New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: This forum is accepting new registrations via email. Please see Recruiting Topic for additional information. Write newmarsmember[at_symbol]gmail.com.

#26 Re: Unmanned probes » Dawn - Vesta & Ceres orbiter » 2005-03-07 20:42:28

I'll answer my own questions.  According to wikipedia.org (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_belt]The Asteroid Belt) the gravity of Jupiter prevented the stuff near the inside of its orbit from ever accreting into anything of any real size.  And apparently the mass of all the asteroids would be smaller than Pluto.  So much for the 'destroyed planet' theory.  It was a nice idea.  smile  Also the 'asteroid belt' really is hardly populated by any asteroids at all, such that you'd be unlikely to even see an asteroid if you flew through the area yourself.  Bummer.

#27 Re: Unmanned probes » Dawn - Vesta & Ceres orbiter » 2005-03-07 20:37:54

I've never really read up on the asteroid belt..  Are there any leading theories as to how it was formed?  Why would there be a bunch of asteroids between Mars and Jupiter?  Planet that got hit by a huge asteroid way back when?  A bunch of stuff that accreted into smaller pieces way back when and just never joined into a big ball?  I wonder how big a planet would those asteroids would make..

#28 Re: Unmanned probes » SMART-1 - ESA lunar orbiter » 2005-03-05 14:23:12

If someone truly believes that no one has landed on the moon, then I don't know that they can ever be convinced.  I suppose they might be convinced if they themselves were to go to the moon, but it could all be an elaborate simulator, don't you know.

I remember Disneyland used to have a ride that was supposed to be you taking off from Earth and landing on Mars.  I really believed we had flown to Mars as a kid (my parents convinced me otherwise, and I realized they must be right).  Alas, we didn't really land on Mars..  and I was just a kid.  Surely adults would be far harder to fool.  smile

#29 Re: Unmanned probes » Running on Empty - NASA launches with a wing and a prayer » 2005-03-05 14:19:17

I agree that everything possible should be done to avoid unnecessary risk.  But everything in life has risk, and the adventures with the most possible benefit are always the ones with the highest amount of risk.  Blame God.  smile

#30 Re: Unmanned probes » Running on Empty - NASA launches with a wing and a prayer » 2005-03-02 22:07:57

Regardless of whether the space shuttle blows up zero more times or blows up a million more times, the US, and any other government, has to know that it would cancel its manned space program at its own peril.  Someone somewhere will have the guts to continually fly people into space, as safely as possible, yes, but regardless of just how safe it can be made, and those that continue to do so will be the ones who gain more benefits than those that don't.

If there is indeed another shuttle accident and NASA does indeed cancel manned flights altogether (forever?  I really can't see it happening), then the US will have lost a huge opportunity to learn and discover huge things about the universe in which we live.

The shuttles are of course more dangerous than 747s (go figure!) but they are not anywhere near the danger level necessary to prevent people from trying.

You seem to be saying that since occasionally people die we should just ditch the entire program altogether and sit on our hands here on Earth for the rest of our days.  That, frankly, is an insane viewpoint, tantamount to saying that we should never have left our caves or that we should all just hole ourselves up in our houses and never leave, because hey, you might get shot, or hit by a meteor, or you might get skin cancer in 80 years.  Hide on Earth if you want, but it would be a huge mistake for any sizeable amount of people to take your viewpoint.

#31 Re: Unmanned probes » Running on Empty - NASA launches with a wing and a prayer » 2005-03-02 19:46:42

True, there are only a small number of shuttles, two out of 5 (ie not counting "Enterprise") of which (40%) have been lost. But that is not a "launch failure" of 40%! The Challenger, for instance, had 9 successful launches before it exploded in 1986. The Columbia had nearly 30.

Is this something to boast about?

Surely you are just seeking to stir up trouble..  The space shuttles FLY INTO SPACE on GIANT ROCKETS FULL OF HIGHLY EXPLOSIVE FUEL.  They orbit the Earth at 17,500 miles an hour.  They are SPACE SHIPS.  THEY GO INTO SPACE.  THEY MUST ESCAPE EARTH'S GRAVITATIONAL PULL.

#32 Re: Unmanned probes » Running on Empty - NASA launches with a wing and a prayer » 2005-03-01 20:04:48

It's unfortunate the shuttle doesn't have the same safety record that commercial aviation has. If 747s were dropping out of the sky 40% of the time, no make that 20%, 10%, 1%, no make it .01% of the time, due to design and not human error, the fleet would be grounded after a few accidents.

Maybe I'm pointing out the obvious, but what 747s do is inherently far less dangerous than what the space shuttles do.  Surely you realize this?

#33 Re: Unmanned probes » Running on Empty - NASA launches with a wing and a prayer » 2005-02-21 00:35:44

I don't know that going into space will ever exactly be 'safe'.  Huge amounts of power are needed to even go into orbit, and any tiny problem will probably end in a not-so-tiny result.  As long as everyone involved knows the risks, I say go for it.

As far as IBEX goes, I hope it succeeds, but NASA's 'cheaper faster better' theory hasn't been a stunning success thus far..

#34 Re: Human missions » Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this? » 2005-02-10 09:25:39

You gotta lay off the sci-fi channel man.  Take a walk.  Get back to reality.

"Nuclear weapons don't act the same in space as they do on earth"  Uhh, and you know this from what research?  Must have been a Star Trek episode I missed.

There's no air in space, for one.  When a nuclear bomb explodes, it superheats the air, which spreads out and burns things.  I imagine that in space a nuclear bomb would unleash mounds of radiation, which you probably wouldn't want bouncing into you, but I don't think there would be much else besides a bright flash of light.  I'm not sure what would happen to the bomb casing itself..  Would it simply remain intact?  What force would exist to break it apart?  Oh yeah, and if the bomb casing remained intact, I guess you wouldn't see any light after all...

#35 Re: Unmanned probes » Interesting MOC pictures - Place to post interesting MOC pictures » 2005-02-03 23:30:07

There are a few weird shapes in that "Inca City" image..

If you look at the mound/hole (I don't know where the light is coming from) about 1/6th of the way from the left and halfway down, it appears to be basically symmetrical and about the right shape for the foundation of a building.  To the 'southwest' of that is another symmetrical-looking mound/hole that also looks building-foundation-like to me.

The straightish ridges mentioned are interesting, but they don't have any obvious analog to anything man-made I can think of (except for a huge stadium with buildings in it), so I will ignore them.  smile

Sure, in all likelihood the whole mess was formed by random things smashing around and melting and whatnot, but I wouldn't mind if I was right.

#36 Re: Unmanned probes » Phoenix - North Pole Region Lander (PHX) » 2005-02-03 01:07:54

Even if manned missions to Mars do prove to be amazingly dangerous (which I doubt), as long as people are willing to go, what's the problem?  If the politicians (administrators, whoever) really think it's important, they can only let single people go up, or have the entire family sign waivers with giant letters that every news camera can pick up that say 'WE KNOW JIM MAY DIE' blah blah blah etc etc etc.

It's not like astronauts are forced into space, or that they don't realize it's more than a little dangerous..  Sweet Jesus above, if the fact that astronauts' missions are less safe than staying on the ground and watching 'Desperate Housewives' really becomes such an issue that space missions are utterly cancelled, we're doomed.

#38 Re: Unmanned probes » Cassini-Huygens *2* - ...more Saturn/Titan... » 2004-12-28 23:04:26

Let's hope Huygens didn't reach for the secret too soon (it reached for the moon).  PARTS I-VII AND PARTS VII-XI and of course the secret 'lost' PART MCII

#39 Re: Unmanned probes » Cassini-Huygens *2* - ...more Saturn/Titan... » 2004-11-23 22:39:18

*Yeah, that's a beautiful vista all right.  Stunning.  Imagine being in a spaceship and traveling under that, towards Tethys.  What a trip.

Somehow I get the feeling that seeing that view close up, coupled with zero G could be a rather disconcerting experience if not prepared for it.

Not that it would bother me any.  big_smile

I might vomit.  It would still be amazing.  And someday, it will happen.

#40 Re: Unmanned probes » Mars Express (MEX) - ESA orbiter » 2004-11-12 19:57:33

If Phobos is an asteroid, why does it have the grooves?  The only way such features could form that I can think of is by layering of deposits..  if it were to fly through some sort of 'scouring' field (tiny bits of rock) it seems like it would look sandblasted, not covered in parallel grooves.

#41 Re: Unmanned probes » Mars Express (MEX) - ESA orbiter » 2004-11-12 00:36:26

I wonder why it has all those parallel grooves..  It looks suspiciously like the moon is composed of a bunch of layers to me, but what that means exactly, I do not know..  How else would such parallel grooves form?  Is Phobos some broken-off chunk of Mars?  Did Phobos form in a localized gravity well that caused particulate matter to gather up from bottom to top in well-defined layers?

Perhaps we'll never know.

#42 Re: Unmanned probes » Cassini-Huygens *2* - ...more Saturn/Titan... » 2004-10-26 23:33:06

If you go to the Cassini Imaging page at http://ciclops.lpl.arizona.edu/]here you will see some images of Titan..  it looks like a cloudy hazy thing to me.

#44 Re: Unmanned probes » Spirit & Opportunity *7* - ...continuing... » 2004-08-10 22:05:04

The rocks are bluish, too, in a way that looks unnatural to me..  I'm not sure the sky is really that blue, but it certainly doesn't look very red.  smile

#45 Re: Life on Mars » There is a stones? - Nasa marsrovers fotos » 2004-08-09 21:12:57

i find the scale model of the sydney opera house the most conclusive evidence of stones on mars.

#46 Re: Life on Mars » Mars Life and Civilization discovered! - Photographic evidence from Mars Rovers » 2004-08-09 21:11:49

once we discover proof of life on Mars, everything will change!

oh wait, no it won't, people will just adapt the new facts to their preexisting beliefs, just like they always have since the beginning of time..

#47 Re: Not So Free Chat » Peak oil » 2004-08-08 23:23:55

If fusion can be used to create power, it can be used to blow things up.  If you think the idea of terrorists or rogue states setting off nuclear bombs is worrisome now, wait until some genius invents the fusion bomb (for all the right reasons, of course..).

#48 Re: Unmanned probes » Beagle 3 hitching a ride on American Rover? - science-package on 2009 rover? » 2004-07-27 01:34:30

Placing punctuation within quotations is madness.  The quotation itself didn't originally contain the punctuation (probably).  Whoever came up with that rule needs to burn long, burn long in the hot place.  Editors only know how to complain, not how to ENJOY.  I'LL SEE YOU DOWN BELOW, YOU SANCTIMONIOUS MONKEYS.   :band:

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB