The Martian Atmosphere is about 1 % as thick as earth's. That means that a 250 mph wind on mars has as much strength as a 2.5 mph wind here.
The winds aren't really a problem, but those microscopic fines that get blown in them will be big trouble.
jumpboy11j,
I wondered about the effect of atmospheric density but it still seems to me that a sand particle blowing along at 250 mph is still blowing along at 250 mph.
I certainly agree that microscopic particle contaminates from 250 mph winds will be a problem for machinery.
Ron Carlson
]]>The winds aren't really a problem, but those microscopic fines that get blown in them will be big trouble.
]]>well, wouldn't there have to be some kind of habitation module on mars to keep the humans living for awhile?? and even if they did that, it would have to be built underneath the surface because of all the dangerous dust storms, unless there is some kind of building strong enough to take that kind of wind power, and i don't think there is.
My understanding is that the major dust storms on Mars reach ~250 miles per hour. That is a lot of wind
My guess is that permanent long term living modules for humans may have to be built a reasonable distance underground to avoid destruction by these high speed winds.
Ron Carlson
]]>Rovers suck for two primary reasons-
1. They Can't Think.
a.rovers can not determine anything, and all information from a rover is in question unless a human is actually present and able to monitor the experiment. Just look at the infamous mars 'life' experiment
b. who is gonna fix one if they break down? Robots can't fix themselves (or other robots, too many varibles for limited machine minds. . .)2. They suck.
a. They suck in all manner of suckitude
b. I've seen better, and cheaper r/c monster trucks. . . .
c. No subsitute for the real thing. (man, of course, and I meant woman if you are a femmist extremist!)*I've often wondered how feasible it's really going to be for rovers to maneuver around the boulder-strewn landscapes of Mars. Not all areas are dotted with boulders, but it seems lots of it is (based on all the photos I've seen).
Better put a snow-shovel-like attachment ala Mack truck on them!
--Cindy
Properly designed, they could unfold and erect themselves into six-foot high, six-legged walkers that would be able simply to step over, or straddle 90-percent of the rocks I've seen, so far, Cindy.
]]>Rovers suck for two primary reasons-
1. They Can't Think.
a.rovers can not determine anything, and all information from a rover is in question unless a human is actually present and able to monitor the experiment. Just look at the infamous mars 'life' experiment
b. who is gonna fix one if they break down? Robots can't fix themselves (or other robots, too many varibles for limited machine minds. . .)2. They suck.
a. They suck in all manner of suckitude
b. I've seen better, and cheaper r/c monster trucks. . . .
c. No subsitute for the real thing. (man, of course, and I meant woman if you are a femmist extremist!)
*I've often wondered how feasible it's really going to be for rovers to maneuver around the boulder-strewn landscapes of Mars. Not all areas are dotted with boulders, but it seems lots of it is (based on all the photos I've seen).
Better put a snow-shovel-like attachment ala Mack truck on them!
--Cindy
]]>I don't think people expect too much from rovers or probes, generally speaking. I mean, consider the press on Pathfinder. Everyone was basically made aware before it even left the pad that it was going to move at a few inches every now and then and had to be programmed and so on. I think, that it was made obvious to most people that rovers can't tell us exactness. Even humans couldn't be able to be exact without their own labs and so on. (A group of colonists could go to Mars and live there with very little or no scientific knowledge, for example.)
]]>Humanity fears what it cannot understand, and it will fear AI, which will make robots perhaps the equals of humans. And if they become equals, self aware, intelligent, etc...then humans will have to accept them as being so...and with no 3 rule of robotics this time, for it would not be ethical to have them as second-class citizens if they really were possessed of artficial-conciousnesses.
]]>they will be able to increase the capabilities of our crew and lighten their workload allowing them to concentrate on the big questions.
exactly. I agree wholeheartedly with that statement.
My point is that you are being to harsh on them.
My point is that a lot of people expect too much from them.
]]>The only reason we have any of the questions we do now is because the robots went out there and couldnt answer them.
We are sending robots that are leaving too much to question. A full-time human station (like the barrows point at the north pole) will answer the questions in totallity instead of half-answers.
theyve brought us this far and theyll carry on helping us in the future.
I still haven't seen how you think robots will react to unknown varibles. They may be the best now, but humans are better with unknown varibles than robots.
probably. but only in direct supervision with humans (like the canada arm. . .)
They may be slow and have short lives but they get the job done.
I agree, but if they break down before they get the job done, what good is that? What happens if they can't get the job done?
Robots in space are generally relible, I agree, but only to do experiments with no unknowns. If there are unknowns then that robot is in deep feces.
]]>