New Mars Forums

They may have no idea what created it.  I know I don't. 

However, they have taken spectrographic readings of Wishstone, so in theory they know approximately what it's made of.  It's entirely possible that it is just an interesting bit of pumice, and its chemical composition would show that. 

I don't have that information on tap.  Where on-line would I find that X-ray spectrum of Wishstone that Spirit took?  The instrument team's website?

Hmmm...  I want to know what that thing's made of.  I'm betting salts and carbonates.   :;):

Hello All.  It's my turn to run around crying "Life! Life on Mars!"   :laugh:  (Perhaps Errorist can check my facts for me?  :;): )

Check out the microscopic images of "Wishstone" captured on Sol 333 and similar images from sol 348 and 352, such as:

   http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/ … TML]Border between RAT'ed and untouched surface of Wishstone

and other photos of similar rocks taken on sols 348 and 352.

Heres]http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spirit/20041230a/mera_sol333_mi_target_chisel_enhanced-A353R1_br.jpg]Here's a composite of the RAT working area on Wishstone

The rounded depressions and radial arrangements of the linear features in the RAT'ed area, as well as the fact that the linear features seem more common in the depressions, suggest something akin to brachiopod shell imprints.  The depressions in the unabraded surfaces show similar features, including traces of the linear features.  A curved depression pattern of varying sizes with a sort of central ridge and shallow depressions on either side is common in the unabraided surfaces.  That, too, looks like a shell imprint. 

I've made no color images yet, and have no material analysis to show you at this time.  I also know that pumice can form features similar to these.  However, I've never seen them all together in the same rock.

And I'll be darned if those don't look like brachiopod fossils.   

Well, I don't know about the actual current structure (layered, foamy, etc.).  However, an uneven big bang event is a logical assumption. 

That faster than light expansion you refer to is allowed by Inflation theories of the beginning of the universe.  In these theories, the transition from the universe's initial state to the space-time we now know & love did not occur until after this FTL expansion (i.e., cosmological inflation).  The change was analogous to a state transition in matter (freezing, melting, etc.), only it occured in space-time.  The reason the FTL expansion continued long enough to make the entire universe was because it entered a state analogous to supercooling, allowing it to remain in an inflationary state and keep expanding FTL even when the energy of space was low enough to allow it to change to "ordinary" space.

If you've ever seen a state transition of supercooled/superheated matter, you know that there's a complex energy transfer within the fluid.  It doesn't all freeze or vaporize at once, and it doesn't just start the transition at a little seed and continue out from there in a perfectly uniform spherical bubble.  The transition front extends along a complex path determined by the nature and condition of the fluid, spreading out in layers, spikes, cottony filaments, etc. according to its wont.  The change is not uniform, and can equalize with different states of matter existing right next to each other.

It's highly likely that the universe behaved similarly.  There may be entire regions of the universe that never made the state transition in question.  They wouldn't intrude on our "solidified" portion of the universe any more than cooling water intrudes into ice, but they could still carry us along. 

Try 0.000005% or less.  Many popular theories propose that all the mass in the observable universe was created by converting energy to matter (ala relativity), a process that usually yields exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter.  The two eventually annihilated each other, and the tiny insignificant trace of matter left over cooled off and became all the matter in our universe. 

Hmm...

Um, no.  The scales involved would argue against any sort of 'edge effects'.  Our entire observable universe would just be a part of the equation.

Still, it's an intriguing idea.  I'm becoming disillusioned with Dark Matter theories to explain the many gravitational anomalies to be seen in our universe.  Every time something new comes along, they tend to just tack on another bell & whistle.  They're inelegant, and no longer satisfy Occam's razor.  They're probably quite wrong.

I do wish there was something to replace them, but that's what theorists get paid the big bucks for.   :;):

Not a freaking clue!   :laugh:

You're forgetting another important limitation:

Many of us on this forum have discussed travel to Mars with our wives and husbands, and they won't let us go!   :laugh:

Here's some of the prior discussion.  (Ignore my ravings and proceed to Cassioli's pictures.)

http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1539]An Old Blueberry Thread

All explorers won't stop at Mars, but the marsians will.   Given their more accessible resources, exploration of the outer solar system may become as much their decision as it is Earth's.

http://www.emachineshop.com/]emachineshop.com

These people claim they'll fill custom machine parts orders placed online, and claim a very wide range of manufacturing techniques.  I'd be curious to know what tools were on their factory floor.

They have an impressive list of their available automated equipment, but they don't do assembly.

What a minute...

Where does the 200lb man come in?    ???

Errorist, you've already got three threads devoted to this.  Perhaps you should stop.

I've already discussed the kind of flow rates you can expect from this pipeline arrangement in another thread.  You might get mass flow, but stop expecting to extract energy out of this thing.  That's a pipe dream.   :;):

If you want power, you'd do better to exploit naturally occuring global-scale currents (wind, ocean thermals, etc.) than to try to make your own.

Well, once all of those raw materials are available, how do you assemble them?  Have the folks at Mars Homestead decided the best mix of automation and manual labor?

Mars Homestead is more ambitious than I thought.  Yes, John's right - it's going to barely creep along with only a few volunteers.  If your description is accurate, it's moderators could stand to be more focussed or more forgiving.

However, I don't see anyone else doing a much better job on this particular issue.  I'm glad to see someone exploring it.  If I weren't expecting to be as busy as a one-armed paper hanger till February, I might send in one of those volunteer letters myself.

Maybe in a few months...

The people you're talking about are often referred to as "the crew" or "astronauts".     :;):

Yes, the average electron microscope is somewhat bigger than a washing machine.  Further, the equipment needed to keep it calibrated and operating is about the same size.  But we needn't send an average one.  To an extent, capacity can be traded for size and still send something considerably better than a high school caliber optical microscope.  I have no doubt that a passable electron microscope can be fit into a smaller package.  (Regarding how much should be sacrificed, I recall being just as fond of an unsafe, barely functional, desktop-sized design that could be built for less than $100 as I was of LSU's old half-million dollar, top of the line baby, so perhaps I lack perspective!    )

Decreasing the size of the microscope will not decrease the labor necessary to calibrate it.  However, I have confidence that the crew will include members skilled enough to do that.

That said, I can't get past the notion that an electron microscope isn't likely to be used either going to or coming from Mars, no matter how small you make it.  For one whole year or more, it's dead weight.  Why send it along with the crew at all?  For that matter, why send any lab equipment with the crew that you don't expect to need in orbit?  Ship it ahead and let them pick it up on Mars.

Hello all.  Errorist has had another odd idea.  That in itself is not extraordinary, but as this one might actually work, I thought it worth mentioning in the terraforming forum.

http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2495]A rather odd ERRORIST thread on pipelines

A pole-to-equator pipeline of modest diameter (a few meters or so) could carry a steady flow of methane from the martian pole to its equatorial regions with a substantially reduced need for pumping.  The difference in potential energy between the lower latitudes and the poles would be sufficient to keep the gas moving.  This could provide a convenient means of getting Mars' hydrogen from the polar regions, where it seems mostly concentrated, to the dryer equatorial regions whose climactic conditions are (comparatively) milder. 

Bases and small scale settlements would have no need of such a huge natural gas pipeline.  However, a large city might.