The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum

The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release => Starbase Café => Topic started by: Defender on January 10, 2004, 10:52:53 am



Title: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Defender on January 10, 2004, 10:52:53 am
i hear Bush is trying to set up for a maned Mars project somethime in the future, with a staging area on the moon. are we ready for such a leap? i mean we havent done any moon missions in over 20 years. now all of the sudden, hey lets do Mars! dont get me wrong, im all for the space program, but i didnt know nasa was ready for such a big mission.

i think i heard some where that it would take about 8 months to get to Mars(1year/4months round trip). thats an awlful long time in space. even with an artifical gravity, theres the risk of suns radation possibly giving are Mars crew cancer in the long run. and if we find a way around that, what about water and food. its going to have to be a huge spacecraft. one, i guess, thats built in orbit and not launched from Earth.

so what are your guys thoughts on this?
practical in our day in age? or just a big boast form a president for rehire?

~DEFIANT


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Rib Rdb on January 10, 2004, 10:21:32 pm
I thought nasa's standpoint was that another manned moon mission would take years to prepare for, so the staging area on the moon doesn't sound likely.  And haven't something like 4 out of the 5 unmanned missions to mars failed?  I'd think sending people would be too risky at this point.


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Chrispy on January 10, 2004, 10:22:04 pm
also, I have hear people thinking that launching a rocket off the moon may cause problems with the moons orbit.


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Death 999 on January 10, 2004, 11:00:24 pm
That is silly. Seriously.

Well, there are technical advances in rocket science which are coming forward which may make a high-thrust high specific impulse rocket possible. This would make the trip last about 3 weeks instead of 8 months.

Basically, it's to start a partially contained fusion reaction. We can do that on Earth right now... it nets an energy loss, but it gives a lot of thrust. We just need to figure out how to do it with lighter equipment.


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on January 11, 2004, 03:52:22 am
Actually, what NASA/Bush were saying was that they would like to possibly set up a moon base...sometime in the next 20+ years. In other words, it might happen in our life time (I'm 22).
The idea of sending people to Mars any time in the next 50 years seems about as likely as warp drive.


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Defender on January 11, 2004, 04:32:31 am
Quote
That is silly. Seriously.

Well, there are technical advances in rocket science which are coming forward which may make a high-thrust high specific impulse rocket possible. This would make the trip last about 3 weeks instead of 8 months.

Basically, it's to start a partially contained fusion reaction. We can do that on Earth right now... it nets an energy loss, but it gives a lot of thrust. We just need to figure out how to do it with lighter equipment.


ok... but how do you keep the FRAGILE people inside, from being crushed under such g-force under acceleration?

Quote
Actually, what NASA/Bush were saying was that they would like to possibly set up a moon base...sometime in the next 20+ years. In other words, it might happen in our life time (I'm 22).
The idea of sending people to Mars any time in the next 50 years seems about as likely as warp drive.


warp drive is a working theory. and im not saying this as a star trek fan. but it requires 2 things to work: alot of energy to warp space/time, like say, a matter/anti-matter reaction. and a ship that can withstand the stress.

i agree on that we will not likely see such tech in 50 years let alone our lifetime. but i believe one day we will reach out to the stars.

~DEFIANT



Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Death 999 on January 11, 2004, 06:43:04 am
Quote


ok... but how do you keep the FRAGILE people inside, from being crushed under such g-force under acceleration?



HAHAHAHAHAHA

Even with this high thrust system the acceleration would be like 0.3 Gs. That is quite enough to get you to Mars in a few weeks.


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Defender on January 11, 2004, 10:35:38 am
well then... i guess i was misinformed.

~DEFIANT


Title: Re: Mars...the next Frontier?
Post by: Fsi-Dib on January 11, 2004, 06:35:47 pm
We have to wait quite a long time to get any progress with the possible manned Mars trip. Problem is that darned 'money'. I guess Bill Gates could set up his own space armada though.

I'm waiting for that event, yes. I'm also waiting for oil to run out. :P


Title: Re: Mars...the next Frontier?
Post by: guesst on January 12, 2004, 10:30:28 pm
Quote
We have to wait quite a long time to get any progress with the possible manned Mars trip. Problem is that darned 'money'. I guess Bill Gates could set up his own space armada though.

I'm waiting for that event, yes. I'm also waiting for oil to run out. :P


Money and modivation. I mean, you go to and investor and say, "Will you back a manned expedition to Mars," and they'll say, "What's in it for me?" "Uh, well, um. It would be really cool!"

There's nothing in space for us, peoples. As far as we can see it's pretty bleak out there. We need something or someone out there to go for. And if there are alien life forms out there, and I'm not saying there isn't, they've been pretty quiet about answering our calls.

Then again, maybe they're not getting out for the same reason.


Title: Re: Mars...the next Frontier?
Post by: Deep-Jiffa on January 13, 2004, 01:31:08 am
Quote


Money and modivation. I mean, you go to and investor and say, "Will you back a manned expedition to Mars," and they'll say, "What's in it for me?" "Uh, well, um. It would be really cool!"

There's nothing in space for us, peoples. As far as we can see it's pretty bleak out there. We need something or someone out there to go for. And if there are alien life forms out there, and I'm not saying there isn't, they've been pretty quiet about answering our calls.

Then again, maybe they're not getting out for the same reason.


There are many things out there!
First, minirals. Planets that no one used its minirals for over billions of years.... there will be plenty of it there.
Second, new place to live. If you didn't notice it, it is getting a little bit over-populated here...


Title: Re: Mars...the next Frontier?
Post by: guesst on January 13, 2004, 03:00:13 pm
Quote
... If you didn't notice it, it is getting a little bit over-populated here...


Reeeeaaaally? Ever been to Wyoming? Nevada? Canada?

On the flip side I've been to the overpopulated areas of the world, too. Yeah it's crowded. But statisticaly, there's enough habitable land on the earth for every human being to have some obseenly large plot all to themselves. (Somewhere there's an actual number and coorsponding unit for "some sbseenly large plot." I just don't know it off the top of my head.) So, in reality it doesn't have to be.

Believe it or not, the only reason it's getting croweded down here is because people keep crowding into these tiny areas, then drawing a border around them and not letting themselves out. India, Japan (and even Japan has some pretty sparce lands), Singapore, New York. Humans don't obey the law of osmosis. If we did, you'd see your argument is way off.



Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Death 999 on January 13, 2004, 08:44:20 pm
What I'd say we want out of a space program is improved asteroid detection. In 1900 or so, a medium asteroid fell in Tunguska, Siberia. Trees were knocked down as far as a thousand miles away. If an asteroid like that fell within 100 miles of a city, today, it would be the worst natural disaster ever. Detecting and deflecting these is pretty important.

After that, there are a lot of physics questions which can most easily be answered by astronomical observation. The best place for that is space, and better yet the opposite side of the moon (so we don't have all that interference from Earth). Fortunately, this is comparatively easily done.

Also, if we get the ability to move large heavy objects up into space, then we can begin putting solar collectors up there. That will have a definite positive impact.

In the longer run, we'll want to explore, see what (or who) is out there.

As far as population pressure is concerned, no foreseeable technology will allow that to be solved by emigration from Earth. Consider that our current technology allows for about $2 million per person launched into space. Of course, these people aren't colonizing, they're going up for a few days. Heck, suppose we have space elevators so the launch cost is minimal. We still need to build all that life support equipment, which must last a lifetime (or within 30 minutes of the end of one). Considering how the space station is leaking air, this is clearly not something we have mastered. So, as an unbelieveably optimistic assessment, suppose it costs $20,000,000 per person.
Now, also suppose we wanted to launch ten million people into space each year. This is about one seventh our annual population growth. This would cost $200 trillion.

Right.

Instead, we could try social efforts to improve the degree to which women can control the number of children they have (take, for example, Nigeria, where the average number of children per women is 7, but the average desired number is 2.3, which is around replacement rate). More effective, and about 200,000 times cheaper.


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Spurk on January 13, 2004, 11:47:16 pm
Quote
Now, also suppose we wanted to launch ten million people into space each year. This is about one seventh our annual population growth. This would cost $200 trillion.

I don't mean this as a refutation to your argument, but as technology grows, it become cheaper. If we were to start a concerted effort to take people into space to live there, the cost might initally be $20,000,000 per person, but as time went on and demand for space living grew, the cost would come down.

But I realize that's not your point.


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: NECRO-99 on January 14, 2004, 02:16:37 am
I know, let's get the government to launch condemned convicts into space for the missions. They offer the family the chance to pay the government 2 million dollars to let the person go back to prison instead of being rocketed to oblivion, and then we've got the money to ship those that we _really_ want out there. Clean out the prison system (those who don't pay), get some extra cash on the side...hey, why not?
*gets the keyboard vaccuum to suck the excess sarcasm off the keys*


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Ivan Ivanov on January 14, 2004, 10:58:39 pm
Quote

warp drive is a working theory. and im not saying this as a star trek fan. but it requires 2 things to work: alot of energy to warp space/time, like say, a matter/anti-matter reaction. and a ship that can withstand the stress.

i agree on that we will not likely see such tech in 50 years let alone our lifetime. but i believe one day we will reach out to the stars.


HAR! HAR! HAR!
Sorry, but I don't think this will ever happen.
Like you said, warping time or space would require a lot of energy. Even if we find antimatter in our neighborhood, or find a way to produce antimatter, why should we use it for space-travel when there is much better appliance for it, namely blowing ourselves back to stone age (actually an anti-matter bomb would be enough to blow the whole planet to hell which is kind of like reaching out to the stars HAR! HAR! HAR!).

Yeah, maybe I am a bit pessimistic about mankind, but try to name one scientific breakthrough that didn't end up as some kind of weapon.


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: FalconMWC on January 14, 2004, 11:16:25 pm
I see your point, but there are plenty of scientific breakthroughs that did not result in weapons
The clock, microwave, oven, shower, doors, paper, printers, phones, pencils, pens, erasers, rug, books, notebooks and vaccums. If you look, most of them are breakthroughs in history and I took about 15 seconds to name that list. I am not aware of any weapons that are using them.    

But a warp dive does seem far-fetched to me. I mean we have trouble getting to mars and we are talking about warp drives? I would have to see more information on this subject to make a decision though.  :)


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Chrispy on January 15, 2004, 12:24:26 am
the clock made timebombs


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Ivan Ivanov on January 15, 2004, 12:25:15 am
Quote
I see your point, but there are plenty of scientific breakthroughs that did not result in weapons
The clock, microwave, oven, shower, doors, paper, printers, phones, pencils, pens, erasers, rug, books, notebooks and vaccums. If you look, most of them are breakthroughs in history and I took about 15 seconds to name that list. I am not aware of any weapons that are using them.

 
Well... Let's see... the microwave, and the oven can be easily used to kill someone.
Paper... dont you know how dangerous papercuts are?
Pencils, pens - well, the pen is mightier then the sword...

As for the rest there is a joke that goes something like:
Can a man be killed with a 12V battery?
It depends from how high it will fall...
HAR! HAR! HAR!

But seriously, by scientific breakthrough I meant something more general, not a specific invention.
Let's take the microwave for example. It actually wasn't a breakthrough, just a derivative of the radar, which was invented thanks to the progress in studies about electro-magnetic waves. So the microwave wasn't a breakthrough, nor was the radar, but the discovery of EM waves was.


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: FalconMWC on January 15, 2004, 12:48:20 am
As to your post Chrispy and the first part of your post Ivan, none of those things have been turned into operational weapons. (Unless the military is hiding something ;) ) If you look at the Microwave for example, it cannot be used as a weapon without some serious modifying.  

Reagrding the second part of your post Ivan: I see you point loud and clear (radio :P). However my personal belief is that we will survive - I honestly don't belive that humans will destroy the world that we live on before we have a chance to go someplace else. Again that is my personal belief, but breakthroughs and iventions in science correspond with survival. In this day and age that is war, so more of the breakthroughs will come in the "aspect" of war. There will be spinoffs of course, (the microwave example is a exellent one)   but again the focus is on war. Sometimes we don't realize it, but I think it is still there. Earlier in time the focus was on food. Thus they had more breakthroughs on food, not war.  Anyway just my personal opinions about this subject.


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Ivan Ivanov on January 15, 2004, 01:39:02 am
Quote
As to your post Chrispy and the first part of your post Ivan, none of those things have been turned into operational weapons. (Unless the military is hiding something ;) ) If you look at the Microwave for example, it cannot be used as a weapon without some serious modifying.


Then you didn't see to many Steven Seagal movies. The man is my personal hero, in his movies there was not a single thing that wasn't used as some kind of weapon. During every movie I play a game with my brother: what will be used to kill the bad guys in the next fight scene?
Credit cards? Pickles? A towel? ... the possibilities are endless  ;D

Quote
Reagrding the second part of your post Ivan: I see you point loud and clear (radio :P). However my personal belief is that we will survive - I honestly don't belive that humans will destroy the world that we live on before we have a chance to go someplace else.


Our present nuclear arsenal is powerful enough to blow Earth up about 60 times, so we have a chance to blow ourselves all to hell but dont realy have a chance to move someplace else. But I think you're right, it seems unlikely that  we would all die in the result of even the most horrible war. But unless there is a fast and cheap way of moving around the galaxy, I think that our history will resemble Thraddash's...


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Chrispy on January 15, 2004, 01:51:25 am
I wonder how you calculate how many times the arsenal could blow up earth, though I dont doubt that it could.


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Death 999 on January 15, 2004, 02:51:34 am
If by "blow up Earth" you mean transform it into something resembling the asteroid belt, you are mistaken. We couldn't remove 1/100 of the Earth's mass with all the nuclear weapons we've ever built.

In any case, there is a theoretical warp field concept, but it relies on negative energy.

Negative energy has been observed.

HOWEVER:

If you want to create negative energy, you need to sharply reduce the amount of energy in an area.. A reduction so sharp that the energy keeps dropping past the classically sensible level, just on inertia (metaphorically speaking). However, the universe doesn't like to have negative energy, so to have negative energy you have to remove about 1000 times more energy.

And it will disappear pretty darn quick, too.

Basically, the in-principle limitations rule out applications for space travel. Even if you have a couple megatons*c^2 of energy lying around.


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Defender on January 15, 2004, 05:05:00 am
Quote


HAR! HAR! HAR!
Sorry, but I don't think this will ever happen.
Like you said, warping time or space would require a lot of energy. Even if we find antimatter in our neighborhood, or find a way to produce antimatter, why should we use it for space-travel when there is much better appliance for it, namely blowing ourselves back to stone age (actually an anti-matter bomb would be enough to blow the whole planet to hell which is kind of like reaching out to the stars HAR! HAR! HAR!).

Yeah, maybe I am a bit pessimistic about mankind, but try to name one scientific breakthrough that didn't end up as some kind of weapon.


yes, perhaps a weapon might be made from the use of antimatter. but i look at it like this: if we destroy ourselves, then its for the better. it only means mankind wasnt ready for such power. antimatter, like nuclear, needs to be held in responsibe hands. hopefully in the many years to come, things will be different. we, as a human race, have over come many things. but we still have a long way to go. time will only tell when and if we are truly ready for the great unknown...space.

~DEFIANT

ps: i see the glass full. 50% content/50% air


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Ivan Ivanov on January 15, 2004, 11:53:07 am
Quote
If by "blow up Earth" you mean transform it into something resembling the asteroid belt, you are mistaken. We couldn't remove 1/100 of the Earth's mass with all the nuclear weapons we've ever built.


To be honest I'm not sure what I meant. It's something I heard on my *** class (I'll be damned if I find the english/american equivalent of it. Basicly it's a class led by a retired military officer who tells us about ABC warfare, all sorts of natural disasters and what to do when they happen) But come to think of it, the teacher told us things that would qualify as fairy tales. Maybe "blow up Earth" means "render it inhabitbale" or maybe it's just one of those fairy tales. If so, then I'm sorry for spreading disinformation.


Quote
In any case, there is a theoretical warp field concept, but it relies on negative energy.

Negative energy has been observed.


Negative energy? That sounds interesting...
So if I "heated up" water with negative energy, it would not only freaze but become so cold that it would anti-boil?


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Krulle on January 15, 2004, 04:20:26 pm
Back to the Mars mission:

My greater concerns are not the sun radiation but what mans brain will do to himself if he losses contact to others (but the few who acompany him). It's not only the trip, but he has also to wait for around one year (!) on surface of mars before he can return to earth (due to the planetary constellation).

So the people will be gone for around 2 years. How long will they take to get used to gravity (first mars' gravtiy before they can start researching it), then earths (which is quite a lot higher). How will they feel after ground contact? How long will it take them to start leading their own lifes again?

That are question which should be solved before we send someone out there!

Just my two cents.

Edit: corrected some spelling-errors


Title: Re: Mars...the next Frontier?
Post by: Culture20 on January 15, 2004, 07:22:29 pm
Quote
We have to wait quite a long time to get any progress with the possible manned Mars trip. Problem is that darned 'money'. I guess Bill Gates could set up his own space armada though.

Earth is already a subsidiary of Microsoft.  If they get Mars, they might be close to a monopoly.


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Death 999 on January 15, 2004, 07:25:43 pm
Quote
Maybe "blow up Earth" means "render it inhabitbale" or maybe it's just one of those fairy tales. If so, then I'm sorry for spreading disinformation.


Well, we do have about six times more than enough to render the Earth uninhabitable to humans. So in that sense it's no fairy tale.



Quote
Negative energy? That sounds interesting...
So if I "heated up" water with negative energy, it would not only freaze but become so cold that it would anti-boil?


Well, hmm. Well, I can answer at least part of that: there is no such thing as anti-boiling, so that's not right.
Look, here's an article... it doesn't look too technical.

http://www.physics.hku.hk/~tboyce/sf/topics/wormhole/wormhole.html


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Culture20 on January 15, 2004, 07:34:26 pm
Sending convicts:  Worked for Australia

Psychological studies of people in enclosed spaces & long periods?  Look at Atomic Submerine crews and Antarctic Scientists.

No anti-boiling?  What pray-tell is condensation?  ;D


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Death 999 on January 16, 2004, 01:14:01 am
He spoke of it as a step colder than freezing. Nice try.


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: NECRO-99 on January 16, 2004, 04:41:13 am
Posted by: FalconMWC
Posted on: 14.01.04 at 20:16:25
Quote
As to your post Chrispy and the first part of your post Ivan, none of those things have been turned into operational weapons. (Unless the military is hiding something  ) If you look at the Microwave for example, it cannot be used as a weapon without some serious modifying.


Uhhh...Falcon?
I've got something for you to try. Take your microwave, and smash the hell out of the glass door, but leave the door itself intact. Chip away as much of the door as you possibly can, then stick your head in and turn the thing on for...oh...ten seconds. If you can manage to pull your head out (if you're still alive, that is, tell me what it felt like.


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Chrispy on January 16, 2004, 04:59:02 am
I think the point is that people dont do that.


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: NECRO-99 on January 16, 2004, 05:32:36 am
No, that isn't my point. I'll make my own points, thank you. >:(
I promise I won't tell unless he tries it or chides me in some way for asking such a thing of him. After one of these two things happens, I will then submit information on microwaves and their origin.


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Chrispy on January 16, 2004, 05:49:59 am
I ment falcon's point


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: NECRO-99 on January 16, 2004, 05:55:32 am
Well, I'm going to wait for his response to my idea.


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Defender on January 16, 2004, 10:25:51 am
do microwaves origins, have something to do with a chocolate bar, i believe? hint, hint...

~DEFIANT


Title: Too early yet.
Post by: Krulle on January 16, 2004, 01:59:09 pm
Quote
Sending convicts:  Worked for Australia
At that time it seemed cheaper importing convicts than horses, machines or paid pioneers. I do not think that an astronaut will drive the cost into hights that would even allow us to consider sending criminals (regarding the high rocketprices in first place).

Quote
Psychological studies of people in enclosed spaces & long periods?  Look at Atomic Submerine crews and Antarctic Scientists.
They still have real-time comunication with their friends. And still that is no longer than six months (Antarctic) / 1 year (Submarine crew / former russian Mir-crew, except for one poor man). And it makes a difference knowing that outside the shelter is earth, and not Void. Being able to speak with persons on earth in realtime is quite helpful too. But from mars, transmissions to earth will be cut off for something like 4 months and the transmission lag for the answer to your statement will be more than 8 hours! Even using pulsed laserbeam for transmission you will have a time-lag of more that 8 minutes! (4 lightminutes from earth to mars).

And the russian astronaut that has been up there for 16 months on the Mir needed more than 2 years intensive psychological care to recover.

I wouldn't go out there in the spaceships humankind is currently able to build.


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: FalconMWC on January 16, 2004, 06:43:46 pm
Quote
Posted by: FalconMWC
Posted on: 14.01.04 at 20:16:25

Uhhh...Falcon?
I've got something for you to try. Take your microwave, and smash the hell out of the glass door, but leave the door itself intact. Chip away as much of the door as you possibly can, then stick your head in and turn the thing on for...oh...ten seconds. If you can manage to pull your head out (if you're still alive, that is, tell me what it felt like.


Problem, The microwave I have will not work if the glass is fractured or any pieces are removed. ;)  Anyway what you described sounded as serious modifying to me - But is does not matter.  I was talking about its use as a weapon. Lets say you wan't to fry your own head off with the mcirowave. Well, when you think about it a knife or a gun would be much more easier. You still have not turned the microwave into a "weapon" more deadly then a knife or a gun.  



Title: Re: Too early yet.
Post by: Death 999 on January 16, 2004, 07:17:20 pm
Quote
But from mars, transmissions to earth will be cut off for something like 4 months


I presume this would be due to the sun being in the way? We would definitely want a relay at one of the relevant Lagrange points to keep contact.

Quote
and the transmission lag for the answer to your statement will be more than 8 hours!


Mars is on average 1.5 times as far away from the sun as Earth is. It takes 8 minutes for light to get from the Sun to the Earth. Neither of these orbits are highly elliptical, so we can assume the typical value for rough estimates. Assuming the worst case, that Mars and Earth are on opposite sides of the sun, and we have a relay satellite at one of Earth's Lagrange points, then we are looking at a distance of 25 and a half light-minutes (up from the 20 light minutes it would take if the path could go by the sun instead).
Since the signal also has to get back, there is a total delay of about 51 minutes. This would make a pretty slow IM conversation, that is for sure. But it's no 8 hours (that is the delay we'd expect if we were talking to someone sitting on Neptune)

Assuming the best case (Earth and Mars on same side of orbit) the delay would be 4 minutes, as you said.

What has me confused is that  you differentiated between pulsed laser and whatever other form of communication would take 8 hours. What is this slower medium?


Quote
I wouldn't go out there in the spaceships humankind is currently able to build.


No surprises there. But if we work on it for ten years, maybe we can come up with something usable.

Oh, and I bet that exactly for the reasons you say, for such a long voyage we won't be sending two or three people -- we'll be sending enough to form a small community (8 or more). That alleviates the situation of the guy in Mir, who had no more than two companions for any stretch of time. If two people stop liking each other, they can realistically stop talking for a while without the entire place breaking down.


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: NECRO-99 on January 16, 2004, 08:03:01 pm
First off, I don't think breaking glass is a "serious" modification. It can be replaced. Secondly, the point I'm trying to get across... What does a microwave do?
It cooks anything it hits.
Microwaves are a small, boxed and untracking version of shortwave RADAR. Sailors with ships that had radar, primarily those in Korea and Vietnam (very few in WWII) would cook hot dogs by taking a wooden stick, stabbing the hot dog, and holding it in front of the dish. It only took three seconds; any longer than that and the hot dog would either catch fire or explode.
Take a basic home microwave. You don't need the glass in the door for it to work, all you need is the door's latch to secure; the contact is made and the thing'll fire up. Next, put a piece of metal in the microwave. Not tinfoil it bends waaay too easy and wouldn't be able to focus the beam. An old metal plate or a spoon would do. (CD's are amusing, I might add. ;)) When you turn the microwave on, the waves will hit the metal object and scatter. Hitting a spoon (an object with a definite concave shape) will slightly scatter the waves, but most will go to wherever the deepest point of the spoon is fixated upon.

My point? You can wear all the Kevlar you want; it won't matter when you're internal organs are all reaching 300 degrees. These things CAN be made into weapons. Microwaves came FROM military grade equipment, obviously a microwave as we know it wouldn't be too effective as a combat tool, but you take one of those shortwave RADAR dishes, amplify the signal, and aim it at soft, fleshy things, and you'll have a weapon plus some boiling human bodies lying about.

ADD: I did a little further research into the Korean/Vietnam era radar dishes. Most dishes were about eight feet wide, three feet tall, and had a spread ratio of 1 ft:2 ft, 1 foot out from the dish made the beam 2 feet wider/taller. It would only be effective at, oh, 100 yards, but I think that the ability to instantly boil a football field is quite a bit more dangerous than a gun or a knife.


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: FalconMWC on January 16, 2004, 08:33:01 pm
Quote


ADD: I did a little further research into the Korean/Vietnam era radar dishes. Most dishes were about eight feet wide, three feet tall, and had a spread ratio of 1 ft:2 ft, 1 foot out from the dish made the beam 2 feet wider/taller. It would only be effective at, oh, 100 yards, but I think that the ability to instantly boil a football field is quite a bit more dangerous than a gun or a knife.


OK - By changing the size of the weapon you cannot compare it to the same thing. For instance, which would you rather have for a weapon, a radar dish or a daisy cutter? (I mean the extremely effective bomb) Now you might argue that in order  to use a Daisy cutter you have to have a airplane which is true. However have you lookd up how much power  the model you are talking about uses? Let me tell you what - no battery the size of  Texas is going to power that thing for long. (OK- a major exageration - but you get my point) Also Radar waves can be block very easily with even powerful  waves being blocked by less than a half inch of metal (with lead I think).

(Oh - My microwave detects when the glass is fractured - I don't know how - It is not fancy at all)


Title: Re: Mars...the next F*r*ontier? (Needed to fix it)
Post by: NECRO-99 on January 16, 2004, 08:53:14 pm
Quote
However have you lookd up how much power  the model you are talking about uses? Let me tell you what - no battery the size of  Texas is going to power that thing for long. (OK- a major exageration - but you get my point)

Actually, a diesel powered, 1960's technology battleship was able to power it with ease.

Quote
For instance, which would you rather have for a weapon, a radar dish or a daisy cutter?

Apples vs. Oranges. Both weapons, sure, but they have very different applications.

Quote
Also Radar waves can be block very easily with even powerful  waves being blocked by less than a half inch of metal (with lead I think).

A: The metal still gets hot, and would cook the people wearing them, except it'd be like cooking a can.
B: Lead? Riiight. Like the military is going to get the infantry to wear lead suits. Not only is lead fuggin' heavy, it's toxic.

Quote
(Oh - My microwave detects when the glass is fractured - I don't know how - It is not fancy at all)

Oh good God, don't tell me you actually tried[/b] that?!


Something I might note is that you wouldn't be using a "microwave food cooker", you would be using a "microwave RADAR dish".
Specify. If you keep using broad terms like "microwave", I'll keep doing things like this.


Title: Re: Mars...the next F*r*ontier? (Needed to fix it)
Post by: FalconMWC on January 16, 2004, 09:11:59 pm
Quote

Actually, a diesel powered, 1960's technology battleship was able to power it with ease.


Yes - A diesel power battleship can pay LOTS of electric bills - It produces more than power to work the RADAR. I suppose you could get one and bring it with you considering the system only weighs about 8 tons (That is how much they really weigh)..

Quote

Apples vs. Oranges. Both weapons, sure, but they have very different applications.

I disagree - This was about microwaves and its applications with weapons - I was putting forth a example.



Quote

A: The metal still gets hot, and would cook the people wearing them, except it'd be like cooking a can.

No, a certain type of metal can take radar - and absorb it without turning hot.  

Quote

B: Lead? Riiight. Like the military is going to get the infantry to wear lead suits. Not only is lead fuggin' heavy, it's toxic.


We do that with Kevlar  - not to mention there would not need  to be that much lead if we were to use it.  Also Kevlar is fairly heavy.

Quote

Oh good God, don't tell me you actually tried[/b] that?!


Of course I did! - In fact is was quite amazing. Though I think it efffefcttted  mmmyyyy brainn II  amn havingg troubble sepelllling.

NOT

What really happened was a baseball connected to the glass and cracked it. We called the company and lo and behold the thing did not work because it sensed the glass was fractured. (That is what he told us - We never tried it)


(Are me and Necro-99 the only ones on this forum? Or maybe everyone but me has learned not to argue with him. O-Well I will learn some day...


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Ikidomari on January 16, 2004, 09:42:14 pm
I was just reading throught this particular discussion and I would have to agree...with both of you.  A standard comsumer-styled microwave oven can be used as a weapon...but  only after minor modifications.  Such modifications would be removing the glass as well as disabling the circutry that controls the cracked-glass detector.  It would also require a wave guide to propperly direct the radiation output.  This, of course, creates a problem, since wave guides generally run about $1000 per linear foot and are exceptionally fragile.  This is, however, highly impracticle.

I believe this argument started with saying that there were several technological innovations that did not lead to the development of weapons or origionally come from weapon development.  This is only partially true as most technological advancements came from people poking into advanced technology.  Due to our races ingrained war-like tendencies, a good 90% of our technological advances are origionally plotted from military useage, but not necessarilly as weapons.

Also, just as an afterthought, the mention of needing a diesle-powered battleship to power a radar is, of course, talking about old-school technology.  As our technology advances, we find ways to make things more powerful and smaller.  It's called Micronization.  Now, I'm not saying that we currently possess the ability to make a directed microwave cannon small enough to be man-portable, but I do recongnize that, in all likelyhood, we will be able to sometime in the next 15-25 years.  That's not all that far away in the grand scheam of things.

Edit:  Spelling corrections...


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Lukipela on January 16, 2004, 09:44:27 pm
I have to say I find your debate quite amusing, its more fun to follow from the sideline.

If I was to venture into the debate, I'd skip the whole microwave thing and point out that Necro is correct insofar that most technological advances sem to come from warfare. A lot of things, from inflatable rafts to pocket knives were designed with military use in mind, and we all know why they wanted nuclear fission...

Interesting question on the microwave subject though (and I have done NO research into this, but since you have I figure two bright boys like you can answer this). If it as Necro states is that easy to construct a microwave weapon, why aren't they used? Sounds like they'd be a whole lot better than conventional firearms...

EDIT: just to be at least vaguely on topic, I'd like to point out another good reason for heading off to Mars. Excepting the fact that we are, as has been stated, quite capable of eradicating ourselves, there are other threats. D_999 mentioned asteroids, and how they can destroy cities. They might also be able to destroy worlds. Not in the explode sense, but you know, dustclouds, ice ages, "Armageddon" kind things. And if that happenms, we ahve all our eggs in one basket. We need to get a large portion of our species out there, if we wish to be ensured of the survival of said species.

Simple survival instinct. We need to get the hell out.

EDIT 2: And someone beat me to it. Fine, see if I ever talk in this topic again.


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: NECRO-99 on January 16, 2004, 09:44:28 pm
Quote
I suppose you could get one and bring it with you considering the system only weighs about 8 tons (That is how much they really weigh)..  

8 tons is nothing. Sherman tanks weigh about three times that. Remove the turret, replace it with a RADAR dish, all the mechanisms for reloading/shell storage could be used to contain the power system.

Quote
I disagree - This was about microwaves and its applications with weapons - I was putting forth a example.

Well, A microwave weapon would simply kill all life wherever it was pointed. A Daisy Cutter would kill all life wherever it was pointed and leave a huge crater, making the land unuseable, at least until the Army Engineers put all the dirt/tar/whatever back in the gaping hole...

Quote
No, a certain type of metal can take radar - and absorb it without turning hot.

What metal is that?

Quote
We do that with Kevlar  - not to mention there would not need to be that much lead if we were to use it.  Also Kevlar is fairly heavy.


You don't need "much" lead. 1 ppm in blood is all you need for low level lead posioning. High level is only 10 ppm. Symptoms of low level lead poisoning include:
Fatigue, Depression, Abdominal Pain, High Blood Pressure
Sypmtoms of high level lead poisoning include:
Joint Weakness, Gout, Kidney Failure and, finally, Heart Failure.

Taken from the DuPont website, the first company to produce Kevlar armor vests/helmets/gloves...
Quote
The power and protection comes packed at an extremely light weight, which provides both comfort and freedom of movement to those that wear KEVLARョ.

Where are you getting your information?

Quote
What really happened was a baseball connected to the glass and cracked it. We called the company and lo and behold the thing did not work because it sensed the glass was fractured. (That is what he told us - We never tried it)

Just duct tape the hell out of it. It's safe...honest... ;)


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Ikidomari on January 16, 2004, 09:55:39 pm
Getting back to the subject at hand, I can definately agree with you, Lukipela.  It is dangerous to have the entirity of a species in one small location (one planet being small as opposed to a galaxy).  It would be a wise, and very likely even a necessary step in our advancement for humanity to take to the stars.


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: FalconMWC on January 16, 2004, 10:06:39 pm
To continue this needless, but fun conversation here is what I have to say:

Quote

8 tons is nothing. Sherman tanks weigh about three times that. Remove the turret, replace it with a RADAR dish, all the mechanisms for reloading/shell storage could be used to contain the power system.

If you removed all the parts the gunnery parts from the sherman tank you would not have enough ROOM (and maybe weight too, I am not sure) to put in a power system powerful enough to work for the type of powerful Radar you are talking about.

Quote

Well, A microwave weapon would simply kill all life wherever it was pointed. A Daisy Cutter would kill all life wherever it was pointed and leave a huge crater, making the land unuseable, at least until the Army Engineers put all the dirt/tar/whatever back in the gaping hole...

A radar that powerful will also destry more than life. Think about it. A microwave heats up your food by making WATER molecules move. Now lots of things have water in them - not just living things. (Including what was my head ;) )




Quote

What metal is that?

You don't need "much" lead. 1 ppm in blood is all you need for low level lead posioning. High level is only 10 ppm. Symptoms of low level lead poisoning include:
Fatigue, Depression, Abdominal Pain, High Blood Pressure
Sypmtoms of high level lead poisoning include:
Joint Weakness, Gout, Kidney Failure and, finally, Heart Failure.

A answer to both those questions. In the USA Airplane category there are planes that are made and "painted" of stuff that repels and absorbs radar and radar waves with out heating up.

Quote

Taken from the DuPont website, the first company to produce Kevlar armor vests/helmets/gloves...
Where are you getting your information?

From personal experience - Have you ever been fully decked out in that stuff?





Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Death 999 on January 16, 2004, 11:25:41 pm
Quote
You don't need "much" lead. 1 ppm in blood is all you need for low level lead posioning.


Metallic lead is not sufficiently bioavailable to be very toxic. Cut it up into little tiny pieces and becomes a lot more toxic.

However, I don't believe in a metal which can absorb microwaves without getting hot. It's that conservation of energy thing. I DO believe in a metal which can reflect microwaves with great efficiency. BUT...

1) you would need to cover every little portion of the body. If the microwave attack is an area attack, then protection for your body alone is pointless if your head is unprotected.
2) the ground and other materials will absorb some energy, and get very hot. Cookage ensues anyway.

On the other hand, I haven't seen any signs that such high power output can be created by a small source (on the scale of a tank). Maybe on the scale of an artillery piece, but an artillery piece with a range of 100 meters is to be laughed at.
In general, if you would use such a short-ranged microwave weapon, use an incendiary spray (large flamethrower) instead.


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: NECRO-99 on January 16, 2004, 11:29:43 pm
Allright, my last crank before I get shot for Off Topic Violations.

Quote
If you removed all the parts the gunnery parts from the sherman tank you would not have enough ROOM (and maybe weight too, I am not sure) to put in a power system powerful enough to work for the type of powerful Radar you are talking about.


So, build a slightly larger, less mobile treaded vehicle that can accomodate it. The Sherman was a flimsy example, I'll admit that.

Quote
A radar that powerful will also destry more than life. Think about it. A microwave heats up your food by making WATER molecules move. Now lots of things have water in them - not just living things. (Including what was my head)

Think of it this way. What do you think will take less time: Letting water molecules cool down, or filling in a huge earthen scar left by a Daisy Maker? Also, water boils, true,  but other substances probably have a higher heat resistance than humans/other fleshy things. I know all fauna, not to mention flora, would be toast, but the basic ground structure would stay intact. I bet you don't need to boil a human for long to kill it.  :P

Quote
A answer to both those questions. In the USA Airplane category there are planes that are made and "painted" of stuff that repels and absorbs radar and radar waves with out heating up.

A: Stealth fighters/bombers employ RADAR Absorbent Material (RAM), true, but the main reason they cannot be detected is due to their angular shape. The RADAR cannot bounce back enough of it's beams to it's reciever, therefore gleaning no signal. (The whole angular thing is why I said NOT to use tinfoil, its really good at sending microwaves all alstray.
B: At that range, RADAR waves don't heat things up. You want to paint all the infantry with RAM? Read http://[Allright, my last crank before I get shot for Off Topic Violations.

[quote]If you removed all the parts the gunnery parts from the sherman tank you would not have enough ROOM (and maybe weight too, I am not sure) to put in a power system powerful enough to work for the type of powerful Radar you are talking about.[/quote]

So, build a slightly larger, less mobile treaded vehicle that can accomodate it. The Sherman was a flimsy example, I'll admit that.

[quote]A radar that powerful will also destry more than life. Think about it. A microwave heats up your food by making WATER molecules move. Now lots of things have water in them - not just living things. (Including what was my head)[/quote]
Think of it this way. What do you think will take less time: Letting water molecules cool down, or filling in a huge earthen scar left by a Daisy Maker? Also, water boils, true,  but other substances probably have a higher heat resistance than humans/other fleshy things. I know all fauna, not to mention flora, would be toast, but the basic ground structure would stay intact. I bet you don't need to boil a human for long to kill it.  :P

[quote]A answer to both those questions. In the USA Airplane category there are planes that are made and "painted" of stuff that repels and absorbs radar and radar waves with out heating up. [/quote]
A: Stealth fighters/bombers employ slight RADAR dispersal paint, true, but the main reason they cannot be detected is due to their angular shape. The RADAR cannot bounce back enough of it's beams to it's reciever, therefore gleaning no signal. (The whole angular thing is why I said NOT to use tinfoil, its really good at sending microwaves all alstray.
B: At that range, RADAR waves don't heat things up. You want to paint all the infantry with microwave-resistant paint? Taken from the Argos Press, [url]http://www.argospress.com/Resources/radar/radarabsorbmateri.htm
Quote
The disadvantages of radar absorbent material include additional weight, expense, heating problems and aerodynamic drag (if applicable).

It's heavier than Kevlar would ever be, costly, and the soldiers will die from heat stroke before they'd ever even encounter one of my theoretical RADAR Tanks.

Quote
From personal experience - Have you ever been fully decked out in that stuff?

From "fully decked out", I'll take it you mean a helmet, a vest, leggings, and I'll assume forearm bracers and boots as well.
(Take a wild guess if I have been.) It's not that heavy, but it gets hot when you're running around and sweating.

OK, no more arguing here, or we're both liable to get pillow'd to hell and back.

Yes, explore space. Space is good. Too many hunams for this little rock. Colonize the moon. Then Mars. Then Alpha Centauri. Oh wait, we'd roast there. Nevermind.


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: FalconMWC on January 16, 2004, 11:40:39 pm
As fun as this conversation/argument has been - I think your right. One more post and then we will be sent to mars by pillows.

As for your futuristic RADAR tank - Welll its got some major problems, but if you correct them and send it to the military you might be rich! ::)  .

As for the real topic of this thread it will be interesting to see if NASA will agree to it and if the program will get enough funding.  


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: NECRO-99 on January 16, 2004, 11:52:39 pm
We should build a gigantic mother ship on Earth. Somewhere that's got a TON of room...hey, lets do it in Russia! There's tons of space there. We build up a massive mothership that has built in factories/fabrication centers that allow us to create/synthesize whatever is humanly possible right now. Give it ionic drive for space travel (nuclear for takeoff/auxillary), and a handful of mining craft, plus a bucket of raw resources.

Sign me up!

ADD: Sorry I ignored your stuff D999 :( Perhaps one of our larger aircraft could carry it?
Oops.
*blasted to Mars via pillowrocket*


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Defender on January 17, 2004, 09:10:02 pm
Quote
do microwaves origins, have something to do with a chocolate bar, i believe? hint, hint...

~DEFIANT


i was rereading my post, and i was trying to be cryptic because i didnt want to spoil Necro's upcoming post of microwave origins. but anyways, i was told that a person in 1950's, was working with a radar dish instillation. he had a chocolate bar in his pocket, and come to find out it melted. more so then what ordinary body heat would do. so thats how microwaves were discovered. at least from what i remember from school.

i just wanted to clear that up.

~DEFIANT



Title: Re: Too early yet.
Post by: Krulle on January 18, 2004, 11:37:48 pm
Quote
I presume this would be due to the sun being in the way? We would definitely want a relay at one of the relevant Lagrange points to keep contact.
[/quote]What has me confused is that  you differentiated between pulsed laser and whatever other form of communication would take 8 hours. What is this slower medium?[/quote]
Currently we are using radiowaves to talk fwith our astronauts.
These radiowaves are travelling slower than light. (Beat me if i am wrong - pillow prefered)  If we'd use a pulsed laser (digital signal), the signal could be transmitted a lot faster, but we also need direct (or relayed) contact.
But i am wrong nontheless. It wouldn't be eight hours. I just got that out of my head. But nontheless it is difficult to have a discussion with someone if the delay is bigger than 10 minutes.

Quote
Oh, and I bet that exactly for the reasons you say, for such a long voyage we won't be sending two or three people -- we'll be sending enough to form a small community (8 or more). That alleviates the situation of the guy in Mir, who had no more than two companions for any stretch of time. If two people stop liking each other, they can realistically stop talking for a while without the entire place breaking down.
The more we send - the bigger the ships needs to be, the higher the costs get.
And the poor Kosmonaut on the mir was alone (the other 2 were token down, the sojus-capsule was meant to be sent back up there within 1 week and 2 replacements. But the money got scraped, the capsule got damaged and it took the russions about 4 months to send 2 newones up there, and this sojus capsule was meant for 1 to go back to earth (designed differetly, couldn't take 2 down due to weight problems). And he had to send one of the two newcomers back, due to a severe illness the chinese (?) kosmonaut developed up there.

Nontheless - i am a SciFi Fan, and thus i hope that humankind will construct a (permanent) moonbase during my lifetime (at least start the construction).

Enjoy!
Krulle


Title: Hubble
Post by: Krulle on January 18, 2004, 11:42:43 pm
NASA stops the repairs and support missions to the hubble-telescope. It will burn in our atmosphere between 2006 and 2007. Damned!
The official declaration says, they need the shuttles for the construction of the ISS (i do believe them, but why not start an additional mission?).
That's what i hate: the Hubble brings far more knwoledge about space to us than interplanetary travel (at least at this point of knowledge). Maybe i have to revise this when some Vulcan-kind of people contact us after they find out that we are able to fly to another planet.

Enjoy!
Krulle


Title: Re: Too early yet.
Post by: Ivan Ivanov on January 19, 2004, 12:33:05 am
Quote
Currently we are using radiowaves to talk fwith our astronauts.
These radiowaves are travelling slower than light. (Beat me if i am wrong - pillow prefered)


*slaps Krulle with The Tactical Nuclear Powered Ballistic Pillow With Cool Lights Flashing In Nice Patterns

The radiowaves and the light have one thing in common: they are both electro-magnetic waves.
And there is one thing that separates them: frequency.

The speed of electro-magnetic waves in vacuum is the same for all frequencies and is known as The Speed Of Light.

Quote
The more we send - the bigger the ships needs to be, the higher the costs get.


one of the reasons I don't understand sending people to Mars.
Wouldn't it be better to invest the money in making a bit more mobile robots that could collect rocks from Mars and return home?


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Krulle on January 19, 2004, 05:47:33 pm
Dammit, that hit with the pillow was necessary.
Now i remember my fault: i messed up with the speed of sound.
Dammit.

I'll just stand here for 5 minutes. Just slap me with yer pillows.


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Death 999 on January 19, 2004, 07:57:28 pm
As the Hubble ages, its quality is diminishing. Also, it has looked at many of the things we would want to look at with the resolution it offers. To go further, it would be nicer to look at some of the more interesting things we've already looked at with a better telescope, than to look at more different things with the same resolution.

Such a better telescope is due to be lifted in 2012.

Of course, not having a six year gap between Hubble and the next telescope would be really nice.

btw: pillow slap to the chest.


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: NECRO-99 on January 21, 2004, 11:20:48 pm
Here's an interesting thought...
The US controls and owns the telescope. It's been taking pictures of space for a good amount of time now, but the newer version will be more crisp and have better pictures. Say the Hubble isn't brought down. On a clandestine mission, the U.S. sends up Astronauts that fix the Hubble's course, attach rockets to it, and remove the rear paneling and replace it with a better lens.

Ever cooked an ant with a magnifying glass?

I'll let someone else put together what I'm thinking, for reaction's sake. ;)


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Culture20 on January 21, 2004, 11:49:36 pm
The lens in the hubble is designed to focus onto the back of the hubble, meaning that the focus would never reach earth;  in fact, light from the lens would be less intense than real sunlight; nothing like our vast mirror array on the moon.  That can fry a city in 12 minutes (only on a full moon though).   ::)


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: NECRO-99 on January 22, 2004, 12:50:58 am
It focuses in the back; take the imaging stuff out and put a new lens in that would focus it on a spot on earth. :P

SciFi will never die!


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Death 999 on January 22, 2004, 08:04:01 pm
If you want attack optics, you don't want to use something as tiny and precise as the Hubble.

You want something bigger so it can accept more power. You see, the extreme precision of Hubble would be thrown off by the atmospheric distortion anyway, so you might as well not bother. Anyway, its optical geometry doesn't really allow putting a serious energy emitter at the focus of its optics.

Instead, get a dish which is in the shape of a parabolic section (or better, several mirrors which can together mimic that shape). Choose this parabolic section so the mirrors are far off-centered, with the distance to the focus of the parabola approximately equal to the altitude of its orbit. By positioning the mirror so the sun is along the parabola's axis, you can add a large amount of solar energy to the focus of the parabola.
By using many smaller mirrors to approximate a parabola, you can vary the parabola, and thus the distance to the focus. This allows you to aim anywhere in your line of sight, out to the maximum range of the array (the point at which the light would diffuse too much to cause damage).

How much damage would it cause? Well, it depends. Suppose the light can be focused evenly onto a 4 square meter area, and the collection dish is 50 square meters (about 7 meters by 7 meters). Then there is a 12.5 times the brightness of the sun amount of additional energy, for a total factor of 13.5 times as much (if the target is already sunlit).

Ouchies.


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Culture20 on January 22, 2004, 08:44:29 pm
Yep, that's the mirror array on the Moon.  Orbital death rays are fun.  Oh, and you won't see it through a telescope because the mirrors are usuallly alligned to reflect sections of the moon's surface.  Look for patterns of repeating terrain and you'll find it. ::)


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Death 999 on January 23, 2004, 06:37:25 pm
GAAAH! The mars rover is croaking!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/22/spirit.contact/index.html


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: FalconMWC on January 23, 2004, 06:45:59 pm
Yes, but at least the other robot is on its way down. It should reach  Mars sometime tomorrow.

Still, if they don't get it working it will not be as big of waste as the first one that did not respond.

EDIT:Alright - I moved up a rank.  


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: FalconMWC on January 23, 2004, 07:05:59 pm
Sorrry for the double-post, but the orbital satlite orbiting mars detected water in the form of ice!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/23/mars.water.ice/index.html

EDIT: The Rover that is currently on mars has recovered!
http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=Science&cat=Mars_Exploration


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: Death 999 on January 24, 2004, 02:52:29 am
Quote
Sorrry for the double-post, but the orbital satlite orbiting mars detected water in the form of ice!


We've known there was ice on Mars for at least 5 years, probably much more. The only thing that's new here is that it's at their south pole as well as the north pole.
But intrinsically speaking, this is about as surprising as the discovery of water in the form of ice on the ground in Philadelphia in January. What would be surprising would be a discovery that the north pole had water ice and the south pole was dry. Actually, that would be VERY surprising.

Also,the roveris still sort of not exactly OK, but at least it hasn't gone deaf or mute.


Title: Re: Mars...the next Fontier?
Post by: FalconMWC on January 25, 2004, 05:41:47 pm
Quote

Also,the roveris still sort of not exactly OK, but at least it hasn't gone deaf or mute.

You are right - I should have read more. They upgraded the landers situation from critcal to serious.

As a brighter note the other mars rover appeared to land alright   :)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/25/mars.rovers/index.html