NASA Flying Saucer (your tax dollars at work)

[pcosmar]

NASA 'flying saucer' splashes down in Pacific after successful test for future Mars mission
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/us/article/NASA-flying-saucer-splashes-down-in-Pacific-5586992.php
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/lifestyle/2014/06/29/nasa-tests-flying-saucer-for-trip-to-mars/


http://zeenews.india.com/news/space...tests-new-mars-landing-technology_943673.html

The mammoth parachute should have helped the saucer complete a gentle landing on the Pacific Ocean. Instead it failed to fully deploy and the saucer plunged into the water.

So it is not a Flying Saucer. It's a falling saucer.

And it crashed,, but that was successful.

So it fell down,, and it crashed. I wonder how much that costs?

 

[presence]

The $150 million mission

What was it we've gotten out of NASA besides freeze dried ice cream sandwiches and velcro? FFS how is any of this shit worth it?

$15.818 billion per year over its fifty-year history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[Brian4Liberty]

The crash was caused by a defective robot...

 

[Ronin Truth]

The real saucers are in Nevada.

We also got much smaller electronics and Tang.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[Jan2017]

The real saucers are in Nevada.

We also got much smaller electronics and Tang.

I love Tang . . .

We also have gotten better solar energy technology and aeronautics . . .

I think the NASA budget might actually be small to all the grant money from government
agencies to support university research - so I could argue that much of NASA might actually be worth it (?), imho.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

The real saucers are in Nevada.

We also got much smaller electronics and Tang.

I love Tang . . .

We also have gotten better solar energy technology and aeronautics . . .

I think the NASA budget might actually be small to all the grant money from government
agencies to support university research - so I could argue that much of NASA might actually be worth it (?), imho.

Straight from the horse's mouth:

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ipp/home/myth_tang.html

Are Tang, Teflon, and Velcro NASA spinoffs?

Tang, Teflon, and Velcro, are not spinoffs of the Space Program. General Foods developed Tang in 1957, and it has been on supermarket shelves since 1959. In 1962, when astronaut John Glenn performed eating experiments in orbit, Tang was selected for the menu, launching the powdered drink's heightened public awareness. NASA also raised the celebrity status of Teflon, a material invented for DuPont in 1938, when the Agency applied it to heat shields, space suits, and cargo hold liners. Velcro was used during the Apollo missions to anchor equipment for astronauts' convenience in zero gravity situations. Although it is a Swiss invention from the 1940s, it has since been associated with the Space Program.

 

[Republicanguy]

The latest test wasn't successful with the parachute.

I saw it live, it was a great mission. I heard the disappointment in the control operations via NASA tv.

Someday it will send cargo to Mars. It's a way to land resources on high altitude locations.