• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

PSA: Mars Rover Curiosity Landing! 08/05/2012 10:31 PDT...

Page 25 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Northern Lawn said:
If they had a space station in orbit around Mars they could transfer to a much lighter craft, perhaps just a Soyuz capsule type thing for the humans...if they need humans down there. Mars is just a curiosity, I don't see why they just don't stick to satellites.

Practically no atmosphere, 1/3 gravity, until robots can mine, until a host of new technologies are created (which could be soon, maybe decades) Mars is just a distraction, we might have better luck in the asteroid belt. (been reading a book called Leviathan Wakes lol).

I think Mars will be like the Moon.. no point in going back.
Click to expand...

The mining rights on the moon would be worth more than the GDP of the United States. It's also full of helium 3, which will be used in future energy production. Lack of atmosphere would make the far side of the moon a perfect location for high powered telescopes, and it's low gravity would make a moon base a perfect jumping point for exploration of the solar system.

LOL @ no point in going back.
 
It's not the lack of atmosphere that would make the far side of the moon a good place for telescopes. High powered telescopes would do just fine at one of the stable Lagrangian points, with the added bonus that you don't have to worry about crashing them into the side of the moon. What it would be good for is a set of large radio telescopes because the moon would shield those telescopes from a lot of the radio "noise" coming from Earth. There are other reasons it would not be ideal for "regular" telescopes: you would need a satellite orbiting the moon to send signals back. That's not the end of the world, but you can get a hell of a lot more data back from a telescope that can stream data to Earth nearly 24/7.

As far as "perfect jumping point for exploration" - Only if you can make fuel there. Getting away from earth, it would be like jumping out of a deep hole, only to land in a shallow hole, then having to jump out of the shallow hole. If you cannot make adequate fuel there, then it's silly to waste fuel to slow your vehicle down and land, then burn even more fuel to get back up to the speed at which you approached the moon with.
 
Northern Lawn said:
If they had a space station in orbit around Mars they could transfer to a much lighter craft, perhaps just a Soyuz capsule type thing for the humans...if they need humans down there. Mars is just a curiosity, I don't see why they just don't stick to satellites.

Practically no atmosphere, 1/3 gravity, until robots can mine, until a host of new technologies are created (which could be soon, maybe decades) Mars is just a distraction, we might have better luck in the asteroid belt. (been reading a book called Leviathan Wakes lol).

I think Mars will be like the Moon.. no point in going back.
Click to expand...

Space station?, possible, but your talking mega $$ and dealing with the negative effects of low gravity, cramped quarters for YEARS at a time, resupply flights that take 8 months to arrive and that's when we are in a favorable alignment. Remember also you will need to land an ascent vehicle so Mar's explorers can return to orbit. I say fuck it, stick with robotics all the way, much more science for a fraction of the cost of manned flights..
 
DrPizza said:
It's not the lack of atmosphere that would make the far side of the moon a good place for telescopes. High powered telescopes would do just fine at one of the stable Lagrangian points, with the added bonus that you don't have to worry about crashing them into the side of the moon. What it would be good for is a set of large radio telescopes because the moon would shield those telescopes from a lot of the radio "noise" coming from Earth. There are other reasons it would not be ideal for "regular" telescopes: you would need a satellite orbiting the moon to send signals back. That's not the end of the world, but you can get a hell of a lot more data back from a telescope that can stream data to Earth nearly 24/7.

As far as "perfect jumping point for exploration" - Only if you can make fuel there. Getting away from earth, it would be like jumping out of a deep hole, only to land in a shallow hole, then having to jump out of the shallow hole. If you cannot make adequate fuel there, then it's silly to waste fuel to slow your vehicle down and land, then burn even more fuel to get back up to the speed at which you approached the moon with.
Click to expand...
A big telescope would increase the chances of getting hit by debris. There's no atmosphere on the moon to burn-up any objects.
 
HN said:
Childs said:
Now this is a panorama.
Click to expand...
if you view it on your phone (assuming one with gyroscope), you can look up, down, and around as if you were holding a video camera. even better on tablet. the kids get a kick out of it.
Click to expand...
Works great on my iPhone 4 and iPod Touch 4th Gen. I have iOS6 Beta on the iPod, so the horizontal full-screen mode is even better!

Unfortunately, my HP TouchPad running Android doesn't use the accelerometer. The page loads as if I was using a desktop computer. Tried the standard browser and Chrome Beta.
 
DrPizza said:
It's not the lack of atmosphere that would make the far side of the moon a good place for telescopes. High powered telescopes would do just fine at one of the stable Lagrangian points, with the added bonus that you don't have to worry about crashing them into the side of the moon. What it would be good for is a set of large radio telescopes because the moon would shield those telescopes from a lot of the radio "noise" coming from Earth. There are other reasons it would not be ideal for "regular" telescopes: you would need a satellite orbiting the moon to send signals back. That's not the end of the world, but you can get a hell of a lot more data back from a telescope that can stream data to Earth nearly 24/7.

As far as "perfect jumping point for exploration" - Only if you can make fuel there. Getting away from earth, it would be like jumping out of a deep hole, only to land in a shallow hole, then having to jump out of the shallow hole. If you cannot make adequate fuel there, then it's silly to waste fuel to slow your vehicle down and land, then burn even more fuel to get back up to the speed at which you approached the moon with.
Click to expand...

Maybe he meant that by stockpiling supplies on the moon over time it could then be used to construct and launch a vessel from there but you could also do the same thing from high earth orbit with assembly being more of a challenge in orbit. Either way there is no rocket right now that could bring up enough payload for a manned Mars trip in one payload, it would have to be spread out over several launches..
 
Number1 said:
I watched the moon landings as a kid and it changed my life. Back then I decided that high technology would be my career choice. Today, the rovers are inspiring thousands and are advancing science. That's got to be worth something even in your world.
Click to expand...
That's the part that, back when I also viewed manned spaceflight as being too expensive and cumbersome, I had not considered. When compared to robotic explorers, getting humans to the same places (alive) is typically far more difficult and expensive.
Lofty goals like the Moon landing serve as excellent advertising tools for the STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) fields. Yes it's an expensive thing to do, but the benefit is that you've now got a lot of people who are well-educated in these areas, and are genuinely interested in it. Society gets an sizable return on investment, which continues for decades afterward. It's very easy to miss this, but it is quite substantial.
 
Last edited:
Ichinisan said:
A big telescope would increase the chances of getting hit by debris. There's no atmosphere on the moon to burn-up any objects.
Click to expand...

They don't make 1 gigantic telescope, they would make dozens of smaller detectors linked together (like they do on Earth).
 
Jeff7 said:
That's the part that, back when I also viewed manned spaceflight as being too expensive and cumbersome, I had not considered. When compared to robotic explorers, getting humans to the same places (alive) is typically far more difficult and expensive.
Lofty goals like the Moon landing serve as excellent advertising tools for the STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) fields. Yes it's an expensive thing to do, but the benefit is that you've now got a lot of people who are well-educated in these areas, and are genuinely interested in it. Society gets an sizable return on investment, which continues for decades afterward. It's very easy to miss this, but it is quite substantial.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but it spurs innovation, and innovations spurs invention.
 
DrPizza said:
It's not the lack of atmosphere that would make the far side of the moon a good place for telescopes. High powered telescopes would do just fine at one of the stable Lagrangian points, with the added bonus that you don't have to worry about crashing them into the side of the moon. What it would be good for is a set of large radio telescopes because the moon would shield those telescopes from a lot of the radio "noise" coming from Earth. There are other reasons it would not be ideal for "regular" telescopes: you would need a satellite orbiting the moon to send signals back. That's not the end of the world, but you can get a hell of a lot more data back from a telescope that can stream data to Earth nearly 24/7.
Click to expand...
You could build some relay towers or cables on the moon to transmit the signal from the bright side. You'd only need to go around 1500 miles. Cheap! 😀
 
I still think Hubble did more then any Mars rover ever will for Science. But if you gotta go, I agree that it's robots all the way.
 
Northern Lawn said:
I still think Hubble did more then any Mars rover ever will for Science. But if you gotta go, I agree that it's robots all the way.
Click to expand...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why should I disagree with you in any way even if your contention is maybe debatable.

But consider the following point, the initial launch of Hubble was a giant failure, as its mirror, was defective, but because it was in earth orbit, we could and did send the NASA equivalent of the Maytag repairman. And then, instead of Hubble being a giant waste of money failure, it became a giant home run.

But the Hubble is still one limited robitic tool, as humans need multiple specality tools. As the Mars rover is another such specality tool on steroids. As the NASA track record of landing on Mars may arguably stinks and is littered with failure. But when we add in the degree of difficulty, IMHO, its worth the risk. As home run #1 was in the initial landing of tiny Mars rovers was a giant home run, but the 100% sucessful landing of curosity is a bonanza not yet relealized. When the probable screw up rate on a bridge too far Mars exceeds 50%, I say wow wow when everything works.
 
Lemon law said:
As the NASA track record of landing on Mars may arguably stinks and is littered with failure. But when we add in the degree of difficulty, IMHO, its worth the risk. As home run #1 was in the initial landing of tiny Mars rovers was a giant home run, but the 100% sucessful landing of curosity is a bonanza not yet relealized. When the probable screw up rate on a bridge too far Mars exceeds 50%, I say wow wow when everything works.
Click to expand...


seems like our record is better than most everyone else
mars_9401.gif


look at all the shuriken icons/fails
 
ichy said:
There's just that "minor" problem of figuring out how to actually harness He3 fusion.
Click to expand...

Actually a pure He3 Fusion could be easier to do than the current D+T proposal, since perhaps biggest problem with D+T fusion is dealing the massive neutron bombardment. Any material we could use now to line a reactor would likely fail in hours do the constant bombardment of neutrons. He3 fusion doesn't produce neutrons, so it wouldn't be held back by this problem.
 
Last edited:
Curiosity Rover is now Mayor of Mars

NASA'S Curiosity Rover Checks-In on Mars Using Foursquare


WASHINGTON -- NASA's Curiosity Mars rover checked in on Mars Wednesday using the mobile application Foursquare. This marks the first check-in on another planet. Users on Foursquare can keep up with Curiosity as the rover checks in at key locations and posts photos and tips, all while exploring the Red Planet.

"NASA is using Foursquare as a tool to share the rover's new locations while exploring Mars," said David Weaver, associate administrator for communications at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "This will help to involve the public with the mission and give them a sense of the rover's travels through Gale Crater."

After landing in Gale Crater last month, Curiosity began a planned 23-month mission that includes some of Mars' most intriguing scientific destinations. Curiosity is roving toward Mount Sharp, a mountain about 3 miles (5 kilometers) tall. The rover is conducting experiments along the way, seeking clues in the rocks and soil that would indicate whether Mars ever was capable of supporting microbial life. It is taking and sharing pictures of the trip.

Back here on Earth, Foursquare users will be able to earn a Curiosity-themed badge on the social media platform for check-ins at locations that generate an interest in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Available late this year, this new badge will encourage Foursquare users to explore science centers, laboratories and museums that pique scientific curiosity.

NASA has been on Foursquare since 2010 through a strategic partnership with the platform. This partnership, launched with astronaut Doug Wheelock's first-ever check-in from the International Space Station, has allowed users to connect with NASA and enabled them to explore the universe and re-discover Earth.

The partnership launched the NASA Explorer badge for Foursquare users, encouraging them to explore NASA-related locations across the country. It also included the launch of a NASA Foursquare page, where the agency provides official tips and information about the nation's space program.

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) manages the Mars Science Laboratory mission and its Curiosity rover for NASA's Science Mission Directorate in Washington. The rover was designed, developed and assembled at JPL, a division of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, Calif.
Click to expand...

😵
 
DCal430 said:
Actually a pure He3 Fusion could be easier to do than the current D+T proposal, since perhaps biggest problem with D+T fusion is dealing the massive neutron bombardment. Any material we could use now to line a reactor would likely fail in hours do the constant bombardment of neutrons. He3 fusion doesn't produce neutrons, so it wouldn't be held back by this problem.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the major problem is the fact that it takes vastly more energy to start a fusion reaction and sustain it than it actually outputs.

It's a pretty fundamental flaw in power generation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top