You are not logged in.
I've read the opinions of other regular posters here in this forum, and yes, repairing of Hubble has a lot of merit. But as GW has pointed out, Dragon capsule doesn't have an airlock for astronauts to suit up for EVAs. This in itself is a major strike against a repair mission, as a manned flight to visit Hubble would probably require using a Falcon Heavy launch at some $93 Million. The WFIRST mission is still simmering along as an IR telescope, but having an instrument in visible light and with UV capability is currently absent the NASA planners. What's really needed is a price tag and production timetable for something suitable as a replacement. NOT some segmented folding mirror monster, but a straightforward but larger aperture version of Hubble.
Added here as a P.S.: I'm suggesting a KISS approach. Hubble has already exceeded it's projected lifespan by an order of magnitude. I'm a great admirer of the work it has accomplished, but as it's going into it's "old age," and on the way to becoming an antique--I'm thumping for an upgraded replacement.
This is really a case for a cost-benefit analysis; whether the cost of a space launch and space walks to upgrade and repair the Hubble are the same as a replacement without the hassle of space walks Hubble's primary mirror is 98" in diameter, and whether or not the U of A mirror lab could make a new telescope with larger mirror, more sophisticated instrumentation and control computers reasonably is my question. I think Falcon Heavy could lift a telescope inside their 5 meter diameter fairing, as could an Atlas V. A Falcon Heavy launch would undoubtedly be far less expensive than the Atlas. By my calculations, a 175" diameter mirror telescope could probably be built to fit my proposed launch system(s). Such a telescope would collect about 3.2 x the light gathered by Hubble, and is more than a stellar magnitude fainter capability.
"These people have seen one too many Hollyweird movies."
No. They are the ones writing the scripts. Vivid imaginations.
Differentiating any native Mars based life forms with those from Earth originated forms would be quite simple today due to the sophistication of nucleic acid analysis of the DNA contained in what is discovered. This assumes that life forms are universally DNA/protein based organisms. One of the instruments I neglected to include in my laboratory would be (should be) a DNA analyzer.
The entire argument that planetary protection of Mar should preclude travel there is ridiculous.
As Louis stated, protection of sand, rocks, and a barren planet is absurd.
P.S. I really don't think that the CCP gives a tinkers damn about what the planetary protection people think! That will not stop or even incrementally slow down the Chinese.
Instead of repairing a 30 year old telescope, difficult to repair as stated earlier in this thread, a suitable replacement could be carried to orbit by either a Falcon 9 or Ariene 5. Falcon 9 would be less expensive but a size increase would make for a smaller telescope than could be carried by the Ariene 5 due to a smaller fairing size.
Hubble is a World Treasure, but it's ageing. I would be supportive of a larger replacement--nothing so grandiose as another James Webb or even the WFIRST telescope. Apply the KISS principles and make a same as Hubble mission replacement that can be carried to orbit by either a Falcon 9 launch or a Starship launch--not a complex folding mirror monstrosity. Not another multi-billion dollar system.
The idea that any form of Martian life will be life-threatening is absurd. Dr. Zubrin discusses this concept several times in his various books, but Entering Space has possibly his most lucid commentary.
Humans and mammals are subject to bacterial diseases that have taken eons to develop in a parasite-host type of relationship. Plants have their own diseases but aren't a general problem. Robert's favorite one liner is that humans don't get Dutch Elm Disease, and trees don't get pneumonia.
Welcome back!
Mostly to avoid damage to the engines from flying debris, or in the case of the moon--sending stones and debris into low lunar orbit. The early designs of Robert Goddard as well as those of the German program of Herman Oberth & von Braun all used tractor style designs instead of more commonly seen today--"pusher" style designs.
Flame diverters are avoided in both takeoff and landings.
The issue of massive dust cloud displacement from the Mars landing hasn't really been addressed on this forum. Maybe this is why Musk has jumped into the lunar landing program, because it will address a similar if not more extreme issue on the moon. Landing legs and lotsa fire from the engines exhaust aren't a particularly compatible situation.
My thoughts:
Use the similar engine arrangement for both lunar lander and Mars landing Starships, with engines high on the body of the landing vehicle with exhausts angled away from the touchdown point. Landing legs could be a part of a dockable extension attached in LEO after refueling the Starship for the Hohman transfer maneuver. After Mars departure on the return flight back to Earth, those wide tracked legs could simply be left behind and landing on a prepared pad accomplished at Starbase.
Here's an interesting video with a possible alternative to early Starship landings on Mars.
I think "what's gone wrong" is simply old age.
Thomas-
I just made a small addition to the original thread.
I specifically request some input from all chemists, biologists, and geologists for their input here and I'll consider their suggestions and make necessary modifications.
A laboratory for the scientists. What should it have for instrumentation?
(1) FTIR spectrometer. Make fingerprint spectra of all compounds found and isolated.
(2) Polarimeter to examine substances for Optical Activity ( D & L isomers),
(3) HPLC chromatograph for purification/isolation of chemicals in mixtures.
(4) Digital microscope.
(5) Equipment for sample preparation; saws for cutting rocks.
(6) Standard laboratory equipment for wet chemistry.
(7) Oven for sample treatment and drying.
This is an initial "short list," but what I as a chemist would want available to determine whether or not we have found evidence of life--past or present.
I elected to go with HPLC rather that a GLC chromatograph because of sample volatility issues.
OK, but I've been preoccupied with other things...
Completely ignored by others on this forum is the book, Merchants of Despair, by none other than Robert Zubrin.
Robert, as usual, cuts through the crap on Global Warming and also on CO2 emissions as related to the "environment." It is shown in detail that the increase in atmospheric CO2 i directly related to the constantly increasing global production of food. Grains in particular. Global Warming? Equals longer growing seasons! Increased global food production for the "teeming masses."
kdb512--
your above commentary again brings the issue of "why no 'thumbs up' icon available."
I'm giving your comments 5 thumbs up.
Just an eyeball estimate from GW's drawings: it would appear that the stability would be decent but less than optimal. I am making a WAG that it could be as much as 20 degrees from vertical and still survive without tipping over. It depends on the true COG location.
Calliban-
I completely understand your orientation because of where you live. Most Europeans don't fathom the magnitude of the problem we face here in the USA, due to the size of the country. Public Transportation is only within the big, major cities and rural areas are entirely dependent on fossil fuel operated private vehicles. EVs are a joke because they don't have adequate range for use in the Western United States. I would personally love to have a Tesla as a SECOND car. One for in-town use and local errands, shopping, etc. My current car is a Mini Cooper which gets ~ 30 mpg, yet still has adequate performance for taking long trips. I see the so-called Full Size automobiles becoming obsolescent in the next few years as fuel prices skyrocket. The current fuel prices are based on political decisions about fracking, and pipelines to move crude oil, not lack of the resource.
Those of us who are regular contributors to this website are sufficiently adult and responsible to discuss things without the threat of violence and riots for our positions we state.
Talking to friends around the country, however, the threats to personal safety and destruction of their homes and property by the operatives of this new Far Left (Marxist-Socialist-Race Baiting agenda), are very real. In some of the more "Progressive" cities such as Portland and Seattle, even the absence of a sign in the window of their homes supportive of BLM leads to vandalism and trashing of their automobiles.
I support the right of Free Speech and also support the planting of flags as a "we were here" symbol, but taking possession of Mars or the Moon by any country so bold as to try it is is ludicrous and stupid.
kdb512-
There's really not much chance that the mainstream media will stop beating that divisive "racist" drum. Divide and conquer. That's the New Far Left Mantra. This is essentially the Communist Manifesto being played out before our eyes. The "haves" vs. the "have nots." The "People of Color" vs. "Whitey."
I was a medic in my Army days, and it didn't matter what color the injured or wounded were wearing the uniform, because they all bled red, white, and blue.
The US brought along flags to the Moon, but did NOT make a claim of ownership or sovereign dominion there. Mountaineers often take their countries' flags to summits as a symbol that "they were there."
One might look at the Flag that Armstrong and Aldrin took along as a "We paid for the trip" symbol."
I think Louis is possibly referring back to an early Elon Musk comment about having cargo area at the extreme aft of the Starship and possibly surrounding the engine bay; this was in one of his televised broadcasts that announced the "Dear Moon" mission. I suspect that with the Raptor engine problems, that concept has probably gone by the boards
Louis-
I suggest you go and buy basic textbook on Statics. You are making statements about a subject that is simply straight physics as understood by every engineer that graduated from a university. Statics is the study of forces on objects at rest. We're talking about a very simple concept of center of gravity or center of mass. It must be over a polygon shape as defined by the points of contact of the legs with the supporting surface. If the system is leaning and the CG is over the edge of the polygon--it topples over.
"Dust storms never completely prevent PV energy generation."
False.