Them guys have it made.

.

When I heard it only cost 20 million to build I was like "well thats a good price for once"..., but now it just feels like... we might of spent 20 mill on constant brake downs, and entertaining faster than light neutrinos.... Now I've heard they are thinking scraping the hole thing because of funding.

That can't be right thought.... right..?

Space Exploration program....

Even today... wheres the bold new ideas, rovers and ships why are Russia and the Us the only ones that seem to care.

I don't know if my expectations were to high or what, I was ... : (