The point that you appear to be trying to make, is that it’s really difficult to successfully land probes on the Moon and Mars, and therefore have little faith in human missions to either.
I countered with the fact that NASA was able to fly a land based probe, and something as delicate as a helicopter on Mars, intact. That’s how good the landing was. That’s how good the entire mission has been so far. A rather solid counterpoint to your pessimistic viewpoint.
You seem to be under the impression that I’m touting flying a helicopter probe on Mars as equivalent to launching a probe. That’s a you problem, unrelated to my point.
I’m not grasping how flying a helicopter on Mars takes the same sort of technology, software and control as landing a probe on Mars. But feel free to explain why they’re the same.
Are you really unable to talk to me without being needlessly rude?
This is you being rude and condescending, because you think I was claiming that flying the helicopter on Mars was somehow technologically equivalent to an entire launching of a probe.
You telling me to “feel free to explain” is based entirely on you thinking that you’re dunking on me. Since that isn’t my arguement, you aren’t.
You thought (incorrectly) that I was arguing that the helicopter probe by itself was as technologically impressive as the entire mission that delivered it.
That’s why you used the “feel free to explain” verbiage.
The point that you appear to be trying to make, is that it’s really difficult to successfully land probes on the Moon and Mars, and therefore have little faith in human missions to either.
I countered with the fact that NASA was able to fly a land based probe, and something as delicate as a helicopter on Mars, intact. That’s how good the landing was. That’s how good the entire mission has been so far. A rather solid counterpoint to your pessimistic viewpoint.
You seem to be under the impression that I’m touting flying a helicopter probe on Mars as equivalent to launching a probe. That’s a you problem, unrelated to my point.
Ok. How many times has landing a probe on Mars failed? Because I can think of at least 3. Saying “this one succeeded” doesn’t really change the point.
How many times have airplanes crashed? I can name at least 3 as well
Actually it does, since much of the success attained, is a direct result of what was learned from previous launches.
It’s part of an iterative process called “learning from past mistakes”.
If it’s any consolation, I doubt that you’d qualify for any space mission, so you’ll be quite safe from space travel related harm.
Are you really unable to talk to me without being needlessly rude?
Are you?
What? Asking you to explain something is rude? I am legitimately confused as to why you think that’s rude.
This is you being rude and condescending, because you think I was claiming that flying the helicopter on Mars was somehow technologically equivalent to an entire launching of a probe.
You telling me to “feel free to explain” is based entirely on you thinking that you’re dunking on me. Since that isn’t my arguement, you aren’t.
You’re not legitimately confused about it either.
I’m sorry, that’s just not true. You’re making all sorts of assumptions which are false. I honestly wanted an explanation.
Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.
You thought (incorrectly) that I was arguing that the helicopter probe by itself was as technologically impressive as the entire mission that delivered it.
That’s why you used the “feel free to explain” verbiage.