flavorcountry:

discoverynews:

It looks a lot more complicated than Lunar Lander on my Commodore 64…
popmech:

We posted this back in spring, but in case you missed it then: How Curiosity will land on Mars, in 11 easy steps. 
Plus: The Anatomy of Curiosity.

I found lunar lander online!!
read more about Mars…

What in the balls. Look at that final descent phase! A rocket-powered sky crane?! NASA, that shit cray. What was wrong with packing your rover inside a high-tech Zorb like last time? I sometimes wonder if NASA engineers just like to prove what badasses they are. You’d think just getting something artificial to another planet would be enough proof. I hope it works. I really, really do.

flavorcountry:

discoverynews:

It looks a lot more complicated than Lunar Lander on my Commodore 64…

popmech:

We posted this back in spring, but in case you missed it then: How Curiosity will land on Mars, in 11 easy steps. 

Plus: The Anatomy of Curiosity.

I found lunar lander online!!

read more about Mars…

What in the balls. Look at that final descent phase! A rocket-powered sky crane?! NASA, that shit cray. What was wrong with packing your rover inside a high-tech Zorb like last time? I sometimes wonder if NASA engineers just like to prove what badasses they are. You’d think just getting something artificial to another planet would be enough proof. I hope it works. I really, really do.

maniacalrage:

The Venus Transit

Now we all have something in common with the people of 1882, when they had an opportunity to gaze into the sky and watch Venus cross the sun. Of course they didn’t have amazing visuals like this to see the event in high definition.

This won’t happen again for 105 years, which means our unborn baby probably won’t see this in its lifetime, unless medical science allows for a longer average lifespan. It’s hard to imagine what the earth will look like the next time humanity observes this phenomenon.

This is instantly recognisable as the logo for Nasa, despite its being discarded in 1992 in favour of the previous ‘meatball’ logo preferred by some Nasa insiders.

The ‘worm’ logo, and the graphic system it was part of, spoke to the idea of Nasa as high-tech, forward-looking, and united in purpose. It failed because Nasa, the actual real-world organization, is not any of those things. As an incoherent mish-mash of design elements, the ‘meatball’ expresses the reality of Nasa very well. Sadly.

Display | The NASA Design Program

This is instantly recognisable as the logo for Nasa, despite its being discarded in 1992 in favour of the previous ‘meatball’ logo preferred by some Nasa insiders.

The ‘worm’ logo, and the graphic system it was part of, spoke to the idea of Nasa as high-tech, forward-looking, and united in purpose. It failed because Nasa, the actual real-world organization, is not any of those things. As an incoherent mish-mash of design elements, the ‘meatball’ expresses the reality of Nasa very well. Sadly.

Display | The NASA Design Program

NASA debunks 2012 hokum. Such a pity that a debunking is needed.

I also do wish they would write 21 December 2012 rather than 12-21-2012. But I guess they need to never miss an opportunity to remind us they are an American organization with weird American ways of writing the date and measuring things.

(Source: scientificamerican.com)