New Mars Forums

Hi Robert!
     I'm a little rusty on my nuclear physics and wondered whether you might humour me by clarifying something?

     You state: "Without anything to moderate the neutrons, uranium can't explode."

     I thought the moderator was designed to harmlessly absorb neutrons before they can collide with another uranium nucleus and produce more neutrons. Hence, I thought that removing the moderator would  allow more 'cascading' of the fission process and thus release more energy. From this, it seems to me that, without anything to moderate the neutrons, the risk of an explosion is increased .... or, at least, the reactor's heat output is increased.
     From what you've said, I suspect I must have an oversimplified view of the controlled fission process. Where am I going wrong here?

     Incidentally, a few months ago, I noticed an article about an Israeli physicist who advocated using an Americium based rocket engine. He was impressed at how a useful level of  fission could be maintained in even quite thin strips of Americium. So he envisaged a core of long thin plates of it separated by spaces through which a steady stream of propellant could be passed. In the course of its passage between the Americium plates, the propellant would be heated to extremely high temperatures before being expelled.
     Thus a simple, high-efficiency, continuous-thrust nuclear engine is created. I don't recall the ISp figures, unfortunately.
     I recognise this is not the 'fission combustion' you postulate because the propellant and the fissile material are separate, but it sounds like the kind of continuous and efficient propulsion you're looking for.
     Anticipating your objections(! ), the Americium-based engine's ISp is probably not much more than 1000 seconds, and I suppose you're looking for something closer to 10 times that figure(? ). Also, I suppose Americium is too rare and too expensive.

     I like your idea for 'fission combustion', if it could be shown to be a valid means of employing fission's potential. If it could be made to work, it might be the answer to our prayers!
                                       

Hi Cindy!
     Thanks for your reply. I certainly see your point also!
     The overwhelming majority of conspiracy theories are obviously nonsense. And your disdain for the paranoia that creeps into most of them is a very understandable reaction. I feel it too.
     It's a fine line we tread in trying to filter out what COULD be a gem of truth in a pile of dirt ... that's the point I've been trying to make. There's a stubborn streak in my nature, too, which tends to make me dig my heels in if I see a new concept being laughed out of court because it doesn't quite fit in.
     If it's nonsense, by all means let's throw it out! ... In fact, I insist that we do!  But please, let's point out plain and simple reasons WHY it's nonsense, before we start throwing!

     Incidentally, thank you for your kind compliments, which demonstrate the limitations of character judgment by keyboard(! )  'Marvelous' ... I ain't!  'Fair' ... well, I can but try. As for being 'very smart', that's extremely easy to refute!
     I'm next-door to computer illiterate! Lack of chivalry had nothing to do with my not providing a link for that website. The fact is, I'm still learning how to get computers to do what I ask them to do! Anything I do know (not much), I taught myself by trial and error.
     But I've now mastered the art of producing reliable links (... pauses for thunderous applause from an appreciative audience!! ) and I apologise for any inconvenience I may have caused.
     In addition to the above faults, I confess also that I very much enjoy  compliments (even though thoroughly undeserved ) ... especially when they come from an unmistakably intelligent young lady! Madam, you are altogether too kind!
                                     
                                   

Thanks Josh!
     It's good to know you're on the case! Now I can rest easy, knowing that soon this TEM thing will be examined by someone with the background to be able to separate the fact from the fiction.
     Maybe when you come to explain it to us, you might avoid arcane acronyms and esoteric terminology so that we can follow your reasoning? Hard to believe, I know, but I understand even less about computer imaging techniques than I do about creating links!!
                                            ???

Peace, Josh!!
     I was just amazed at the sheer number of hours Noel spent at TEM. I'm sure he's a nice guy and I don't have any solid evidence that he's a mole for NASA. All I've got is hearsay. You're probably quite correct that the whole thing is silly.
     But I can't help but find it all fascinating! If, as you suggest, Hoagland is a nut, he has created an imaginary scene of extraordinary depth and complexity. If it's an illusion ... it's a beauty! And I'm enjoying every episode as it unfolds.
     I want to be shown, by somebody much smarter than I am with computer imaging techniques (of which I know nothing), that the apparent angular, artificial-looking shapes in the enhanced IR pictures from Odyssey, are simply artifacts or 'noise'. I realise the uninitiated can be fooled easily. I'm ready, willing, and able to be shown the truth. But nobody's saying anything!

Hi MarkS!
     Thankyou for correcting my dating of Eisenhower's statement. I'd thought he said all that earlier than '61 ... my mistake.
     My interpretation of his mood at the time was that he was wary that too much non-accountability was creeping into the situation as far as the military was concerned. I was led to believe it was a warning of sorts, on his part.
     If I am mistaken again, then again I apologise. I daresay you would know your own country's history better than I do!!
                                         

Regarding the new "moon" we've acquired.
     What if it's a small asteroid we've trapped in orbit around us? What if it's just a fluke that its orbit matches one that could be associated with an old Saturn V third stage?
     If it's an asteroid full of volatiles, maybe it would be worth nudging it away from a collision with the Moon and steering it into a closer orbit for future utilisation(? ). I guess it depends on the mass of volatiles involved.
     Anyway, my main point is to ask if it's possible to point the Hubble telescope at it for a positive identification. Or would those in the line waiting for 'telescope time' kick up a stink about it?
                                          :0

Forget Voltaire, Cindy!
     Recent research has shown he was an early NASA employee!!
     Trust no-one!
                                     ???

Has all the returned lunar material been examined yet? Could any of it be from here, full of fossils, without us knowing?
                                          :0

There has been so much written lately about how they're persuading carbon nanotubes to grow longer and longer. It's surely just a matter of time until we can make strings, ropes, and cables out of pure uninterrupted lengths of nanotube.
     Might such fibres be useful in the building industry to reinforce tall structures? I know they'd need to be bonded to some form of fire-retarding material because of their susceptibility to flame. But imagine the strength and lightness of such reinforcing!
     In the same way that kevlar stops bullets, could skyscrapers perhaps be made more resistant to massive impacts? Even if the integrity of a structure could just be maintained long enough to get everybody out, that would certainly justify the effort.
     But what if we could make tall buildings so strong that even a fully-laden 747 couldn't topple them? Would that eliminate such buildings as a terrorist target all together?
                                         :0

If you look into the tenure of Heinrich Himmler as Reichsfuhrer SS in the Nazi regime, you learn he had an obsessive interest in rituals.
   There was a building like a castle with a stone room, in which the hierarchy of the SS would meet to discuss the mystical nature of "Blood and Honour" and devotion to the ideals of the National Socialist state. Runic symbols out of an idealised teutonic history played a part in a cult-like atmosphere reminiscent of ancient pagan religions.
   Himmler and company were also very much involved in producing future generations with the same devotion to the National Socialist ideals. They mixed all this with a liberal dose of eugenics, of course, and put the whole scheme into operation with the "Lebensborn" project.
   Your highly stylised ritual inseminations in a building modelled on that of an ancient pantheistic, pagan religion, with an emphasis on the continuation through the generations of devotion to an ideal, just happened to put me in mind of Heinrich Himmler.
   I think you'll have to agree, the parallels are obvious.
   But I concede that there are also differences, and I made a point of saying so in my last post.
   In retrospect, I should have qualified my comments about 'dehumanising the relationship between men and women' by saying that it was merely my opinion. Again I concede that others may not find it so.
   I also hasten to add that I do not compare you with the evil Himmler, but I still think of him when I think of the ceremonial scene you describe. I just can't help it!

I know, Cindy, it's easy to get caught up in conspiracy theories. But it's also very easy to join in with a group of people ridiculing a new idea or concept. I'm still amazed that, some years after the Wright brothers' first controlled powered flight, people were refusing to believe it had happened.
   Considering the potentially enormous significance of finding artificial structures on Mars, isn't it worth some time and effort to study what is being claimed, fairly and openly, so that it can be either proven correct or duly refuted?
   I've seen the evidence. I'm not a complete idiot (I hope! ). There is a case to answer here. Neither ridicule nor silence is an adequate response.
   Try this site for an interesting viewpoint which, incidentally, mirrors my own:-
  http://www.marsnews.com/news/20020910-fakedata2.html

P.S. Sorry. Can't seem to get a direct link for you. You'll have
       to type it in!

Cindy writes: "... it'd be folly not to ensure women have the same access to education and working knowledge as men .."

   This is absolutely indisputable in the Martian context. But it is also a point that has been raised in connection with studies of western social and economic development, versus that of strict Islamic states.
   It is readily apparent that most or all fundamentalist Islamic states, which routinely deny women access to basic human rights including education, are economically backward. In fact, it is hard to deny a direct cause-and-effect relationship between fundamentalist Islam and economic retardation.
   How this relationship comes about has been attributed to the obvious loss of the talents and abilities of fully half the population of these countries!
   Even a cursory glance at a typical western democracy, reveals the enormous contribution made by women in almost all walks of life. My own family has attended the practices of female doctors, physiotherapists and dentists, for instance. Half the optometrists in Australia are women. And the contribution made by women to nursing is legendary ... I'm proud to say my wife is a nurse! I could go on and on about extremely capable and talented women in demanding careers all over the western world.
   All of this incalculable benefit to the well-being of society is denied to the people in a strict Islamic state. And it's difficult to argue with the premise that such states will, by their own hand, continue to fall further behind liberal democracies in terms of economic advancement. You can't choke off half the potential of your people and expect to prosper!
   Here on Earth, it's madness. On Mars, it would be suicide.
                                      ???

Does anyone know the timetable for this experiment?
   Is it due soon?
                                          :0

Thanks Mark, Josh, and Nirgal!
   It's good to get feedback on this because it's such a potentially amazing topic that reality checks at regular intervals are advisable!
   Josh, I've been reading bits and pieces of Hoagland's stuff over the years. Some of it seems preposterous to me, especially the claims that some Apollo Moon photos show artificial structures in the background - with the best will in the world, I could honestly see nothing in the pictures remotely resembling anything artificial. Enterprise Mission does tend to look too hard for what it wants to see, and ends up seeing it ... even when it's not really there!
   This could conceivably be the case again with the IR pictures from Cydonia, although they look suspiciously artificial to my eyes. But your understandable implication, Josh, that Richard Hoagland deliberately fakes pictures, with the express intention of misrepresenting the facts, is, at least in my view, probably wrong.
   The people at Enterprise Mission may be mistaken. They may be misguided and self-deluding. But I get the impression they honestly believe what they preach. In other words, they might well be crazy, but they're not bare-faced liars!
   There is no question that the Enterprise Mission website was almost inaccessible for nearly two days after this affair started, and, when it became accessible, most of the all-important images were difficult to download and impossible to magnify. I'm no computer/internet expert so I'm in no position to make assertions. But this kind of difficulty would seem to be consistent (at least to the layman) with a damaged website, and maybe a deliberately sabotaged website. So far, nobody in New Mars with expertise in this field has made any comment on this point.
   Nirgal's post appears to bolster the case for a deliberate and malicious attack on the Enterprise site, and immediately and inevitably raises the question: Why? I suppose those in Josh's camp would suggest a deliberate attempt by Hoagland to dramatise things by causing this site damage himself, to make it look like 'they' are out to get him!
   It's interesting that none of the online space 'magazines', such as Space.com, Spaceref.com, and SpaceDaily has made any reference to all of this, even in an attempt to ridicule it. I hope this isn't the beginning of 'the silent treatment' by the scientific establishment as well.
   I confess to being very curious about these latest IR images and I'd like to know more. I find it hard to understand why some people seem happy to ignore what could be one of the most exciting revelations in history. I don't care if you go about trashing the Cydonia thing ... that's fine, if you do it properly. But how can you ignore it?!
                                   ???