New Mars Forums

That's been asked a hundred times, and from thread to thread there is only one consensus:

Follow the water.  The most desirable landing site is one where the crew can mine or drill for water.

Currently, I like this site, since it is equatorial (better climate) with potential permafrost:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natu … tm]Elysium "Pack Ice"

However, I can offer much better advice than that.  Be patient, and wait for the MARSIS radar array currently in orbit to start returning data.  Ground penetrating radar will lead us right to the largest water deposits, without any guesswork.

This book may not be the best comparison.  Didn't all of the main characters die as a result of various equipment problems?  (Good book, with wonderful descriptions of of the Apollo hardware.  I'm still "at stable two" in my nightmares!)

Still, when I consider the amount of material those Saturn V rockets launched over the course of the Apollo program, a comparison with Space Station Alpha indicates that they could have handled enough hardware to get a crew to Mars, even if the on-orbit assembly took three years.

How many years ago did the first one fly?  Almost forty?

I was just using "dust" and "soil" interchangeably.  The important point involves the amount of dust kicked up.

The front and rear hazard cameras are giving the best views of Opportunity's wheels and tracks. 

Heres]http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/f/024/1F130314566EDN0400P1111L0M1.HTML]Here's a sol 24 view of a trench Opportunity dug in Eagle Crater.

Note the tread marks in and around the trench.  Opportunity's front wheel was revved while being moved back and forth to dig a trench.  This worked that wheel in as deep as it is currently buried.  You can see the tread marks in the trench from the last pass where Opportunity rolled its wheel out and turned to use its microscopic imager.  Adjacent tracks from the other wheels are covered by dust flung out of the trench.  Those tread marks are wiped out next to the trench because material was flung out of the trench - displaced - and landed on top of them.

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/ … .HTML]This is an image from sol 445.

Opportunity backed away from a soil target and got stuck just as deeply as it had dug down on sol 24, only with all six wheels this time.  However, even with all six wheels churning, there is only a fraction of the soil displacement seen on sol 24.  Later efforts to dig out involved repeated wheel revving and turning, just like sol 24, but still with less displacement.  Almost all the loose soil is confined to the trench. 

I believe that I can see evidence of cracking in the soil surface just adjacent to the trench.  This would imply that the soil surface was not just settled, but set - adhering together and not simply loose grains.  Unfortunately, the hazcam resolution isn't high enough to confirm this.  It could just be a trick of the light, or packed material flung off by Opportunity's wheels. 

They need to use the !#@$&! imager.

I don't know... So far they haven't even used it to look at what they're stuck in.

The composition of the dust is of interest.  Look at the hazard camera images.  Except where it was churned up by all the wheel spinning, the loose dust is mostly confined to the wheel track.  Photos of earlier trenching efforts show mounds of displaced soil, but not here.  Opportunity hardly displaced any dust cutting into that dune, even where it dug in four inches deep. 

Their current simulant mixture is the first thing the ground crew has come up with that the MER couldn't hop right out of, even when they bottomed it out.  That's one tough little RC car.  Preliminary tests with Opportunity (on Mars, not the sandbox model) have shown that they can get it out, so the panic is over and we're just waiting for the mission plan to catch up. 

Still, it seems a shame to leave without taking a look down...

Odd.  :hm:

Opportunity has been in the same location for two weeks, a sand dune of completely unknown composition, unlike anything encountered before.

Why haven't they attempted to use the microscopic imager?

There are no imager photos and no hazard camera images of the imager in use.  The simulants they are using for their terrestrial research model are reportedly unsatisfactory. (They can't get the duplicate rover here on earth to dig itself in.)  However, nobody's bothered to take a look at what they're actually stuck in.

The very fact that Ford & GM are attempting it suggests that they hope it might solve some of their problems, and I suspect that it will.  They still have sufficient resources to meet overseas competition if they can just get the unions to ease off the trigger and rid themselves of some of that crushing debt.  Bankruptcy could do that for them.

Maneuvers like this are how companies get through hard times. 

Another rule of thumb for surviving financial difficulties like this is: Do not try to "save" the economy all by yourself.  Conservation frees up funding faster than new development can generate it, and that remains a true and useful fact whether it boosts the local economy or not.  If you truly want GM and Ford around ten years from now, it should please you to see them looking after their own interests - and ignoring yours.

We are right to worry about an economic downturn in the States, and not just because of GM & Ford's troubles.  The price of goods is beginning to rise to meet recent increases in fuel costs.   The US Federal Reserve's efforts are reaching their limits - interest rates have been cut so much that our economy now has an inverted interest curve.  That means that long term interest rates were cut so low that it now costs more, in total, to borrow money over short terms than it does for loan terms of years or decades.  This chases away short term investors, and usually precedes an economic recession. 

For those interested in damage control for space travel, try promoting diversity.  Diversity in a business often insures that something makes enough money to stay solvent, even during a downturn.

Perhaps we should rethink the "Give them something to do" method of keeping the crew happy.  Aside from the fact that busy work is seldom inspiring, recent research suggests that work of any type , whether it's a despised chore or a favorite hobby, will not promote group morale by itself.  The interaction with the crew during work (and degree of engagement with the crew) is more important, as is the function and meaning ascribed to the work. 

If the interpersonal interaction is good, cutting out paper dolls with scissors is just as effective as animal husbandry.  If the work is seen as sufficiently interesting, stimulating and meaningful, mucking out stables is just as effective as surveying the surface of an unknown world.  Continuously pleasurable activities are NOT necessarily good for group morale, and can destroy group cohesion if everyone's standard method for unwinding becomes a retreat to their cabin or workstation

That depends.  Do they have a high specific impulse?   

Seriously, though: When separating wheat from chaff, it pays to remember that the goal is to get the grain, not to arbitrarily abuse the stalks.  Whether you're threshing or getting threshed, it's not about how hard you hit the floor but about what gets knocked loose.

Actually, I like the idea of airborn exploration and settlement.  It would be a great idea for Earth, where the resources and markets are available to support such a scheme (though the same claim would be questionable for Venus).  In theory, it could be good for Mars, too.  Unfortunately, on Mars the atmospheric conditions are such that material and structural constraints become major limitations in ways that terrestrial versions would never need to worry about.  It's a good idea, but I literally don't know how we would make a suitably sized Martian airship fly.

The cloth sealant paint did not cause the Hindenburg airship fire. 

Materials research using the same sealant formula that was used on the Hindenburg's outer envelope has shown that the ingredients in the sealant correspond only to the catalyst and stabilizer used by the Space Shuttle SRB's - not the oxidizers.  The Hindenburg's sealant contains no oxidizer and will not autoignite under normal operating conditions.

In fact, it meets federal standards for a flame retardent material.

The sealant did not start the infamous fire.  Photographs reveal that the sections of sealed fabric separated from the gas cells by the derigible's superstructure survived well past the point where the hydrogen fueled fire front had burned past. 

Thermite?  Balderdash!

Here's a discussion of estimating fill rates.  Don't know about excavation & refilling, but knowing the time required to fill a crater once could at least give a minimum estimate.

http://www.marscraterconsortium.nau.edu … df]Martian Crater Degredation

Hmm...

I wonder if Vostok's age can be estimated based on the rate it filled.  That would give us a better estimate for Endurance, too.

There's no way that it would work right out of the box at -90 degrees.  No plastic stays so plyable at that temperature.

However, it wouldn't require much heat to make it work, either.  And, unlike simple Saran film, it doesn't seem to lose its seal when frozen.  An extra tool would be required - perhaps some sort of heating pad to press it down with instead of fingers - but it might be worth it for the use of such a versatile covering material.