Messages

No idea.   Chemistry and I are not the best of friends.   In fact the sciences in general cause me to become rather dyslexic.


But as far as elements go, maybe your friend argues that there are simply no new ways to combine atoms.   As in:  All the electron arrangements are taken.     If that's his logic I could understand but seeing as how better and better microscopes have revealed deeper and deeper secrets to the universe....

I can't help but agree with you.   I personally doubt new elements will be found on Mars or the planets closer to the Sun.   Most likely Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and other planets with the "rare gases" would likely have any components that Earth is missing.   Very very very light elements, for example.    Because of the afore mentioned solar blast that created our solar system.  But surely outside the Solar System and the range of our telescopes we would be naive to assume we've seen it all.   If not the semantic term for "elements" there is surely something out there that makes up some tangible "thing".... 

Flavors of Quarks and Leptons are good examples.   Surely there are "concepts" that have simply missed the Solar System.    There will be components, perhaps outside our 5 senses.   

As for undiscovered elements I'll let someone more familiar with them take the microphone. 

[Darth]

Darth:   The non-eroded rim of that crater is so super sexy to me.  It leaves me fairly spellbound.

I found some more:

View of the Phoenix Lander from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter:


"Snowqueen" possible ice feature:


These movies were pieced together from B&W images & magnified x 8:

Phoenix's Panorama view of Mars

Typical Panorama of Mars

You're right about the number of planets.  We have 8 planets and 3 dwarf planets by the new definition.  I still think back to grade school when they stamped the number 9 into my head.

the fact that we have a core that is molten lava. 

That's movie science.   We do not have a Core of molten magma.    You're thinking of volcanic activity in the Earth's Mantle.    Because of gravity, there are NO caverns in the Earth's core.  NONE.  You couldn't get a pinky in there.    Imagine the Earth's oceans sitting on top of you.... and then realize that the oceans are only a tiny film on the surface of the planet. The Earth's core is very very very high pressure. Very dense.    No holes, no caves, none of that hollywood ballyhoo.   Just a huge solid mass of iron and nickel. 

Here's an excerpt of a great explanation:

"Beneath the crust is a layer of rock called the mantle. Even deeper is the core which scientists believe is made of solid iron and nickel.

Imagine wearing a concrete bodysuit all of the time. After a while, you'd feel extremely hot because of the tremendous pressure you'd feel on your body. If you think about it, the mantle wears a huge, heavy bodysuit that is about seventy kilometers thick. It's not too hard to believe, then, that there is extreme pressure and heat in the mantle. Most of the mantle, over 99%, stays solid, but the high temperature and the push and pull forces cause some of the mantle to melt. This molten rock is known as magma.

If you were wearing that concrete bodysuit, you'd probably fight to break free from it. You'd probably wiggle your fingers and stretch your toes to try and poke some small holes. The outer layer of the earth has some weak spots and cracks in it. When the magma in the mantle pushes finds those weak spots, it pokes through, forming a volcano."





The Red in the 2nd image is completely solid.  There's simply too much density and force.   No magma except in the top most layers of the Mantle.

As far as what you imagine to be the case with the Earth's distance from the Sun, you're really only factoring proximity from the Sun as a source of heat.    What about the size of a planet compared to its core?   Imagine that Jupiter is wearing twenty coats while Mercury is wearing just a t-shirt.    And you can see there are many more factors than distance to the Sun.   

I've explained a few times, but I will again.  Some planets have NO possibility for life simply because they're missing certain elements.   4.5 billion years ago when the Solar System formed,  a solar blast blew matter away from the planets near the Sun.  The closest were the smallest planets, and they lost most of their gases.     The planets farther away didn't lose as much matter (keeping most of their rare gases).   In a way, this was actually fortunate for the closer planets since it seemed to be a better mix of ingredients.   The combination of these elements and temperature probably lead to life.  And so far it seems that having more gases does not make chances of life more likely.  I guess one day we'll see.

You're also not factoring in that the planets haven't always been where & what they are.  Some moons were formed by meteors, or possibly *other* planets SMACKING into the side of the bigger planet.   The smaller body was either captured into the lager body's orbit, or exploded a chunk of the larger body into space... and that chunk became a moon.   So yes the Sun could have been hotter, but Mars could have been a part of Earth that broke off and fell into its own orbit.   ( I'm not proposing this.  Simply theoretical, right? )

Over the course of 4.5 billion years a lot could happen.   I enjoy the theory you put forth, and I think its that kind of creative thinking and curiosity that lead humans to the reaches of space.    There are still an infinite number of unanswered questions out there, and the scientific process hasn't been around that long.   But for the time it has, its kicked major pagan ass.

Fossils?  Still the "I only care if there's an alien" mindset.   Man you guys we're not going to find a big silver UFO up there.    And don't expect to find a dinosaur on Mars.   What we want are ingredients.   Certain elements that might have been blown away by a solar blast billions of years ago.


Realize that science fiction by and large was created to inspire humans to reach out.  What its done is made us spoiled brats.    "Been there, done that.   Show me an alien with 14 tentacles and I'll be impressed."   The idea of a humanoid is sort of ridiculous.   Think of skeletal structures during evolution.  Think of there being skeletons at all.  Think of the atmosphere's effect.  Think of gravity's effect.  Think of the chances of an alien looking remotely like anything we've ever seen.   Aliens might as well be invisible clouds of dust.   ( You realize we only have fossils dating back to when organisms became hard enough to leave fossils.   And that's only when the organism was trapped under a certain geological feature, ie: mudslides, volcano eruption, etc.)

Ice = water.

Water = one of the fundamental elements of human life   

Ice = Hydrogen and Oxygen that we could harvest

Not fucking ice skating with E.T. and the wookies.

And I'm not trying to win anybody over at this point.   Clearly Science Fiction is worth our time compared to Science Fact.  Again you say, "been there done that.  I'll wait around until I see a wookie."    If George Lucas thought like you guys there never would have been "Star Wars".  Let's get creative.

Hundreds of civilizations used to worship the moon.   As soon as astronauts were hitting golf balls while up there, we've all been saying, "Yawn, its just a big rock floating up there not doing anything.   Yawn yawn yawn. Whens Halo 3 come out?"

Albert Enstein never lived to see this day.   The things he would be fascinated by and the amount of guesses he made regarding stuff like this.    It all begins with hypothesis.   Here you are with ACCESS to all the information and you're farting around with your X Box.

When I was a kid I was fascinated by space travel and Santa Claus.  Only it turns out space travel is real.

It's possible it's not ice.    Either way, we've learned something about the Mars polar region.   It is commonly thought that Mars is a dead planet.    But there are those who think otherwise:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/05/the-ice-ages-of.html

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2003/dec/HQ_03415_ice_age.html



"After examining stunning high-resolution images taken last year by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, researchers have documented for the first time that ice packs at least 1 kilometer (0.6 miles) thick and perhaps 2.5 kilometers (1.6 miles) thick existed along Mars' mid-latitude belt as recently as 100 million years ago. In addition, the team believes other images tell them that glaciers flowed in localized areas in the last 10 to 100 million years - a blink of the eye in Mars's geological timeline.   This evidence of recent activity means the Martian climate may change again and could bolster speculation about whether the Red Planet can, or did, support life."

Any evidence of glacier movement within the last millions and millions of years would be stunning! Remember that Mars is estimated to be 4.5 Billion years old.  Ice ages on Mars!   Perhaps Mars still has much life in it!      We shouldn't take anything for granted so..... keep on digging, little Phoenix buddy!

Maybe if the rover finds Jesus people will at least shrug?

[is a big fucking deal.]

ICE ON MARS?



The Phoenix Lander has already detected something that might be ice, 2 - 6 inches beneath the top layer of soil. 

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/news/phoenix-20080531.html

This substance, provided it is ice, is a big fucking deal.  NASA estimates that if there is ice on Mars, they will gladly scoop up enough to make snowcones for all the children of Africa. 

Had to check your age for that one.    Keep the idealism to a minimum please.


One day you'll learn that debate is healthy, like eating your vegetables. 

For your information I helped with a fund raiser last night.  This guy lets all the neighborhood kids use his gym and teaches them how to box but he forgets to ever ask for money.   So he couldn't afford rent... and would probably have to shut the gym down.   We raised some good money last night for him.  He's an awesome dude.

Why the astronauts felt it necessary to plant nothing other than a national flag up there is beyond me. 

That's not true.   We also left our garbage.


Flags and dedication plaques from each moon mission
video camera's at the launch sites
sensitometers
the launch legs for the lunar module
Geologic tools
The Laser Reflecting mirrors
Three golfballs
The Rovers
A gold plated extreme ultraviolet telescope
Apollo backpacks


In essence, these were the greatest acts of littering EVER accomplished.  Gooooooo Team!

I think I've actually been to the place in the first picture. Isn't it near Flagstaff, Arizona?



I see what you're saying, guys. It's a huge accomplishment to succesfully send something to a different planet. I just find the pictures totally unremarkable. Does NASA have some kind of rule against color cameras in space? I realize that special hi-res equipment like that used for the original landing photos probably uses grayscale for technological reasons, but I mean, those two last pictures evenwolf posted - they actually have a camera on Mars, and we can't even get to see a trace of red?

You can clearly see the lack of erosion on the Martian crater.   You picked a great image to compare the Martian one too.    Moon and Martian craters teach us about meteorites & Earth.    That particular Flagstaff crater must be relatively young since we can still see it.    Most other craters have been recycled by erosion and tectonic movement. That's why studying these *unaltered* craters on Mars is so valuable.  It can't be done on Earth.

But the lack of color and quality of the picture?  You're absolutely right.   The idea wasn't to look cool.   

NASA guy: "They're black and white pictures meant primarily to tell whether our deployments successfully occurred. "

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/blogs/20080525.html

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9951860-7.html

------------------------------------------------
"The spacecraft's speed relative to Mars increased from 6,300 miles per hour at 8:30 a.m. Pacific Time to 8,500 mph at 12:30 p.m., headed for a speed higher than 12,000 mph before reaching the top of the Martian atmosphere."

Shockley joked in his blog about the spacecraft's energy efficiency. "At a time when gas prices are soaring," he wrote, "Phoenix is getting good fuel economy at about 2 million miles per gallon."

"In entering the thin Martian atmosphere and heading to the surface, Phoenix faced these tribulations: "aeroshell braking" via friction with the atmosphere that would heat it to thousands of degrees, a parachute opening that would give the lander a hard jerk to slow it further, and pulsing retrorockets tasked with making a soft touchdown."

-------------------------------------------------

12,000mph to 0 mph?  And you guys scoff at this?  You don't realize how much smaller the Martian atmosphere is.   Its not parachuting to Earth.  Its going  ALOT faster and the dangers are much more severe.  AND IT WAS COMPLETELY AUTOMATED.    The NASA team didn't even know it was a success until 15 minutes later when they got the delayed signal it was a success.

So the picture is beautiful.  Just like Darth said.   And I'm sorry many of you can't see the true beauty in it.

["Mission Control: Did you fucking see me GRIND the rim of that crater! Next up: Wake boarding on the methane oceans of Titan!"]

Not directed at you Quint.   Your comments have been well thought out IMO.   You've clearly pondered what's going on rather than generalize it as stupid.    That post was directed at the people who like to imagine the Phoenix Rover as an RC race car doing wheelies on Mars.

"Mission Control:   Did you fucking see me GRIND the rim of that crater! Next up: Wake boarding on the methane oceans of Titan!"



P.P.S:   I <3 Titan.  Possible future Earth?

Sure. I was just making an allegory.  NASA's budget and ending world hunger are not the same

Is solving world hunger a matter of shipping Doritos to Africa?   No.   To solve world hunger with our existing food supplies is IMPOSSIBLE.   Even if we sent all the food in the US overseas, the overall effect would not be "Yum, yum, the world is full! Thank you."  It would be "More Please!" The whole idea of ending world hunger tomorrow is  rather idealistic.

Instead, research should be done to double the yields of  Earth's crops.  There are researchers doing this.  Namely Dr. Norman E. Borlaug, Founder of the World Food Prize who  "struggles to integrate the various streams of agricultural research into viable technologies and to convince political leaders to bring these advances to fruition."  Dr. Borlaug studies the use of genetically modified crops and he actually receives a lot of harassment because some view genetic crops as immoral.    The irony?

You might see a hippy with 2 bumper stickers on his car.

"End World Hunger!"

"Organic Foods Only"

So here's a researcher trying to feed millions of people.  There is a feasible means to do it.   Using science.   Then there's group of people saying "You can't feed them that.  That's unnatural."   These people are starving.  Why not?   Besides its food.   There's a massive contradiction and its similar to this Mars conundrum.

People want to end world hunger.  World hunger =  lack of sustainable resources for humans.   Traveling to Mars consists primarily of researching "sustainable resources for humans"   

But people generalize it as "dumb pictures of a robot on Mars."   Utterly naive and backpedaling. 

Yes we should spend more money on researchers like Borlaug.   But will doubling or tripling Borlaug's budget instantly result in the end of world hunger?    No.   Neither would using a time machine and giving George Washington Carver a ferrari.     This is a ridiculous analogy but the point is this.   Research takes a nimble mind and many many mistakes.    We're working on world hunger.   Should we allot more money to solving the problem?  Yes.

Should we cancel all feasibe NASA missions and throw a bag of money at another group of researchers who are working steadily towards their goals?   Well no.  NASA is necessary for many many good reasons... including sustainability ( again, the same overall goal - different process. )

Let the two groups of researchers do their jobs without trivializing their great work.


http://www.worldfoodprize.org/about/Borlaug.htm

So let's look at the rhetoric.

"I have a budget set aside for feeding my family."

"I have a budget set aside for buying a computer."   These are two separate budgets? Correct?


Great, we're making headway.   First - imagine that your computer could be bought for half the price but it would not operate if you paid that price.    So not a fully functional computer.  Likewise, imagine that NASA set aside a budget to land a rover on Mars, but only built the thing to go halfway.

These are two totally different budgets.  1. Starving kids  2.  Mission to another planet.   

Not a lot of wiggle room.   "We can do without milk" DOES NOT = "We can do without rocket fuel."

And there's 9 planets in the Solar System.   If you think we should be focusing on a closer planet to Earth then maybe you have a point.   We'll spend half the money and travel to that planet.  It's a sound opinion.

But unfortunately I don't respect your opinion since your computer and internet service are denying starving children in Ethiopia.  That's according to your own logic, so I'll be taking your word for it.

I think it's amazing how much hungry african kids could be fed with the money spent to aquire that photo.

I think its amazing the amount of hungry children in your own city could have been fed with the cost of your computer.

Because of science fiction, humans are sensitive to *destroying* other planets and civilizations.   That it is the overwhelming theme of sci fi.   That of two alien races, one will be more threatening.


But if you ponder the "fact" that we've soiled the earth... that much is true only of certain species.   An asteroid will one day wipe us out completely and all human effects on the Earth will become a blink in the left eye of the planet.    Another ice age perhaps and all our toxins and greenhouse gases will be no more.

So in this sense, having a sustainable colony *anywhere* but the earth doubles humans chances of survival.  And humans could hardly do much damage to a dead planet like Mars.   ... not that there's sustainable life there.  But it would certainly give us practice or a space port in which to further explore the Solar System.

Diverting funds from the US military?   One sound bite that says "I'll take all the Armies money and give it to fund education" would kill him in November.   This is a candidate who has been pounded again and again for lack of experience.   And for being too liberal, not a good war seasoned vet like McCain.    No such thing will be proposed and its no mystery.   Its called *political suicide*.

Limping:  http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26647

None of the 3 candidates are highlighting Space Policies.  This one issue is pretty much the only thing I disagree with Obama about.   He has said that going to the moon "is no longer inspirational."    It inspires me.   I don't know about you.   But there is a good point that space disasters put everyone off.   So sending rovers is probably a good move for now.

The lackluster policies for space travel are due to present day economic woes, I feel.     AGSers' negative comments show me just how uninspired people are by space travel.  When I was a kid I would have DIED to attend Space Camp.   It's amazing that a planet full of Star Wars nerds can say "been there, done that"   when they haven't.   They haven't even scratched the surface.

Currently a thread about one guy trying to quit smoking is holding more interest than a mission to Mars.  People are downright RESENTFUL we landed on Mars to examine its surface.

From what you hear on this forum,  you'd think that all the Earth related questions could be answered on Earth.   This is not so.     The Moon for example, because it is a dead body from the time the Earth was created...  has answered many unanswered Earth questions.  There was 26,000 pages of data from one Moon mission alone.  You just can't quantify the expenses to shoot a rocket into space.    Not when we're dealing with the origins of the Solar System.



Not Mars.... the Moon!                    Credits: Jose Suro

The Moon has informed us about the birth of our own planet for instance.  It's taught us about the density of Earth.... that at some point a piece of the Earth's Mantle probably was hit by another planetary body and exploded off the Earth.  It *possibly* became much like Saturn's ring until it condensed into one body now known as the Moon.   The Moon has taught us that the Earth is riddled with craters that have since been recycled and buried by rock.     It's told us that our own atmosphere has shielded us from the little impacts that are evident on the Moon.  A moon %2 the size of Earth wouldn't have been hit by meteors MORE than the Earth afterall.   But because ours is a living planet,  our geologic records are not as well preserved as the Moon or Mars.  Mars has a recorded geological history that is not preserved here on Earth.   The planets were all created at the same time.   Some because of their size and proximity to the blast lost certain gases.    The similarities between Mars and Earth should be quite exhilarating.    If humans have ANY intentions to ever colonize either the Moon or Mars, these missions play front and center to that research.  We must know what ingredients are there....  one Mars rover will not cover all that information.   We need many more before ever trying a manned mission.

The fact that Mars *might* have sustained life at any point in the last 4.5 billion years is of great interest to us.    To indicate not only what leads to life on a planet, but also what lead to life on our planet.

Because the Earth is *alive* and our geology recycles itself,  we don't see but a fraction of the meteorite craters on Earth.  Whereas a dead planet like the Moon or even Mars has entombed its own planetary history in rock that has not recycled. (as much... the Moon does have some movement.. old craters are covered by new ones)   In some ways, these planets hold even more information on the creation of the Solar System than our own planet.    They might teach us of events in our own Solar System, such as gravitational changes, early planetary collisions, ANYTHING really would add to our views on the universe.   

So anyone's comments that reflect the sentiment "Earth can answer its own questions on Earth"   I find quite misinformed.      Mars and the Earth are twins in the sense that they were born on the same day, figuratively.    You assume that Mars, unless it has guys that look like us,  is useless. 

This sentiment is not very progressive.   If you resent the fact that humans were responsible for Walmart... and find this a good reason not to explore space.  Well what can I say.    What a self destructive sentiment to live by.

I tire of people's indifference to space missions.

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/log/

"As of the end of 2006, of 37 launches from Earth in an attempt to reach the planet, only 18 succeeded, a success rate of 49%. Eleven of the missions included attempts to land on the surface, but only six transmitted data after landing.

The U.S. NASA Mars exploration program has had a somewhat better record of success in Mars exploration, achieving success in 12 out of 17 missions launched (a 71% success rate), and succeeding in five out of six (a 83% success rate) of the launches of Mars landers."


We got this thing to travel through space, decelerate in the Martian atmosphere so that it could land.   What's there to be indifferent about?  This is the next logical step for humans to take.    I certainly prefer this over building bigger bombs.

In memory of:

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/past/polarlander.html

I have a theory that they phase out every cartridge within a certain number of years.    So if you go to the store one day and they no longer sell your cartridge....

Rating Last Crusade above Raiders? Not that isn't a fine film, but I wouldn't. It lacks the punch of Raiders.

Really? As I remember Raiders, there's simply a macguffin that keeps changing hands. Over and over and over again. Indy has it. The nazis steal it. Indy steals it back. Then the nazis steal it again. Indy uses it to obtain a second macguffin. Surprise, the nazis steal that too. And then guess what happens...

Haha, Crusade isn't much different except that the MacGuffin cycles between:   Henry Jones Sr.,   the diary,   Marcus Brody, the map, the grail itself.....