New Mars Forums

This is fantastic .. I just can't believe our good fortune!
    Spirit's had a spring-clean.   :band:

    As some of you may recall, I disputed the dust problem with Doug a while back - mainly because I wasn't convinced Spirit was really as dusty as all that, until unequivocal photographic evidence later persuaded me otherwise.

    But now I believe in the dust problem and I'm a "born-again dust-devil enthusiast"!!   
    Anything that's going to keep those solar panels squeaky clean is O.K. by me.  :up:
    [ Mind you, I think I preferred that team of young ladies in cowboy hats ...   :laugh:  ]

    By the way, the following excerpt, taken from Cindy's link:-

    ... seems to indicate that Spirit was hit by quite a strong dust-devil. There've been various papers and articles published in recent years suggesting that dust-devils might produce strong electrical discharges, possibly powerful enough to damage electrical circuitry in our landers.
    Has anyone heard anything about problems with the electrics on either of the MERs?
    If not, is it safe to assume that the hypotheses about dangerous static electricity associated with dust-devils can now be discounted?   ???

Thanks, MarsDog!
    Nearly 12 million 50-megaton nukes.
    Anybody for Perfluorocarbons and Solettas now?  :;):

Hi again, BobL.
    There's a 'Terraforming Calculator' at The Terraforming Information Pages site, which can help you see what effect introducing various quantities of different gases might have on the Martian climate.
    http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg … html]CLICK HERE to have a look at it.   

    [Helpful Hint:  Click on the 'User Guide' first to see how to get the best out of it.
     If you're anything like me, you'll be amazed at the huge effect of even tiny amounts of 'CFC' in the atmosphere. Don't be alarmed by the fact that dangerous ozone-depleting ChloroFluoroCarbons are the suggested super-greenhouse gas for terraforming. Since the calculator was created, other types of environmentally friendly FluoroCarbon (called PFCs) have supplanted CFCs and are just as effective at retaining heat. (Obviously, we're not going to use CFCs, the same gases that has played havoc with Earth's ozone layer! ) ]
                                                 

Beautiful colours in that Etruscan vase picture.   :up:
    By the way, thanks for the concern about Cyclone Ingrid, Cindy. It crossed the coast about 300 - 400 kms north of Cairns as a Category 3 cyclone about 18 hours ago, moving west.
    It's heading out into the Gulf of Carpentaria and had lost energy the last time I heard - down to a Category 1, according to reports. However, it's expected to gain energy over the warm waters of the Gulf and could still pose a major threat to any community in its path.
    These cyclones can persist for weeks and change direction many times before blowing themselves out. Cairns was spared on this pass but anything could happen in the coming days; we mightn't be out of the woods yet. 

Hi Doug!
    Boy oh boy ... you sure get hot under the collar pretty easily, don't you?!  And, in this case, if you were to examine carefully the quote from 'Discover" magazine I posted, you'd see that I'm not espousing conspiracy theories at all. Your fervent and indignant defence of NASA, which would be highly commendable in the face of an actual conspiracy accusation, is entirely misplaced on this occasion.

    The essence of my point was to indicate that many of the images from Mars aren't designed to impress the masses, like postcards from the Rocky Mountains or something. I've quoted imaging experts who explain why so many of the pictures from Mars DO NOT represent what a human being would perceive on the surface.
    This is not ME challenging the experts you rush to defend. This isn't a conspiracy theory I've dreamed up between doses of medication. This is just a matter of fact.

    You seem to have overlooked the fact that I said: "This misrepresentation, although unintentional .. ".
    You point out that Jim Bell's a "damn good chap", as though I've attacked him or impugned his good name - when there is no such implication in anything I've said. All I've done is quote something HE HIMSELF SAID: "One of my important goals was to try to present the planet in as natural a view as possible. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues do not share this desire for accurate color renderings, and so sometimes planetary images can get quite garish, with no explanation of what is being shown."

    You say: "No one suggests mars is 'blood red' - no one hassaid "here's a true colour picture of mars - and it's bood red"
    I agree. I know of nothing in the literature I've read that states categorically that a lurid blood-red Mars is the 'true colour' rendition. And, in certain lighting conditions, particularly during the quite common episodes of raised dust that occur, there's little doubt Mars IS very red-looking and the skies dusky orange. (I've lived through enough dust storms in outback Australia to know firsthand what they look like, too.)
    But, on very many other occasions, when there's little or no raised dust, the use of certain filters by the lander scientists makes the surface look that way anyhow. I don't assert this .. I don't have to.  NASA IMAGING SCIENTISTS like Oliver de Goursac and Jim Bell are on record as saying it and I've quoted their words.

    Where I do veer off into an opinion of my own (and please excuse my audacity in daring to express any sort of opinion at all about this stuff - because I am ignorant and unworthy! ) is in commenting on the POPULAR NOTION of how Mars looks on the surface. However this popular notion came to be, it is now heavily skewed toward the "lurid red" end of the spectrum and this is plainly evident in sci-fi movies like "Total Recall".
    This, at least to me, is BAD PR!
    We need to encourage and coax public opinion in favour of manned Mars exploration; that's what the Mars Society is all about. The more Mars is portrayed as Earth-like, the better chance we have of doing that.

    It appears to me, and to the likes of NASA's de Goursac (with his quote about "the glut of phony colors") and Jim Bell (a 'damn good chap" - no argument there), that too much negatively alien imagery has made its way into the popular imagination for the reasons cited.

Doug:-

    Hmmm, yeah. I don't really understand the rationale for your tirade in this instance (and I think you should get your blood pressure checked now and then) but I accept your apology.
                                                         

Notice the sky colour?

    Is it my imagination or is the sky a pale blue-gray? I know the text states there's less dust in the air, which might explain this, but could there be more to it?

    (Conspiracy-theorists, adjust your metal helmets and take note!  :;):  )

    Could NASA be trying to give us a more natural colour-rendering than the 'lurid red rock / salmon pink sky' we've been treated to over the years?
    Is it possible NASA's paradigm shift is beginning to show?!   ???   

[< Edit >  The blueish tinge is more apparent against the white background in Cindy's 'Spacedaily" link - so check it out. It loses something against the blue background here at New Mars.]

This is very interesting stuff for various reasons.
    There's the scary thought that we could hit another cloud in the future - imagine the oceans frozen almost all the way to the Equator!   

    But it makes you wonder about Earth's recuperative powers in the case of major climate swings like this. If maybe 90% of the planet was ice, the albedo would have been extremely high and, even after the space cloud was gone, how did Earth ever gather enough warmth from the Sun to thaw out again?
    I guess volcanism continued, as usual, and the CO2 must have built up steadily in the atmosphere because there was so little oceanic surface for it to dissolve in, and little surface rock for it to react with via rainfall (maybe no rainfall either! ). Eventually, the  escalating CO2 concentration must have compensated for the high albedo by inducing a very strong greenhouse effect, allowing the planet to thaw out.
    An incredible demonstration of our world's ability to revert to its natural state. And it seems Earth did this more than once in its history.

    Last, but not least, I wonder what was happening on Mars at these times. Mars must have been subjected to the same changes as Earth - perhaps more so because it's farther from the Sun and more vulnerable to compression of our star's protective magnetic shield.
    Could cosmic 'deep' freezes' like these have triggered major climatic changes on the Red Planet, too, and might this be offering us clues as to the huge swings in surface conditions believed to have occurred there over geological time?

    Yep .. very interesting stuff all round!   :up:   

Bill:-

    Umm.
    I think you misunderstand, Bill. The U.N. was effectively abandoned long ago, by everyone except those who thought they might be able to use its Resolutions, however erroneously, as a flail for America's back.
    That's why countries like Australia and America etc. have been doing the right thing, entirely independently of the U.N., for some years now. While countries like France, Germany etc. have been doing the opposite, with left-wing support.

    Quote: "Now what?"
    The world carries on as always, nation states jockeying for position and power. When America's power wanes, as it surely will some day, we'd better just pray we get an equally benign superpower to replace it.
    But, you know what? .. I don't think we will.   :bars:

Well said, CC!
    Actually, I got some way into a post quite similar in many respects to the one you just submitted. But I abandoned it.
    You've said much of what I wanted to say, anyhow, and made a better job of it, too!

    Your views on Africa apparently coincide with thoughts I've had about the situation for many years. In theory, of course, I want black Africans to govern their own countries. I'm sure everyone feels that way. But in practice, they all make such a hash of it and indulge in so much tribal slaughter (politely called civil war) that I have to wonder, as you do, whether colonialism would, on balance, promote the greater good.
    Having said that, colonialism itself opens up so many opportunities for abuse of the indigenous populations that we simply can't go that way again. It's unthinkable.

    Your comments regarding the ludicrously unsustainable moral indignation of the Left at anything and everything America does or doesn't do, echo my own opinion exactly, by the way.
    Nicely put. 
:up:

James Cameron is a millionaire, I imagine.
    Did he get the money by being "Exclusive/capitalist/exploitative"? I don't really know but that's not the impression I get. It looks to me like he made his money by working hard and producing cinematic works of art I know I've enjoyed over the years.

    If James Cameron, or RobertDyck for that matter (nice dream, Robert  :up:  ), were to accumulate enough money by being honest, hard-working, business people to bring about the colonization of Mars, they'd have my praise and support.
    I tend to agree with Robert that the "little guy" (by comparison with a national government, I think he means) doesn't necessarily have to be a bastard to have accumulated wealth. Nice guys don't always have to come last, though I understand that's the way to bet!

    Now, if RobertDyck's dream ever comes to fruition, and I very much hope it does, many people might be tempted to say: "Aaargh! Just another rich guy who's suddenly out to make a buck in space travel. I bet the sumbitch never even heard of space until someone said you can make money there!"
    But we'd know different, wouldn't we?
    How can we be sure that Richard Branson hasn't been a space nut all his life but never dared hope he could make a difference until Burt Rutan showed him how?   ???

    Just a point of view, that's all. 

Dook:-

    We don't. As an alternative, the methane has been put down to geothermal activity and even to the remnant of a volatile-rich comet which may have impacted on Mars some time ago.

    There are constraints on this. Apparently, methane only lasts for 3 or 4 hundred years in the Martian atmosphere before it's broken down. I suppose if you postulate that the last living organisms died very recently indeed, then yes, you could be right. But it doesn't seem very likely that, out of billions of years of history, we should arrive with our sensors just in time to witness the fading breath of the last Martian bacteria.

    I think it depends which articles you read. I've seen some which indicate life is the most likely source of the methane.
    But then, the fact is we don't know for sure yet and so all possibilities are still on the table.

    I happen to think Mars harbours life - in fact, I'd find it remarkable if Mars didn't have at least bacterial life. But this is only by a process of deduction on my part; I'm happy with my own conclusion but that's just me.   

    'R Corona Australis', eh?
    This baby star must be royalty to be born in a classy neighbourhood like that!   :;):