Forums » Off-Topic
they've been saying this forever
"ooh we have this evidence! ooh!"
looks to me like a rockslide that could be caused by anything and not running water
its too cold there and with no running atmosphere.
a frikkin high school astronomy student can figure this out, why not nasa smarties?
"ooh we have this evidence! ooh!"
looks to me like a rockslide that could be caused by anything and not running water
its too cold there and with no running atmosphere.
a frikkin high school astronomy student can figure this out, why not nasa smarties?
Wow, am I ever glad you set that straight who?me? I'm guessing you've deduced this through the use of your high school's high powered telescope mounted on the school's roof? Or was it the rover your school district sent up last year?
edit/ you do know that the images they get to see are much bigger than the ones they release to the public right?
edit2/ this is the original release I read, as well as a photo that, for me anyway, better displays the erosion that they are speaking of:
The Image
The Context
edit/ you do know that the images they get to see are much bigger than the ones they release to the public right?
edit2/ this is the original release I read, as well as a photo that, for me anyway, better displays the erosion that they are speaking of:
The Image
The Context
Gotta love someone who shoots off their mouth, eh Gavan?
*pokes who? me?* Quit it!
*pokes who? me?* Quit it!
i think the whole point of this discussion is: was there ever running water on mars. evidence points to the answer of no. have we sampled it? no have we seen it? no
the closest we can get is to some pictures taken from a few hundred miles of some vague land formations that, when you think about it, could be caused by anything.
the closest we can get is to some pictures taken from a few hundred miles of some vague land formations that, when you think about it, could be caused by anything.
Sure there can be warer on Mars. Although as soon as it gets free of the rock it's embedded in, it outgassses because the ATM pressure on Mars is next-to-nothing.
So to get even that small trickle, there would have to be a lot of embedded water.
I seem to recall that some scientists think that it might be hydrogen peroxide instead. Forget where I may have read this.
Anyway, there's no life on Mars now, unless it's microscopic life embedded in the planet's crust, the surface is deadly to unprotected life, due to the UV and the peroxide nature of the "regolith."
I say: Let's strip-mine the planet and use it as a military base for galactic conquest! Who's with me?
So to get even that small trickle, there would have to be a lot of embedded water.
I seem to recall that some scientists think that it might be hydrogen peroxide instead. Forget where I may have read this.
Anyway, there's no life on Mars now, unless it's microscopic life embedded in the planet's crust, the surface is deadly to unprotected life, due to the UV and the peroxide nature of the "regolith."
I say: Let's strip-mine the planet and use it as a military base for galactic conquest! Who's with me?
Plenty of iron on that planet, to say the least...
There's water on Mars; since we have telescopes people have looked at it on Mar's poles. Go look at some pics, fer crying out loud! The question is whether there was enough of it to affect the landscape like it did here on Earth, and promote life. If there's anything resembling life in Mars, it's at the poles.
As for terraforming it, Sci Fi writers have discussed it to death: enrich the atmosphere with lichen, fungi and hardy plants, warm it via greenhouse gases, and add water via ice yos. Mutants, amazon women and the Governator are optional.
As for terraforming it, Sci Fi writers have discussed it to death: enrich the atmosphere with lichen, fungi and hardy plants, warm it via greenhouse gases, and add water via ice yos. Mutants, amazon women and the Governator are optional.
Pffft, terraforming Mars would take sustained political will over untold generations, more technology than we've got now, and probably 10,000 years of constant supervision. Never gonna happen.
And, since it's got no magnetic field, any atmosphere we create will eventually be blown away by solar wind, and unless we install giant sunshades around the whole planet, UV will fry us. So we'll end up living in caves in Mars, and not being able to go outside without spacesuits anyways.
It would be easier and make more sense to have a moon base than a Mars base. Lots more sense. Easier rescue if things go to hell, easier and faster transport of personnel and materials back and forth, mining is feasible, and the dark side of the moon is a GREAT place for telescopes. The only thing that Mars has that the Moon doesn't is water, and that's debateable.
But, by all means, let's figure out how to crash a buncha ice comets into Mars. I can't wait until terrorists get their hands on THAT technology.
And, since it's got no magnetic field, any atmosphere we create will eventually be blown away by solar wind, and unless we install giant sunshades around the whole planet, UV will fry us. So we'll end up living in caves in Mars, and not being able to go outside without spacesuits anyways.
It would be easier and make more sense to have a moon base than a Mars base. Lots more sense. Easier rescue if things go to hell, easier and faster transport of personnel and materials back and forth, mining is feasible, and the dark side of the moon is a GREAT place for telescopes. The only thing that Mars has that the Moon doesn't is water, and that's debateable.
But, by all means, let's figure out how to crash a buncha ice comets into Mars. I can't wait until terrorists get their hands on THAT technology.
get me a lawn chair, tostitos, a 6-pack of guiness and a one-way ticket to mars and i'll take it *any* time.
why is the dark side any better than any other part of the moon for a telescope? if i remember correctly, all of the moon is in shadow half the month, out the other half
Because the "dark side" of the moon always points away from the earth. You know, towards the stars? And as far as your first post? RTFA, they explain why they feel it is not just rock or dust slides.
The moon rotates just enough so that same surface is always facing earth. Which is pretty cool when you think about it... Scientists learned the how to calculate trajectories for satellites by studying the moon's behavior. Hence, the other side is free of any obstructions or reflections from Earth, when it is not facing the sun, of course.
Two things of interest comes from that facet of the moon's rotation:
1. All kinds of crazy theories have been made about what's on the other side. Among them, one holds astronaut Michael Collins, who remained on orbit during the Apollo 11 mission, reported seeing lights on it that could only belong to an alien station on the surface. He was, of course, made to "keep quiet" by NASA and the US government; in other words, a favorite topic for UFO whackos.
2. That bunch of calculations to launch and determine a satellite's orbit, and which work on a basis of a stationary Earth, are cited by Creatonists and other religious whackos as "proof" that the Galileic model of the solar system is a fake and thus the Earth is the de-facto center of the system, with the Sun and all the other planets rotating around it. After all, the Bible says so, and we all know the Bible is 100% correct; the Bible itself says so, as well!
As for crashing asteroids into Mars, again, sci-fi authors like Arthur C. Clarke (who predicted satellites) have already discussed it to death. A very good scenario is described in the last Odyssey book, in which rockets are attached to the asteroids, getting their hydrogen fuel from the very ice they are mounted on (or something similar) and then pointed on a crash course with the planet. It's all doable, if we stop killing ourselves over oil and danish cartoons and start working together.
1. All kinds of crazy theories have been made about what's on the other side. Among them, one holds astronaut Michael Collins, who remained on orbit during the Apollo 11 mission, reported seeing lights on it that could only belong to an alien station on the surface. He was, of course, made to "keep quiet" by NASA and the US government; in other words, a favorite topic for UFO whackos.
2. That bunch of calculations to launch and determine a satellite's orbit, and which work on a basis of a stationary Earth, are cited by Creatonists and other religious whackos as "proof" that the Galileic model of the solar system is a fake and thus the Earth is the de-facto center of the system, with the Sun and all the other planets rotating around it. After all, the Bible says so, and we all know the Bible is 100% correct; the Bible itself says so, as well!
As for crashing asteroids into Mars, again, sci-fi authors like Arthur C. Clarke (who predicted satellites) have already discussed it to death. A very good scenario is described in the last Odyssey book, in which rockets are attached to the asteroids, getting their hydrogen fuel from the very ice they are mounted on (or something similar) and then pointed on a crash course with the planet. It's all doable, if we stop killing ourselves over oil and danish cartoons and start working together.
No no no no!
(a) Scientists didn't learn how to calculate satellites' trajetories from observing the moon! They do it by mapping the earth's gravitational field (which, by the way, is not uniform and can affect orbits).
(b) Those stupid lights on the moon quoted by Jex. Jex : go knock yourself silly for being conspiratorial. I've expected better from you. The "dark side" of the moon has been mapped to DEATH and twice over.
(c) The real reason of Moon's synchronicity with the Earth has nothing to do with co-incidence or creationists, or plain coolness. It's exactly what you expect if the moon is not exactly homogenous in density; tidal forces will force synchronicity. (Which, actually, is pretty cool so I eat my word there.)
(d) And, stop the drat about no water on Mars. There is plenty of water everywhere in the solar system. The only issue is : are they nicely packaged like Aquafina for XXX-nauts to get at?
(e) A.C. Clarke didn't fucking predict satellites. He proposed geosynchronous satellites as communications relays. Go read some more books before spewing off stuff Jex.
(a) Scientists didn't learn how to calculate satellites' trajetories from observing the moon! They do it by mapping the earth's gravitational field (which, by the way, is not uniform and can affect orbits).
(b) Those stupid lights on the moon quoted by Jex. Jex : go knock yourself silly for being conspiratorial. I've expected better from you. The "dark side" of the moon has been mapped to DEATH and twice over.
(c) The real reason of Moon's synchronicity with the Earth has nothing to do with co-incidence or creationists, or plain coolness. It's exactly what you expect if the moon is not exactly homogenous in density; tidal forces will force synchronicity. (Which, actually, is pretty cool so I eat my word there.)
(d) And, stop the drat about no water on Mars. There is plenty of water everywhere in the solar system. The only issue is : are they nicely packaged like Aquafina for XXX-nauts to get at?
(e) A.C. Clarke didn't fucking predict satellites. He proposed geosynchronous satellites as communications relays. Go read some more books before spewing off stuff Jex.
I don't think Lexicon meant there may not be water on Mars when he said "that's debatable." I think what he meant was it's debatable that there's not water on the Moon. I think they've found ice deposits on the moon, but I can't remember when/where I read that.
Oh, and I think you guys mean "far side" of the Moon, since who? me? is correct that any point on the Moon is light for two weeks then dark for two weeks.
I don't think we need to worry any time soon about terrorists getting a rocket capable of crashing a meteor into the Earth. There's a much more immediate danger of them using nukes. I don't want to go on a tangent in this thread about politics and terrorism, but it's much more complicated to make a ship to go get an asteroid and bring it back, than to simply shoot one at a neighboring country, or smuggle a nuke.
Terriforming sounds fun, though. I read two and a half books of Kim Stanley Robinson's "Blue Mars" (I think that was the name of it) trilogy, before I couldn't get past a major slump in the storyline. The terriforming process he describes was very interesting, though, and also the politics of those terriforming vs. the environmentalist/terrorist groups. You know if we tried it, it would never happen because of protests, which sucks.
The other problem is that it would be extremely difficult to maintain. You can't just terriform Mars, and then everything's good. The tectonic system has ground to a halt, the interior of the planet is too cool. That's why there used to be liquid water but there isn't now. All the water on Earth came from volcanic eruptions. I suspect it did on Mars, too, but since Mars is smaller, it cooled faster, and now is dead. We'd have to do all that work ourselves, and keep replenishing everything. At this point, and in the forseeable future, the costs completely dwarf the gains.
Oh, and I think you guys mean "far side" of the Moon, since who? me? is correct that any point on the Moon is light for two weeks then dark for two weeks.
I don't think we need to worry any time soon about terrorists getting a rocket capable of crashing a meteor into the Earth. There's a much more immediate danger of them using nukes. I don't want to go on a tangent in this thread about politics and terrorism, but it's much more complicated to make a ship to go get an asteroid and bring it back, than to simply shoot one at a neighboring country, or smuggle a nuke.
Terriforming sounds fun, though. I read two and a half books of Kim Stanley Robinson's "Blue Mars" (I think that was the name of it) trilogy, before I couldn't get past a major slump in the storyline. The terriforming process he describes was very interesting, though, and also the politics of those terriforming vs. the environmentalist/terrorist groups. You know if we tried it, it would never happen because of protests, which sucks.
The other problem is that it would be extremely difficult to maintain. You can't just terriform Mars, and then everything's good. The tectonic system has ground to a halt, the interior of the planet is too cool. That's why there used to be liquid water but there isn't now. All the water on Earth came from volcanic eruptions. I suspect it did on Mars, too, but since Mars is smaller, it cooled faster, and now is dead. We'd have to do all that work ourselves, and keep replenishing everything. At this point, and in the forseeable future, the costs completely dwarf the gains.
Ah, Holden, your journey to the Troll Side is nearly complete; I specially like how you went with obtuse semantics on the satellite thing. Genka would be so proud!
Professor Chaos,
Dark side of the moon is the traditional term.
Most of the water on earth comes from cometary collisions.
Tectonics are not completely dead on Mars. Reference the article for evidence of tectonic movement in the last 5 years.
And, neither is Mars.
Dark side of the moon is the traditional term.
Most of the water on earth comes from cometary collisions.
Tectonics are not completely dead on Mars. Reference the article for evidence of tectonic movement in the last 5 years.
And, neither is Mars.
Sorry chillum, I was hasty in generalizing, the tectonics on Mars/Mars itself are relatively dead. I did read an article a while back about a marsquake. I didn't know they called the far side the dark side. I assumed dark side meant whichever half was dark at the moment.
Volcanism and accretion are both theories of where Earth's water came from, it's still being studied. Water vapor is the most abundant volcanic gas, followed by CO2 and Sulphur dioxide. The sulphur dioxide forms aerosols and along with the ash increase albedo temporarily, while water and CO2 increase the so-called "greenhouse" effect over a longer term (water is responsible for the majority of the greenhouse effect on Earth). I'm not sure exactly what the effect would be, but Mars's lower gravity wouldn't hold as much atmosphere as Earth, which also may mean higher maintenance. It would be extremely expensive to have to perpetually replenish a planet's entire atmosphere.
Volcanism and accretion are both theories of where Earth's water came from, it's still being studied. Water vapor is the most abundant volcanic gas, followed by CO2 and Sulphur dioxide. The sulphur dioxide forms aerosols and along with the ash increase albedo temporarily, while water and CO2 increase the so-called "greenhouse" effect over a longer term (water is responsible for the majority of the greenhouse effect on Earth). I'm not sure exactly what the effect would be, but Mars's lower gravity wouldn't hold as much atmosphere as Earth, which also may mean higher maintenance. It would be extremely expensive to have to perpetually replenish a planet's entire atmosphere.
As far as cometary impacts supplying the water on Earth, even if vulcanism is the chief source of water... how did it get to Earth to begin with? The theory is that there was not nearly enough water (or hydrogen and oxygen that weren't already bound) in the initial materials that went to form the Earth, and so cometary impact was necessary to bring us to our current water world status. Vulcanism is primarily venting subducted water btw, not bringing up "new" water.
Mars' lower gravity will not hold as dense an atmosphere as Earth's, correct... I believe it's something like, at the Mars equivalent of sea level the maximum atmospheric density would be equivalent to 20 - 25k feet on earth, not fun for hiking, but survivable. Course, a hike up Olympus Mons would be deadly (btw, the largest known volcano, anywhere. So clearly there was LOTS of activity at one time.) but the reason Mars has little atmosphere is not its gravity, in fact... no-one quite knows where its atmosphere went, lack of replenishment due to vigorous vulcanism is surely one theory.
As far as terra-forming? Yeah, in 10,000 years or so we might have the necessary knowledge and resources. The fastest way to terraform might be to bomb Mars for a few hundred years with ice roids and other large asteroids and then seed (reseed?) with bacteria. A large enough impact might even kick start its vulcanism/tectonics again. Regardless it would take thousands of years with any currently envisioned technique to change Mars to something even approaching a non-spacesuit environment.
Mars' lower gravity will not hold as dense an atmosphere as Earth's, correct... I believe it's something like, at the Mars equivalent of sea level the maximum atmospheric density would be equivalent to 20 - 25k feet on earth, not fun for hiking, but survivable. Course, a hike up Olympus Mons would be deadly (btw, the largest known volcano, anywhere. So clearly there was LOTS of activity at one time.) but the reason Mars has little atmosphere is not its gravity, in fact... no-one quite knows where its atmosphere went, lack of replenishment due to vigorous vulcanism is surely one theory.
As far as terra-forming? Yeah, in 10,000 years or so we might have the necessary knowledge and resources. The fastest way to terraform might be to bomb Mars for a few hundred years with ice roids and other large asteroids and then seed (reseed?) with bacteria. A large enough impact might even kick start its vulcanism/tectonics again. Regardless it would take thousands of years with any currently envisioned technique to change Mars to something even approaching a non-spacesuit environment.