View Full Version : Countdown: Curiousity Mars landing
Gargamel
07-31-12, 09:08 PM
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory
5 days, 3 hours to go!
Go science! :D
Good luck to them :salute:
I hope they have a safe landing!:up:
Gargamel
08-05-12, 04:02 PM
http://iphone22.arc.nasa.gov/public/iexplore/scripts/v15/getnewsitem.php?id=429329
Only a few hours to go!
But to be honest, IMO, there's a strong chance if a crash landing. Like 20% IMO. Such a complicated system, untested too.
Well, they're careful in trying to adjust their expectations and saying that even if it's a failure, it will be something that will produce useful data to learn from for the future. If nothing else, it is certainly a very calculated risk and something that, in theory, a computer-controlled system can do perfectly well. In practice, well, we'll see. I'm really looking forward to the news tonight either way!
Gargamel
08-06-12, 12:38 AM
Apparently it made it!
Great news! :yeah:
Can't wait to see what data comes out in the next few days. Hopefully this is going to be as exciting scientifically as Spirit and Opportunity had been.
Some cool images from the lander already starting to come through... http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/mars/curiosity_news3.html
Gargamel
08-06-12, 05:38 AM
Great news! :yeah:
Can't wait to see what data comes out in the next few days. Hopefully this is going to be as exciting scientifically as Spirit and Opportunity had been.
There's no way the mission can be as successful longevity wise. 90 day warranty and they last how many years now?
At that rate, people will be disappointed if it doesn't last 30 years.
Would be cool to see them meet up in 75 years though. :D
Hoax, it's all a hoax!!! All photoshop and theatre! :O:
u crank
08-06-12, 03:33 PM
Hoax, it's all a hoax!!! All photoshop and theatre! :O:
Oh man, not another one.:hmmm:
Betonov
08-06-12, 03:35 PM
Mars orbiter sees Curiosity's parachute deployed from above
http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/553548_396558407060807_1654971091_n.jpg
Hoax, it's all a hoax!!! All photoshop and theatre! :O:
It was all filmed on a soundstage on the Moon!
Will we see an another race in space, like the one between USA and USSR?
I think so, only this time it will be between USA and China- I think that after China have put a man on the Moon(if not the alien prevent them to do so :haha:) -they will go further and go for Mars
For America it will be a real blow if China is the first country to put a man on Mars and not them.
Markus
Platapus
08-06-12, 07:46 PM
It will be a long time before China can send a man to Mars.
For some of us here, we will be dead by the time the US sends men to Mars.
Gargamel
08-06-12, 07:58 PM
Actually, I think china beating the us/ESA/rus to mars might be a good thing for those space agencies.
It will be a long time before China can send a man to Mars.
For some of us here, we will be dead by the time the US sends men to Mars.
Not for want of manpower, I think there are thousands of people who would volunteer to go to Mars, of course, out of them only perhaps 25% would be fit enough to be able to actually go...but that's still at least two hundred people.
If only we could put the kind of energy that put a man on the moon into putting a man onto Mars, and then further on.
We have the technology, we have the manpower, we have the need, but we've built such complex walls and rules around advancement and technology based upon finance that it is choking us.
I hope I live to see pictures of mankinds first step on Mars, I really do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ5sWfhkpE0
Platapus
08-06-12, 08:11 PM
We have the technology, we have the manpower, we have the need, but we've built such complex walls and rules around advancement and technology based upon finance that it is choking us.
I am not sure we have the technology at this point. Traveling to Mars is not like just a longer moon trip. It is pretty complicated.
I will agree that we have the people though.
About that need thing? Honestly, I feel it is a very low need and more a desire than a need.
I feel that a lot more can be learned about Mars by orbiters and rovers than by anyone planting a flag and picking up a few rocks. Once we have exhausted our ability to extract information from unmanned missions, only then should we consider manned missions.
I am not sure we have the technology at this point. Traveling to Mars is not like just a longer moon trip. It is pretty complicated.
I will agree that we have the people though.
About that need thing? Honestly, I feel it is a very low need and more a desire than a need.
I feel that a lot more can be learned about Mars by orbiters and rovers than by anyone planting a flag and picking up a few rocks. Once we have exhausted our ability to extract information from unmanned missions, only then should we consider manned missions.
The worry I have is that as our population continues to grow unhindered and our drain on resources does as well, unless we have a population level out as per the theory put forward (very well) by Hans Rosling and we manage to wean ourselves off oil then the next fifty years are looking very shakey for us. We will either turn inwards and fight ourselves to death, or look outwards and head into space, and quite honestly I can't say for certain which way we will swing, at the moment it's certainly looking like the former rather than the latter.
Furthermore, the problems with being limited to one planet are immense, we have a very fragile hold and with one virus, one asteroid, one global nuclear exchange, everything we have done for the past two thousand years, gone. The human race would survive, but our progress would be put back by several generations. It'd be like walking up to the very edge of the pool and then being kicked in the balls before you can jump into the water.
Now in terms of technology, I think our primary problem is logistics, drive systems we have a few and lots of theories that lack funding to become either fact or fiction, and people wouldn't be a problem. It would be feeding and watering those people that would be the biggest problem I'd say. Journey time to Mars and back could be reduced significantly if we turned our nuclear weapons into fuel for an Orion drive vessel, constructed in orbit in order to avoid the distasteful (but minimal) nuclear fallout generated in a land-based launch.
From there the possibilities are only as limited as we make them, Orion drive ships could take us to Alpha Centauri, and beyond! And unlike most advanced drive systems out there, work could begin on an Orion drive tomorrow if certain treaties were worked around.
I just worry that if we don't get our collective arses in gear within the next century then it'll be too late for us.
Alternatively, it could just be a selfish instinct to want to be alive to see these things take place. :03:
I have to agree with you Oberon. What it would take for these things to happen (the looking outward part) I have no idea. I agree with the "selfish instinct" too,lol I would give anything to be around long enough just to see what the future holds for the Voyager spacecraft, just what they might encounter in the next few years. Both Voyagers are still sending back signals to earth, even after being in space for 35 years now! Voyager 1 is just about out of our solar system, Voyager 2 is not far behind. They just completed sending instructions to Voyager 2, to switch to its backup thruster systems, and it has responded by doing so!
Voyager 1 is 11 Billion miles from our sun,and is sending back information that boggles the mind. It is so much more interesting to me, then all the crap we are inundated with everyday, that's for sure!
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/voyager20111205.html
We sat for what seem' s an eternity to find out if Curiousity had landed safely, it takes 16 hours and 38 minutes to get a signal from Voyager.
I hear you Eddie, although I did see this wonderful little jibe at NBC on the internets:
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8chlqsAak1qewacoo1_500.jpg (http://bonusfunny.com/)
But that aside, I was just watching a speech by Neil Degrasse Tyson, and I think I can elaborate a bit further about other reasons why I feel that a manned mission to Mars is so important.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLzKjxglNyE
In his speech, Tyson touches on how space once captured everyones imagination, and so did the world of tomorrow. In the 1950s and 1960s we had so much drive and imagination that in the world of tomorrow we would be doing this and that and the other. Then we stopped dreaming.
Somewhere in the past fifty years the imagination went away, the dreams became nightmares, instead of the world of tomorrow being a technotopia (not even sure if that's a word, if it's not it should be) the world of tomorrow is decay, ruin, war. You can see it in modern media, in our collective consciousness, we seem to have gone from being excited about tomorrow to being scared of it.
I'm guilty of it as much as any person, I find it hard to see a positive future for mankind based upon current trends, however I know that this could change, there is still time.
This is WHY I think a manned mission to Mars is so important, not for its scientific value, which is virtually nil, but for its effect on the people who want to dream but can't. To get that drive back into people, even if it's just American people, so that then the ball can get rolling, and THIS time, this time we won't just stop, this time we'll keep going because by the time this all has taken place, we'll need to keep going.
Progress is driven by one part fantasy and one part fear, we have the fear, we know our frailty on this planet, and if we don't then I dare say we'll soon have a demonstration of some form, but what we have forgotten is our fantasy, and that's sad.
EDIT: Just realised another little cool thing about Curiousity...my name is on it! :rock:Etched on a microchip carried on Curiousitys back along with 1.2 million others from all around the world. I'd forgotten all about it until just now! Anyone else here stick their name on it?
http://marsparticipate.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/participate/sendyourname/
Onkel Neal
08-07-12, 05:19 AM
It will be a long time before China can send a man to Mars.
For some of us here, we will be dead by the time the US sends men to Mars.
You're probably right, that's too bad. :(
Nice video of the complex landing sequence
7 Minutes of Terror (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/video/index.cfm?id=1090)
nikimcbee
08-07-12, 09:04 AM
You're probably right, that's too bad. :(
Nice video of the complex landing sequence
7 Minutes of Terror (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/video/index.cfm?id=1090)
Are you sure that's Mars? Sure looks like Wyoming in the summer.:hmm2:
Apathy sets in fast Oberon. I was doing some reading about the Apollo 13 flight, it took place just short of 9 months after Apollo 11's historic landing. They were going to have a live TV broadcast from the spacecraft (this was before the explosion) but the networks wouldn't broadcast it because they didn't have enough people interested in seeing it. Not enough interest to interrupt the soap operas,lol But, after the explosion, and the astronauts lives were at stake, then everyone took interest!
BossMark
08-07-12, 09:36 AM
Couldn't they have taken the Tory toffs with them? and of course left the buggers there :haha:
Couldn't they have taken the Tory toffs with them? and of course left the buggers there :haha:
Don't pollute Mars! :nope:
BossMark
08-07-12, 09:54 AM
Don't pollute Mars! :nope:
Yeah good point, they can be chucked out in space :yep:
TLAM Strike
08-07-12, 10:47 AM
Apathy sets in fast...
http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/6485/exoplanets.png
Sailor Steve
08-07-12, 11:02 AM
Couldn't they have taken the Tory toffs with them? and of course left the buggers there :haha:
Yeah good point, they can be chucked out in space :yep:
Well, there's another thread down the toilet.
I think you two are going on my ignore list. :nope:
They have released the first images from Curiosity:
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/255240_504332439596214_1147023620_n.jpg
^ First I looked at the picture-hmm red as usual nothing special with that picture-Hey what's that?? Ohh it's him, let us send Bugs Bunny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAcsoTBWd7w
Markus
Jimbuna
08-08-12, 05:50 AM
America may no longer be into manned space flight like before but they are doing the world proud as far as Mars is concerned...haven't been this interested for a few years now.
Platapus
08-08-12, 04:27 PM
but the networks wouldn't broadcast it because they didn't have enough people interested in seeing it.
Having been around then and glued to the TV set, I can see the network's side of it. Even Apollo 11 coverage consisted of many hours of staring at the TV screen watching nothing happening. *I* happened to like it as I am a space nut, but for normal air breathing humans, it would have been better to have shown normal TV and just interrupted when stuff happened.
But then the networks had never had such an event and they did what they thought was best.
By the time 12 was over, the citizens were frankly bored with watching nothing for hours and rightfully preferred their normal TV with breaking news.
Most things about space travel, even short distances to the moon consist of hours of just drifting along.
For example, from the time the Assent module lifted off from the moon until it docked with the CM 3.5 hours elapsed. That was covered live on TV. 3.5 hours of watching a bright dot (AM) from a camera in the CM.
That was just one small segment of the entire mission. Now imagine watching that twice (Apollo 11 and 12) and I think it can be understood why people got bored.
Sailor Steve
08-08-12, 08:02 PM
Good point.
"The Space Channel is carrying live coverage of the full Curiosity mission! Only five more months of pictures of stars until the landing! Then, if all goes well, several years of telemetry signals with occasional exciting discussions about the soil experiment's latest finds!"
TLAM Strike
08-08-12, 09:56 PM
"The Space Channel is carrying live coverage of the full Curiosity mission! Only five more months of pictures of stars until the landing! Then, if all goes well, several years of telemetry signals with occasional exciting discussions about the soil experiment's latest finds!"
Actually that exists... (http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/iss_ustream.html) :O:
^Link to the live stream from the camera mounted outside the ISS. :03:
Sailor Steve
08-08-12, 10:29 PM
Cool picture. And boring, like everybody was saying. I could look at that maybe once a day, for a minute or so. On the other hand I might download one if I thought it was cool enough. On the other other hand the quality isn't that good, and one can probably find much better pictures floating around the web. On the...well, you know...I usually have pictures of World War One ships on my desktop.
BossMark
08-09-12, 04:33 AM
Just seen these pretty cool pictures.
http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2012/8/7/186136/default/v1/8550422-1-1-942x530.jpg
http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2012/8/6/186005/default/v1/149903304-1-522x293.jpg
http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2012/8/6/186091/default/v1/673736main-pia15978-full-full-1-522x293.jpg
Actually that exists... (http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/iss_ustream.html) :O:
^Link to the live stream from the camera mounted outside the ISS. :03:
I watch that almost every day. Boring most of the time, but at times you
can see some very nice scenery. :yep:
First color 360-degree panorama from Curiosity:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/675337main_pia16029_full.jpg
(3 653px × 755px)
First color 360-degree panorama from Curiosity:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/675337main_pia16029_full.jpg
(3 653px × 755px)
Beautiful, just beautiful. :yep:
Indeed. :yep:
Can't wait to see the stuff they start showing later on. From Bad Astronomer:
This view is made up of hundreds of small (144 x 144 pixel) thumbnails, so
it’s not as high res as the images we’ll see soon[..]
Skybird
08-12-12, 03:50 PM
It is surprising even for myself how much that 100+ MB photo panorama from Mars that I had linked a couple of weeks ago, has changed my attitude to Mars. The image back then, like the new ones these days, show a desolate, dry, desert place very far away, compoletely out of reach for ordinary human contact. Complete isolation. The 100+ MB image did so with huge detail, and panorama, it really sucked the observer into the landsape, so to speak.
And to me this had a very disillusionising effect. I have lost my fascination for Mars, it seems. I asked myself: is this a place I would go to, that I would accept risks to reach, and do so only to see this? There were times when i would have said: yes.
I did not like that image. It was lonely, bleak, and the grim charactewr even was increased by the knowledge that on the whole planet there is no life form, no human being, no animal, no nothing. You would be as alone as "alone" can mean.
It really has healed me from the romantic transfiguration that many of us - including myself - suffer from when it comes to Mars. Maybe that is because the level of detail and the size of that pic did not leave any room anymore for illusions and fantasies about what it is about: a place isolated, dry, lonely, grim, out of touch with human dimensions of living and experiencing any form of consolation and friendliness and company.
I feel a loss, a loss of old fantasies and ideals and images, the fascination for the red planet. But I am also thankful for it. I now see how much my attitude towards Mars missions was based on illusions and out-of-touch idealisations of what it is about.
Would I go there, if given the opporutnity to go there, and even return? No, Not for all money in the world. I fail to see a point in it anymore.
The technological skill and ability of what is being demonstrated now, is impressive. No doubt about that. But the magic I once attributed to such projects, is gone. And think that is a healthy thing.
Entzauberung.
The factor of Mars is not what is there, but what was there and what could be there in the future. Was there once life? Can we build a new world on Mars?
Sure, it's not exactly a Goldilocks planet, but when you need the room then you're not picky about where you make it.
Skybird
08-12-12, 04:18 PM
The factor of Mars is not what is there, but what was there and what could be there in the future. Was there once life? Can we build a new world on Mars?
Sure, it's not exactly a Goldilocks planet, but when you need the room then you're not picky about where you make it.
That is just abstract, academic interest only, not the vivid imagination the fascination for Mars throughout the past centuries lives by. I do not deny it. But I say it is not the same, it does not compare.
And I do not subscribe to the "certain" future of colonies and large-scale mining and huge populations in Mars in the future. There are not only many problems on Earth putting such ambitions into question, but there are also many issues on Earth of much smaller logistical challenge where we already fail. Before Mars, comes Moon. And even for the Moon I am somewhat pessimistic.
And no, I am also no longer fascinated by the idea of walking on the Moon. The idea of doing that to me has more qualities of a nightmare now. The answer is simple. My home is planet Earth. Not Mars. Neither the Moon. Earth is where life is. Warmth. Comfort. Consolation. Company.
This dark abyss out there becomes the more frightening for me the more I learn and occupy my mind with it. Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
We have two stark choices though, grow or die. It's been the same with nearly every advanced civilization in history, and we're going to run out of room and resources on this planet within the next two hundred years (if not sooner) at our current rate of consumption. Plus you have to factor population growth into that, unless of course we level out with 'Peak Child' but even so there will still be a massive increase in the consumption of resources as poorer countries catch up with the developing ones.
We really may not have a choice but to get footfall on the Moon and Mars.
Furthermore, the more widespread we are, the harder it will be to destroy human civilization or put it back into the dark ages. Right now, all it would take would be a well placed asteroid or virus and blam, game over. Thousands of years of progress down the drain. When Rome fell, the knowledge of the Roman empire was destroyed in Western Europe and it fell into the Dark Ages, but in Byzantine, the knowledge was kept. Mars would be our Byzantine, a backup in case something goes horribly wrong on Earth.
We have faced monsters before, once upon a time we feared putting to sea in case it swallowed us whole, and it frequently did, but we kept trying, and we grew and conquered our fears of the sea.
We have to face our fears of space and grow...or we might as well just push the button and nuke ourselves into oblivion now and get it over and done with.
TLAM Strike
08-12-12, 04:58 PM
My home is planet Earth. Not Mars. Neither the Moon. Earth is where life is. Warmth. Comfort. Consolation. Company.
If you lived your whole life aboard a space station or asteroid base you would feel very differently.
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/2857/fv01032.png
Takeda Shingen
08-12-12, 05:35 PM
We have two stark choices though, grow or die. It's been the same with nearly every advanced civilization in history, and we're going to run out of room and resources on this planet within the next two hundred years (if not sooner) at our current rate of consumption. Plus you have to factor population growth into that, unless of course we level out with 'Peak Child' but even so there will still be a massive increase in the consumption of resources as poorer countries catch up with the developing ones.
We really may not have a choice but to get footfall on the Moon and Mars.
Furthermore, the more widespread we are, the harder it will be to destroy human civilization or put it back into the dark ages. Right now, all it would take would be a well placed asteroid or virus and blam, game over. Thousands of years of progress down the drain. When Rome fell, the knowledge of the Roman empire was destroyed in Western Europe and it fell into the Dark Ages, but in Byzantine, the knowledge was kept. Mars would be our Byzantine, a backup in case something goes horribly wrong on Earth.
We have faced monsters before, once upon a time we feared putting to sea in case it swallowed us whole, and it frequently did, but we kept trying, and we grew and conquered our fears of the sea.
We have to face our fears of space and grow...or we might as well just push the button and nuke ourselves into oblivion now and get it over and done with.
Those monsters were all of political making. Rome fell because it couldn't pay enough to keep it's borders safe. It made too many enemies. Land and resources were not the problem; it had plenty of both. In fact, it had too much land to care for.
Plagues? They have happened. Humanity has endured. In fact, science did not save humanity from the Plague of Justinian, nor from the Black Death. Science did not put an end to the climate crisis of the 8th and 9th centuries, nor did it save us from the Little Ice Age of the 14th century. That is not to say that modern medical and agricultural sciences would not have saved a lot of lives; they most certainly would have. It is only to say that mankind endured through the blights even in the absence of science.
The example of the Eastern Empire is also a poor one. It was not Byzantium that pulled the West from the Dark Ages. Rather, it was the inevitable gathering of strength of a few individuals. The lineage starting with Charles 'The Hammer' Martel had brought enough local strongmen under their banners that relative security permitted learning to emerge from exile in the western monastaries, not from the East. In fact, Justinian's renovatio imperii was only temporarily successful, and in very limited scope at best. It also represented the zenith of the East and a beginning of the slow and agonizing death of Byzantium. While the West's collapse was relatively quick and catastrophic, the East languished for hundreds of years before uttering a pathetic last gasp. In any case, saying that the East revitalized the West is completely inaccurate.
Ultimately, this idea that we must go to the Moon or Mars, or some other space destination is completely based on the belief that transplanting man will solve mankind's problems. This will never be the case. Man will take his politics and his lust for power with him. The Cult of Science seems to think that we can all board spaceships and live out some sort of ridiculous Star Trek fantasy. That all may be well and good, but we don't have the money for it, and I grow weary of being told that I have to fork up this money or face extinction. It is simply not true.
First high resolution panorama:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/676004main_pia16051-fullportal_full.jpg
(10 000px × 5 904px)
:salute:
Those monsters were all of political making. Rome fell because it couldn't pay enough to keep it's borders safe. It made too many enemies. Land and resources were not the problem; it had plenty of both. In fact, it had too much land to care for.
Plagues? They have happened. Humanity has endured. In fact, science did not save humanity from the Plague of Justinian, nor from the Black Death. Science did not put an end to the climate crisis of the 8th and 9th centuries, nor did it save us from the Little Ice Age of the 14th century. That is not to say that modern medical and agricultural sciences would not have saved a lot of lives; they most certainly would have. It is only to say that mankind endured through the blights even in the absence of science.
The example of the Eastern Empire is also a poor one. It was not Byzantium that pulled the West from the Dark Ages. Rather, it was the inevitable gathering of strength of a few individuals. The lineage starting with Charles 'The Hammer' Martel had brought enough local strongmen under their banners that relative security permitted learning to emerge from exile in the western monastaries, not from the East. In fact, Justinian's renovatio imperii was only temporarily successful, and in very limited scope at best. It also represented the zenith of the East and a beginning of the slow and agonizing death of Byzantium. While the West's collapse was relatively quick and catastrophic, the East languished for hundreds of years before uttering a pathetic last gasp. In any case, saying that the East revitalized the West is completely inaccurate.
Ultimately, this idea that we must go to the Moon or Mars, or some other space destination is completely based on the belief that transplanting man will solve mankind's problems. This will never be the case. Man will take his politics and his lust for power with him. The Cult of Science seems to think that we can all board spaceships and live out some sort of ridiculous Star Trek fantasy. That all may be well and good, but we don't have the money for it, and I grow weary of being told that I have to fork up this money or face extinction. It is simply not true.
This money? You pay more in tax to blow up people than you do to put anything into space.
The Byzantine comparison was a poor one, I agree, but one of the few I could think of, however I didn't say that the East revitalised the west, but that the knowledge was retained. It didn't stop the inevitable, and moving into space may not stop the decline of mankind, but honestly, do you want to risk it?
We have survived countless disasters and catastrophes to get here, and I'm sure if an asteroid hits then we will survive in some form or other, or perhaps we won't, but the point is that all the progress we have made at this moment will be put back by several generations, perhaps longer.
We are a flawed race, and if we go into space we will take our flaws with us, I'm not of the type to believe that we will live some sort of Star Trek fantasy out there, of course not, if anything we will probably be more like the Empire from Star Wars, conquering anything and everything we find...but at some point we will come across something or someone tougher than us, and that will force us to re-evaluate the way we consider ourselves and our behaviour.
But honestly, Tak, would you rather put your eggs all into one basket?
First high resolution panorama:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/676004main_pia16051-fullportal_full.jpg
(10 000px × 5 904px)
:salute:
Nice link Dowly, thank you :D
Magnificent desolation indeed.
Takeda Shingen
08-12-12, 06:00 PM
This money? You pay more in tax to blow up people than you do to put anything into space.
We can't afford that either. In fact, I have been a very vocal opponent of the MIC.
The Byzantine comparison was a poor one, I agree, but one of the few I could think of, however I didn't say that the East revitalised the west, but that the knowledge was retained.
It is true that you did not say it, but your entire argument hinges on it. You depicted Byzantium as a sort of safety deposit box for man's scientific, cultural and artistic treasures. It wasn't, and neither would be Mars. It would be prone to exactly the same problems that we have here on Earth.
It didn't stop the inevitable, and moving into space may not stop the decline of mankind, but honestly, do you want to risk it?
But honestly, Tak, would you rather put your eggs all into one basket?
Those are the scare tactics that I am talking about. They aren't even new ones.
Plagues have happened. We have seen the Wrath of God poured out in His judgement. People of [I] -- heed my warning. Get your butts into the pews and your money into the collection plate. By doing this you may remain in the Lord's grace. Otherwise, you risk it all.
This sort of message was proclaimed all across Europe during the Dark Ages. It is the same message we get now and, even with our greater understanding of facts, does not render the stance less disingenuous.
Anyway, I think I need to stop crapping up this thread.
We can't afford that either. In fact, I have been a very vocal opponent of the MIC.
It is true that you did not say it, but your entire argument hinges on it. You depicted Byzantium as a sort of safety deposit box for man's scientific, cultural and artistic treasures. It wasn't, and neither would be Mars. It would be prone to exactly the same problems that we have here on Earth.
Those are the scare tactics that I am talking about. They aren't even new ones.
Plagues have happened. We have seen the Wrath of God poured out in His judgement. People of [I] -- heed my warning. Get your butts into the pews and your money into the collection plate. By doing this you may remain in the Lord's grace. Otherwise, you risk it all.
This sort of message was proclaimed all across Europe during the Dark Ages. It is the same message we get now and, even with our greater understanding of facts, does not render the stance less disingenuous.
Anyway, I think I need to stop crapping up this thread.
No, you're not crapping up this thread Tak, it's good to get points of view from both sides of the carpet, and I respect your point of view, as I do that of Skybird, I may not agree with them, but I do respect them and your right to have them. :salute:
I can see your point about the 'message', and you're completely right about my flawed Byzantine comparison, I have been reluctant to make the comparison before now, and I really should have listened to my inner voice which told me not to. :haha: Still, let's roll that up and throw it in the recycle bin.
The thing is, Tak, we're going to have to get off this planet at some point, not for another million billion, some stupid number of years if we're really reluctant, but at some point it will happen if we are still around to see it, we will leave this planet in some shape or form before it is absorbed by the Sun. It might even have to happen before then, the universe is full of dangers, as Skybird correctly said. Perhaps that's scare-mongering, perhaps it's just cold hard facts. But to be honest, this planet isn't likely to go anywhere any time soon. So yes, we could sit back and rest on our laurels, focus on the problems at home, and I would be more than happy for us to do that before we stepped out into the cosmos, heaven knows it would probably be better for the universe at large if we grew up a little before we went out into it, but I fear that time is against us.
Besides, why should we stop? Why should we not settle the Moon or Mars? If it's within our power to do it, why should we not do it? Take that risk, make that gamble. What we might discover by accident may be far more beneficial than anything we can think of. Colombus comes to mind...but given my skill at making comparisons, I'll just let that one slide... :03:
Skybird
08-12-12, 06:26 PM
From Stanislaw Lem, SOLARIS:
We are only seeking Man. We have no need of other worlds. We need mirrors. We don't know what to do with other worlds. A single world, our own, suffices us; but we can't accept it for what it is. We are seaching for an ideal image of our own world: we go in quest of a planet, of a civilisation superior to our own but developed on the basis of a prototype of our primeval past. At the same time, there is something inside us which we don't like to face up to, from which we try to protect ourselves, but which nevertheless remains, since we don't leave Earth in a state of primal innocence. We arrive here as we are in reality, and when the page is turned and that reality is revealed to us — that part of our reality which we would prefer to pass over in silence — then we don't like it any more.
Skybird
08-12-12, 06:35 PM
Economics have this lunatic idea of that there can be unlimited growth. Capitalism has this lunatic idea of that there is unlimited supply of natural ressources. And some people think, there will be unlimited spreading of man to the stars.
I do not rule that out. But I am extremely sceptical that it will happen, or that in his current state this is desirable or doable for man. We will only project our Earthly problems to other "colonies" or stars. That it will be done in scale and size sufficient to make a feelable difference for Earth and human population here, is highly questionable.
To be honest, I believe that if we do have a colony on Mars, it will one day seek independence from Earth, just as the US did from the UK back in the day. There may even be a violent falling out about it, but whatever grows up on Mars, whatever culture or society comes from colonies, it will have one thing in common, it will not be like that of Earth. It may share some similarities, basic speech, same biological inhabitants, but in time it will become its own separate entity from us. This will be particularly true if transport between Earth and Mars takes a long time to do. History has taught us that colonies make their own cultures.
Will that change basic human flaws? No, absolutely not. I don't think anything much less than an act of God would do such a thing. Will we expand out infinitely into the stars? Perhaps, perhaps not. Perhaps our offshoots will have offshoots of their own. Perhaps we will run into a brick wall somewhere and come back with a bloody nose. Or not come back at all.
I would just feel a lot happier if there were other humans out there, with our knowledge, our history on them, on different planets, so that it would take more than the loss of one planet to end us. It's not something I'm going to lose sleep over, I'll be ready to shuffle off my mortal coil before we start realising that we're running out of resources, and most people on this forum will already be dead. Their children...well, time will tell what kind of a world they grow up on.
I think you're right about viable colonies quickly going independent Oberon. Self sufficiency would be a prerequisite though and that won't happen for a long time after these colonies are established.
TLAM Strike
08-12-12, 07:42 PM
I think you're right about viable colonies quickly going independent Oberon. Self sufficiency would be a prerequisite though and that won't happen for a long time after these colonies are established.
Although resource wealth of off world colonies could very well lead to independence. If the United Colonies of Europa own the most concentrated supply of He3 they can basically call their own shots unless Earth wants to sit in the dark when their Fusion reactors run dry, and of course the Free Haven of 4 Vesta can live high on the hog as they can enact "tariffs" on passing He3 Tanker Ships as they wish since they have Earth's main energy route by the nads. While the People's Combine of Mare Crisium maintains their independence courtesy of food shipments insured by the PCMC's batteries of mass drivers.
There are many countries on Earth who are independent but not self sufficient for one reason or another, space won't be different once we find the resources that are up there and start mass producing the means to go.
There are many countries on Earth who are independent but not self sufficient for one reason or another, space won't be different once we find the resources that are up there and start mass producing the means to go.
I don't know if that's a valid comparison TLAM. The longest voyage on earth is nothing compared to a voyage to nearby planets, let alone other solar systems. If I were on that very long and tenuous lifeline i'd be doing everything I could to be as self sufficient as possible.
TLAM Strike
08-12-12, 08:25 PM
I don't know if that's a valid comparison TLAM. The longest voyage on earth is nothing compared to a voyage to nearby planets, let alone other solar systems. If I were on that very long and tenuous lifeline i'd be doing everything I could to be as self sufficient as possible.
Well that depends very much on the engines available. Right now all we got are dinky toys. We start building some Orions or Gas Core Reactor Rockets then we start getting in to travel times of a few weeks to the outer planets.
Gargamel
08-12-12, 08:29 PM
The speeds are doable with future engines, but are they realistic?
First off, the 6 month travel time we have now only occurs every 24 months when the planets are lined up right. The few weeks travel time would have to occur in that same window, else the travel grows hugely. A immediate rescue mission, for example, may take 6 months, or they may have to wait 6 months just to get there at the same time.
Secondly, can the human body take the g forces associated with such a trip? A high speed trip like this would be 2 weeks of acceleration, then flip the ship over, and decelerate for 2 weeks. Can humans tolerate these forces? Cargo ships, most likely. But I don't know about humans.
I'd think it would be in the best interest of Earth men that colonies stay dependent in as many ways as practical.
I imagine that even with dependence on Earth there will be big internal moves towards independence both on the colony and on Earth. Freedom fighters, bombs, that kind of thing. I imagine that the Earth response would be one that Reginald Dyer would be proud of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre
Of course, there's also the question of whether there would be multiple countries colonies and how they would integrate. I imagine it would work, it did in America, but until independence occurs the question would remain under whose authority these colonies would operate.
Skybird
08-13-12, 06:50 AM
You guys already distribute the bear's fur before you even saw one, not to mention hunt it and shot it.
All this may or may not be one day. But there is an unfortunate precondition for it becoming true. Our technological hightech culture and the social order/civilisation able to maintain a big industry, must be maintained and must survive the coming centuries, if not millenia. And that is where we must realise that "colonising space" cannot be the answer to solve our problems on Earth. It's just the other way around: solving our problems on Earth is the answer to the needs for running a space program, not even mentioning "colonies" in space.
To me, it all compares to the daydream we sometimes may allow ourselves to dwell in: winning the jackpot in the lottery and dreaming of what we would do with the money. Nice, maybe even refreshing for some, to dream like that occasionally. But it does nothing real for us. In a comparable way, we dwell in daydreams of science fiction futures.
I do not say it will not become true, in full or in parts, one day. I just do not know. But I am absolutely certain that I will not live to witness first man on Mars, or mining done on the Moon in scale greater than just academic curiosity. It will be half a century or more before there may be the first manned science lab on Mars, or the first lasting moon station. And it will be several centuries before somebody starts an operation that could in any way be labelled as the beginning of "colonising" the Moon or Mars. All the while we need to prevent our planetary civilisation from collapsing, desintegrating, falling due to economic, political, demographic and ecological reasons, or turning into science-hostile religious tyranny again.
That's several huge reasons too many as if I already would want to fantasize about independence movements of space colonies right now. :03: It makes more sense to deal with the threat of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East right now, for example. Or to bring the blooming corruption in our economies and political systems under control. These are just two of many present issues that put the further existence of our planetary civilisation into doubt right now in the present time, not in just a couple of centuries or millenia. And there are so many things that put our ongoing existence into doubt right now and which we must deal and find solutions for in the forseeable future, for which ideas about "space colonies" have no assistence value at all. Such issues are too urgent right now as if we could allow us the luxury to imagine that in some hundred years a colony on Mars will be the answer to it. It is questionable that in some hundred years our global civilisation is still there, not to mention that it has managed to support a colonization program for mars. The chance for a big thermonuclear war, an ecological collapse or a big pandemy killing huge parts of mankind, is much greater.
Not to mention terraforming Mars - or do you think it worthwhile to have some thousand people living in tiny metal tubes on Mars all their life long? Then you maybe see also a sense in hiding in deep bunkers if a global thermonuclear war brakes out, so that you survive the mushrooms and can live in the time afterwards - in bunkers and a hopelessly contaminated environment? I would not want to surive the mushroom phase. I also would not want to spend all my life in a metal tube on Mars or Moon.
Visions are all nice and well. But staying grounded a bit and operating a bit by "reality principle", cannot hurt.
From one of my favourite Star Trek films: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdgjUPMiiEc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdgjUPMiiEc)
I fully agree Skybird, but I don't know if we have the luxury of time to sort these things out. The drum is beating, and it would take a massive, epic, sociological change to even begin to sort out the problems we have here and now. In essence it would probably be easier to colonise space than it would be to survive the coming centuries on this single planet.
Furthermore, what is to say that a space colonisation program cannot be part of the solution to the problems that lie ahead. We will run out of Helium on this planet within the next century, we cannot manufacture it synthetically, but we can harvest it from space. Same thing goes for heavy elements, and metals. We will come to a point very soon when we'll have sucked this planet dry, and we'll need to look elsewhere if we want to keep our rate of technological advance.
Growth in population is going to be a problem, so whilst implementing a strict one or two child per family law, send people to another planet, the population of Earth will gradually lower and there will be more space for those still here.
These things don't happen overnight, they take decades of planning. We know that we face problems in the future, why not take steps now to prepare to face those problems? And I'm not talking about a couple of millenia, either, I'm talking about a couple of decades, we really need to get a rocket up our arses because the coming century is going to be a real rocky one. The nuclear issue of Iran is going to be dwarved by the Middle East running out of oil and suddenly becoming irrelevant in the global scheme of things. An entire global rethink of our way of life will be needed in the next one hundred years unless technology manages to pull us out of the fire. Heck, it could be needed in the next fifty years. Or an unexpected asteroid could dump itself on us within the next decade and solve all the problems that we foresee for the next millennia by making them completely irrelevant.
Now, myself, August and TLAM, we acknowledge that there are problems in the here and now, and we all have our different opinions on how to solve these problems, but that doesn't stop us from keeping one foot in the future, to give ourselves something to talk about and think about.
After all, if man had focused purely on the problems inside the cave and never looked outside it, he would never have left it.
Raptor1
08-13-12, 07:26 AM
The speeds are doable with future engines, but are they realistic?
First off, the 6 month travel time we have now only occurs every 24 months when the planets are lined up right. The few weeks travel time would have to occur in that same window, else the travel grows hugely. A immediate rescue mission, for example, may take 6 months, or they may have to wait 6 months just to get there at the same time.
Secondly, can the human body take the g forces associated with such a trip? A high speed trip like this would be 2 weeks of acceleration, then flip the ship over, and decelerate for 2 weeks. Can humans tolerate these forces? Cargo ships, most likely. But I don't know about humans.
G forces aren't quite as much an issue as they are often made out to be. Even if you keep your acceleration down to a comfortable 1 g for the entire trip and you will still be able to reach most of the outer planets quite easily. In fact, it would probably be quite hard to devise a drive system that could even generate the sort of acceleration human bodies can't tolerate for any extended period of time.
As for travel times; launch windows are only so important when you have to take the lowest delta-V trajectory to get to your destination. Once you are capable of sufficient acceleration for enough time, then launching at exactly the right point becomes far less important. For example, if you have a ship that can accelerate at 1 g for the entire run, then a course from Terra to Saturn at the point when they are farthest apart wouldn't take you much more than 9 days.
Skybird
08-13-12, 07:27 AM
I fully agree Skybird, but I don't know if we have the luxury of time to sort these things out. The drum is beating, and it would take a massive, epic, sociological change to even begin to sort out the problems we have here and now. In essence it would probably be easier to colonise space than it would be to survive the coming centuries on this single planet.
I think you just underestimate the technical, logistical, financial, political, sociological challanges of taking the shortcut and bypassing the cleanup in our home Earth before jumping somewhere else. That'S what I wanted to make clear: it is no luxury to take the time for cleaning up our home. It is a timely necessity to do so. And it is in doubt indeed that we have the time needed to do so.
But the time needed for founding colonies worth the name on Mars I see even more critical. When I was in elementary school, in the early and mid-70s that was, there was talking about 15 years more and man would walk on Mars. Now see what really happened, see how we really went along, what paths to walk we have choosen, and see the reasons why it went this way instead of the other way. Then you understand why I am sceptical about ideas for colonising Mars being the answer to man'S problems on earth, and why I think in different timescales.
It'S fair to say that we do not have so much a problem, but that we are the problem. I touched on that when in threads about evolution I have indicated my thinking that our evolutionary roots, our genetic heritage, that once helped us to survive, in the situation of changed determinants that we face now may be the reason why we will not suvive, but suffer an evolutionary deadlock. Our problems today derive from our genetically encoded behaviour patterns. and these are the patterns of the caveman hunter, tribal warrior, meat-eater, club-swinger. We are hopelessly outdated, overaged software running on a biological server that controls new and hopelessly advanced hardware. We do not need so much body engineering and technologies. We need to do an evolutionary huge jump of mind. A massive, fundamental software upgrade. This is what decides whether we will stay around for another couple of millenia, or go MIE - missing in evolution.
Evolution for us primarily must mean now: evolution is our state of mind. This - just by the way - is one of the reasons why I am so very hostile towards attempts to restrengthen religions' regimes again.
You may be right there Skybird, and I honestly don't disagree with you. We do need to clean this planet up, and clean ourselves up. I just don't see that evolutionary jump in the way we think happening within the time frame needed. I mean it is happening, more and more people are putting thought into it, but unfortunately not at the levels where it matters, and let's face it, we're all at loggerheads at exactly what direction that evolutionary jump of thinking needs to go. Meanwhile the clock is ticking and we're running on the spot, making lots of noise and effort but not really going anywhere.
All I want is a lifeboat, a capsule, something that if it does all go wrong, and we do wind up like the dinosaurs, something outside of this planet will survive. Our species will go on, even if it's not on this planet. That's what I want, what I hope for, and if we manage to answer some of the questions that we have in the process then that is good too.
TLAM Strike
08-13-12, 11:34 AM
The speeds are doable with future engines, but are they realistic?
First off, the 6 month travel time we have now only occurs every 24 months when the planets are lined up right. The few weeks travel time would have to occur in that same window, else the travel grows hugely. A immediate rescue mission, for example, may take 6 months, or they may have to wait 6 months just to get there at the same time. Mission windows tend to be a major factor for missions to the inner planets, while the outer planets have much longer orbital periods giving large windows (for Earth to Jupiter the window would be about 1/2 the Earth year for a Hohman orbit and about 3/4 of the year for a Brachistochrone trajectory. Of course a large number of off world colonies means more options for things like a rescue mission, a major focus for early colonization efforts would most likely be establishing supply dumps and bases for "Space Guard" units for safety.
Secondly, can the human body take the g forces associated with such a trip? A high speed trip like this would be 2 weeks of acceleration, then flip the ship over, and decelerate for 2 weeks. Can humans tolerate these forces? Cargo ships, most likely. But I don't know about humans. An acceleration of 1 g would put Mars about four days away, Saturn 17 days. Such acceleration would be preferable actually since you would not have to deal with long term 0 g flight.
At this point in time, do we fully understand the medical side of things? Our atmosphere on Earth protects ua from a lot of things from space. The little atmosphere on Mars will be a big difference to humans. Being a lot closer to the sun, solar flares and radiation will have a much greater impact then it does here. We still have no idea of the long term effects on humans being in less gravity then what we have here. A lot has to be learned before we venture too far out. Not saying it can't be understood, but the longest anyone has been in zero gravity is what, 6 months?
TLAM Strike
08-13-12, 12:01 PM
Not saying it can't be understood, but the longest anyone has been in zero gravity is what, 6 months?
Valeri Polyakov, 437 days (14 months) in orbit. Basically it was the Soviets testing human endurance for a Mars mission. :03:
At this point in time, do we fully understand the medical side of things? Our atmosphere on Earth protects ua from a lot of things from space. The little atmosphere on Mars will be a big difference to humans. Being a lot closer to the sun, solar flares and radiation will have a much greater impact then it does here.
Isn't that what Curiosity went there to do? :hmmm:
Takeda Shingen
08-13-12, 12:16 PM
Being a lot closer to the sun, solar flares and radiation will have a much greater impact then it does here.
As I understand it, Earth is closer to the Sun than Mars.
You're right, we are closer,lol Still, the atmosphere on Mars is a whole different story.
Catfish
08-13-12, 12:43 PM
If you settle a kilometer deep below the average Mars surface the atmosphere on Mars would be thick enough, however this is a big hole to dig, let alone build a city.
However a few years ago there were several books (mostly SciFi but realistic 'Hardcore' SF); i think the books had titles like "Red Mars", "White Mars" etc. where several better-known authors discussed possible settlements on Mars and how to do it.
IMHO we have a limited time to explore new technologies and then spread across the universe asap, because apart from our own race maybe killing itself off due to egoism, the "nation" concept, politics or plain stupidity, there will be "the big one" (meteorite) sooner or later, so we better move our a$$es in time (i hope i will not get those brig points again, for this :03: )
Found this interesting - it would be only a probe, but well possible in the next hundred years:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6lkmK3kEEE&feature=player_embedded
Thanks and greetings,
Catfish
Found this aritcle on the NASA website, can't imagine being there and no chance of having a hamburger!:D
How would future colonies on Mars grow crops, and what would be the human diet?
Due to the thin atmosphere and the consequent exposure to space radiation and particle bombardment, the first human and agriculture habitats on Mars will be underground. Light will eventually be generated by a nuclear reactor, but will initially have to be piped down from solar collectors. Greenhouses that make excellent use of the high levels of CO2 found in the Martian atmosphere and long cycles of continuous light will be constructed to facilitate fast crop growth. Until the content of Martian soil is known, crops will be grown solely with water, in a process called hydroponics. This will prove to be more efficient anyway, because scientists can control the concentration and variety of nutrients each plant needs, thus encouraging faster growing and healthier crops.
The human diet will probably consist mostly of cereal (wheat and/or rice) and legumes (peanut, soybean, and/or cowpea) for protein; sweetpotato and/or white potato for complex carbohydrates; and vegetables (lettuce, tomato, broccoli) and herbs (onion, garlic). Sources of fat will be limited; hence, peanuts and perhaps small amounts of animal food sources will be required
TLAM Strike
08-13-12, 12:57 PM
However a few years ago there were several books (mostly SciFi but realistic 'Hardcore' SF); i think the books had titles like "Red Mars", "White Mars" etc. where several better-known authors discussed possible settlements on Mars and how to do it.
Are you thinking of the Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_trilogy
One of my professors always liked to talk about these books.
Catfish
08-13-12, 01:58 PM
Hello TLAM Strike,
yes, this was it :up:
We also discussed the possibilities of settling in planetary geology during studying, with some of our professors.
At this time there were also those films like "Mission to Mars" and "Red Planet" played, in the cinemas. I loved it :cool:
It is generally possible technically, however the earth's population failing in uniting and concentrating on national ego- and other -isms, with only nation-wide ventures, technical progress regarding advancing into space is much slower than anticipated in the early 20ieth century.
Certainly, the race for the moon accelerated research and competition can sometimes have a good side effect, but let's be honest: After the 1980ies there was not much going on, apart from the ISS.
As long as people prefer to kill each other for reasons of politics, religion and natural resources we will only see isolated ventures.
The late/recent(?) SciFi literature seems to embrace private ventures rather than governmental efforts, however if we really want to build some interplanetary propulsion system like ramjets or tokamaks, we need the resources of the whole world - and i do not only mean mineral 'inanimate' resources.
Thanks and greetings,
Catfish
I try to follow the news about the curiousity's adventure on Mars
I have lately being searching the youtube, after a video I saw couple a days ago.
In this video, one was told, that the pictures that was send from Mars was a fraud and they were being maniulated through photoshop.
The reason, shoud be that Mars is inhabited by alliens and the planet is like earth with vegetable a.s.o
Haha
Markus
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/292417_10151044723083889_398892786_n.jpg
If you settle a kilometer deep below the average Mars surface the atmosphere on Mars would be thick enough, however this is a big hole to dig, let alone build a city.
The Hellas Impact Crater is 5 miles deep. Wouldn't that be suitable?
Catfish
08-13-12, 04:11 PM
Hello August,
yes i forgot - this was indeed the scenario that was developed in one of the books. Fill that crater with an oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere, and people would be able to live there. Several advantages this way:
- An outpost without needing giant structures like cupolas
- Big enough to build a whole city in
- An outpost being able to operate from, and cultivate other parts
- Cultivated plants would overtake the role of producing oxygen, and the atmosphere would rise and spread from the crater - with a more dense atmosphere temperature would rise all over the planet, if very slowly.
If i remember right, at this crater's depth right now the temperature would be around or even above zero degrees Celsius in summer and during daylight, if just-so.
The Mars' gravitation would keep the O-N atmosphere down there, and the latter would also help building up temperature through the greenhouse effect, but you would still need some heat generator for the night, and winter.
Anyway, one could do it -
Thanks and greetings,
Catfish
TLAM Strike
08-13-12, 04:19 PM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/292417_10151044723083889_398892786_n.jpg
http://www.gifmagic.com/queue/wnwmpoitcuwpx6lbjwtnuq2_27638.gif
Catfish
08-13-12, 04:25 PM
^^ :rotfl2:
But .. but this one isn't from Star Trek ?!
TLAM Strike
08-13-12, 04:41 PM
^^ :rotfl2:
But .. but this one isn't from Star Trek ?!
Oh you want one from Star Trek huh? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsOAbcNnLfk)
Gargamel
08-13-12, 06:59 PM
@catfish
Wouldn't wind blow the atmo out? Or at least make it difficult to maintain?
Catfish
08-14-12, 05:54 AM
Hello,
@TLAM Strike:
Very nice :D
unfortunately Carl Sagan is dead indeed. His educational and scientific films have always fascinated me. RIP Carl.
@Gargamel:
you are right, even in the relatively thin atmosphere of Mars there can be storms that surely would have an impact on the crater, and its "sea of atmosphere".
Sand storms and wind devils have been observed both by fly-by probes, as by landers.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast11oct_2/
The Mars as it is now heats up quickly, and likewise cools as soon as the sun vanishes, and there are planetary movements changing the angle of incoming light and thus creating seasons, like on earth. The question is how big this impact would be, on an open colony and its plants. I take it you would need some protection -
The effect of storms may become even worse, when the artificially produced O-N gases spread beyond the crater walls, and the entire atmosphere becomes more dense - but it may as well have an adverse effect though because of the sun rays not going straight down to the surface then anymore - the climate would be more balanced then as a whole. I guess the time between starting such a project and an established O-N atmosphere will be 'interesting', to say at least.
Greetings,
Catfish
Jimbuna
08-14-12, 06:38 AM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/292417_10151044723083889_398892786_n.jpg
Love it :)
Oh you want one from Star Trek huh? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsOAbcNnLfk)
"Whatever the reason you're on Mars, I'm glad you're there, and I wish I was with you."
Yes, I wish you could be too Carl. :yep:
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/6741/carl20sagan.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm34Muv6Lsg
360 degree interactive panorama thingamaling:
http://www.360pano.eu/show/?id=731
360 degree interactive panorama thingamaling:
http://www.360pano.eu/show/?id=731
Beautiful, thank you Dowly. :yeah:
The Mars Rover Team- Check the guy out farthest on the left. If the eyes are a window to the soul, his eyes say he is the devil,lol
http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/16/13318756-mars-rover-team-faces-the-masses?lite&__utma=238145375.98762373.1344755030.1345157428.13 45162414.22&__utmb=238145375.2.10.1345162414&__utmc=238145375&__utmx=-&__utmz=238145375.1345155437.20.16.utmcsr=msn.com|u tmccn=(referral)|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/&__utmv=238145375.|8=Earned%20By=msnbc%7Cus%20news= 1^12=Landing%20Content=Mixed=1^13=Landing%20Hostna me=www.msnbc.msn.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Cont ent=Earned%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=266046028
As usual, we think in two dimensions when it comes to opportunities to settle on Mars. Have read several replies in this thread and all answers pointing ONLY to the things we have today and are on the drawing board. But it will take a very long time before we can start sending the first settlers to Mars, and by then we will have developed today, for us, completely unknown, new material
Markus
Rockstar
08-16-12, 10:32 PM
http://i1196.photobucket.com/albums/aa408/jky242/d3b90def917a77026433c2dbd0efc77e.jpg
TLAM Strike
08-17-12, 12:16 AM
The Mars Rover Team- Check the guy out farthest on the left. If the eyes are a window to the soul, his eyes say he is the devil,lol
http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/16/13318756-mars-rover-team-faces-the-masses?lite&__utma=238145375.98762373.1344755030.1345157428.13 45162414.22&__utmb=238145375.2.10.1345162414&__utmc=238145375&__utmx=-&__utmz=238145375.1345155437.20.16.utmcsr=msn.com|u tmccn=(referral)|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/&__utmv=238145375.|8=Earned%20By=msnbc%7Cus%20news= 1^12=Landing%20Content=Mixed=1^13=Landing%20Hostna me=www.msnbc.msn.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Cont ent=Earned%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=266046028
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/9500/120816jplhmed1020aphoto.jpg
:hmm2:
I'm sure there is a perfectly reasonable explanation...
http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/8960/originw.jpg
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/8551/beasttoby.jpg]
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/5098/normalsg11010114.jpg
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/7168/imaginaryfriend200.jpg
... oh yep: alien... :yep:
Curiosity's first test drive successful! :yeah:
"We have a fully functioning mobility system with lots of amazing exploration ahead," Heverly said.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/news/msl20120822.html
darius359au
08-22-12, 06:27 PM
I love that NASA have named the landing site "Bradbury Landing" ,where ever he is now I think he may have a huge grin :03::D
Not too happy that NASA picked another Mars mission after this one,i think its time we stretch out a little further,back to titan.
TLAM Strike
08-23-12, 02:54 PM
Not too happy that NASA picked another Mars mission after this one,i think its time we stretch out a little further,back to titan.
NASA and the Europeans are planning (early planning) a mission to Titian's neighbor Enceladus, which has some signs of an environment suitable for possible life.
NASA, ESA and the Russians are building a probe (actually two orbiters and a lander) for a joint mission to Europa and Ganymede.
A few days ago I read in a Swedish newspaper, that the next robot that they are planning to send to Mars, shall have the possibility to drill and dig deeper than before.
Why not build a multitask robot that can do more than just one thing.
They got well paid engineers so let them show that they are worth the payment.
Markus
Why not build a multitask robot that can do more than just one thing.
Build a probe to do one thing, you get a probe that does one thing well.
Build a probe to do ten things, you end up with a probe that can do five things, and doesn't do a very good job at any of them.
Platapus
08-23-12, 08:03 PM
Why not build a multitask robot that can do more than just one thing.
Complexity. You need redundant systems and redundantly redundant systems. Remember, anything goes wrong and it will be a long time before a repair dude can get there.
It is not intuitive, but you can't take two pieces of equipment which have been space rated and bolt them together and expect not to have to space rate the new configuration. You do... or you should... there have been examples where it was not done... those are usually referred to as space junk.
Multiply that by the complex systems that are needed to do the simplest task in downtown Mars. Multiply that by the redundant systems needed. I think it will become clear that simple systems in smaller numbers makes for a reliable space system.
When it comes to designing a space system, there is no such thing as a "small change". :nope::nope:. Everything affects everything else.
The more systems that need to interact, the more chances of an oops. Many oopses can be fixed here on earth, few oopses can be fixed on Mars.
In the space business, we call this mission creep and it is usually the death knell for space systems.
How about instead of building a multiple task robot, you build a multiple robot delivery system capable of deploying many different drones, each built for a single specific task that can be operated independently. I'd think this is what they'd do if they were sending humans. You send a team of specialists in several key areas of study. This allows the team to assist each other as well as perhaps back each other up in the event of mishap.
Hasn't a mars rover been lost because it got stuck in the sand? Maybe it might still be operating if there had been another rover nearby to pull it out. A squad of rovers like I suggest above might even have some type of recovery and repair bot dedicated to unscrewing any number of similar mission ending situations.
TLAM Strike
08-23-12, 11:39 PM
How about instead of building a multiple task robot, you build a multiple robot delivery system capable of deploying many different drones, each built for a single specific task that can be operated independently. I'd think this is what they'd do if they were sending humans. You send a team of specialists in several key areas of study. This allows the team to assist each other as well as perhaps back each other up in the event of mishap.
Hasn't a mars rover been lost because it got stuck in the sand? Maybe it might still be operating if there had been another rover nearby to pull it out. A squad of rovers like I suggest above might even have some type of recovery and repair bot dedicated to unscrewing any number of similar mission ending situations.
The problem is payload and endurance. A big probe can carry more sensors/equipment and can last longer (Curiosity is the 1st rover to use an RTG for example) meaning it can operate in conditions that a smaller rover cannot, one rover was put out of commission because dust covered its solar cells.
Now curiosity was only 23% of a nearly 9000 lb spacecraft all dedicated to getting that rover down safely. Sending two similar Rovers would have been beyond the payload abilities of the Atlas V rocket, even a Delta IV or Titan IV might not be able to do it. It could have in theory deployed about 8 of the Sprint/Opportunity type rovers but they would have all been landed very close to one another if they were meant to assist each other (These rovers cannot travel very far very fast), which does not factor in the practicality to commanding a rover to fix another rover with a 20 minute time delay from Mars to Earth (10 mins each way).
If we were commanding a rover from Mars orbit or from an outpost established on one of its moons then maybe having a pair of mutual assisting robots might be practical.
Now here is a really cool video for those of you who haven't seen it yet:
http://youtu.be/fJgeoHBQpFQ
(Curiosity landing footage digitally processed to look high-definition, high-framerate)
^Very nice! :yeah:
***
A few days ago, engineers fired up its 100 mm camera – a telephoto that has a bit more zoom to it than the cameras from which we’ve been seeing pictures. They pointed it to the base of Mount Sharp, the big mountain in the center of its new home of Gale Crater. And what it saw (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/pia16105.html) is, simply, breath-taking:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/681054main_pia16105-full_full.jpg
:o
MOAR!!!
This video was shown on danish news
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX7iOqLd5Mw
They said that this video have increased the conspiracy that Mars is inhabited
I say that it have some kind of natural explanation.
Markus
soopaman2
08-28-12, 01:39 PM
I watched this live on NASA TV. And had this on my computer at the same time.
http://eyes.nasa.gov/
Awesome program, while I was waiting for the lander to make it to the ground, I found myself looking at Voyager I and II, and the moons of Saturn. You can see anything in space that we know of with this. It even has a size comparison tool, so you can get an idea of how big or small the junk we sent up is.
What makes this amazing to me is how we landed it, it was too heavy for a parachute or airbag landing, so much had to happen at the right moment for this to suceed, and it did!
I am so excited that the American pioneering spirit is still alive and well!:rock: We were first on the moon! Now we have to ask the Russians for rides? Meh...:down: (RIP Neil Armstrong:yep:)
I cannot wait until they get this thing up close to the mountain they want to look at. From what I read there is still a bit of time before they get there.
This video was shown on danish news
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX7iOqLd5Mw
They said that this video have increased the conspiracy that Mars is inhabited
I say that it have some kind of natural explanation.
Markus
News actually showed that? Way to go whoever is doing their research! :haha:
It's not a video at all, but a still image, one of the first ones Curiosity transmitted
actually. :O:
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA15972
(and same goes for the other two "UFO" videos I saw, just edited still images.)
News actually showed that? Way to go whoever is doing their research! :haha:
It's not a video at all, but a still image, one of the first ones Curiosity transmitted
actually. :O:
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA15972
(and same goes for the other two "UFO" videos I saw, just edited still images.)
They were talking about Curiousity and showed the landing, when they showed the video above. It was not mentioned when thise footage was taken.
After I saw that, I went to youtube to see what people wrote as comment.
If people want to believe that there are intelligent life on Mars-well that's up to them- I Surely don't.
Markus
It would be nice to think that there is intelligent life on Mars, but it's not very likely. I suspect that the conditions were once right for life on Mars many many millennia ago when our planet was still in its infancy, however whether or not there actually was life on it within our definition of life...well, that's the big question. I'd like to think so, but only time and exploration can give us an answer.
soopaman2
08-28-12, 02:34 PM
Mars has been a huge focus of the international space community for a good while now. One of the three artificial mars satellites orbiting and helping us relay back information and taking pictures is a British lauched satellite that lauched the failed Beagle 2 into the atmosphere.
It sure would be nice to get a camera on the landing site to see what happened as the sources I am finding seem to be full of conjecture and speculation.
Mars has been a fascination of humans since we realized it was there.
Mars, Roman god of war. One of mankinds favorite pastimes.:doh:
Our longstanding fascination with Mars intrigues me. I try to find reason for things, but why Mars?
Even before we saw all the pictures of possible signs of ancient waterflows on Mars. Romans recognized this planet had power. Greeks did too. They had no spacecraft with cameras.
Not being a skeptic, all this is of huge interest to me.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.