The most *amazing* picture of Mars that I've ever seen!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
M

matt426malm

Golden Member
Nov 14, 2003
1,280
0
0
Originally posted by: warcrow
Actually, a base on Mars doesnt make as much sense as a base on the Moon. Mars is *way* too cold for us to inhabit (not to mention the bad radiation we would be bombarded with), but there is nothing scientist could do that a rover (robot) could not -and its cheaper.

I'm interested in the Moon because of the mining opportunities it presents. The Moon has minerals that scientist say are one million times for powerful than coal (the name eludes me now, but it was mentioned in an issue of Time 2 weeks ago), and would be less harmful to the atmosphere. This is a good thing. They are also saying that there is enough of these minerals to sustain the US for 1000 years. This is probably why Bush jumped on the recent aumentation of NASAs budget.
Click to expand...

He3 - Deutrium reaction, high energy not a lot of extra neutrons.

 
P

PowerMacG5

Diamond Member
Apr 14, 2002
7,701
0
0
Originally posted by: warcrow
Actually, a base on Mars doesnt make as much sense as a base on the Moon. Mars is *way* too cold for us to inhabit (not to mention the bad radiation we would be bombarded with), but there is nothing scientist could do that a rover (robot) could not -and its cheaper.

I'm interested in the Moon because of the mining opportunities it presents. The Moon has minerals that scientist say are one million times for powerful than coal (the name eludes me now, but it was mentioned in an issue of Time 2 weeks ago), and would be less harmful to the atmosphere. This is a good thing. They are also saying that there is enough of these minerals to sustain the US for 1000 years. This is probably why Bush jumped on the recent aumentation of NASAs budget.
Click to expand...
You're bombarded with more radiation on the Moon. Mars has an atmosphere while the Moon doesn't. The trip to Mars is where you experience more radiation, but once there, it isn't more than the Moon.
 
W

Winchester

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2003
4,965
0
76
What is with the "seasoning salt" stuff on the picture? It doesnt look like it should be there.
 
E

Eli

Super Moderator | Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
50,419
8
81
Originally posted by: Winchester
What is with the "seasoning salt" stuff on the picture? It doesnt look like it should be there.
Click to expand...

Wrong pic. :p
 
Spike

Spike

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2001
6,770
1
81
Man, that looks awesome, thanks for the heads up on that

-spike
 
MDE

MDE

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
13,199
1
81
Cool pic, unfortunately it gets messed up when you try centering or stretching it on a widescreen. I'll probably use it on my desktop's desktop though.
 
M

MAME

Banned
Sep 19, 2003
9,281
1
0
Originally posted by: warcrow
Actually, a base on Mars doesnt make as much sense as a base on the Moon. Mars is *way* too cold for us to inhabit (not to mention the bad radiation we would be bombarded with), but there is nothing scientist could do that a rover (robot) could not -and its cheaper.

I'm interested in the Moon because of the mining opportunities it presents. The Moon has minerals that scientist say are one million times for powerful than coal (the name eludes me now, but it was mentioned in an issue of Time 2 weeks ago), and would be less harmful to the atmosphere. This is a good thing. They are also saying that there is enough of these minerals to sustain the US for 1000 years. This is probably why Bush jumped on the recent aumentation of NASAs budget.
Click to expand...

One million? No freaking way. That means if you burned a piece of coal and it could power a small train for 1 minute, then the same size of the new stuff could power it for 1 million minutes. Which is 2 years.
 
Babbles

Babbles

Diamond Member
Jan 4, 2001
8,253
14
81
Originally posted by: rh71
Why do they call it the red planet ?
Click to expand...

Because it looks red from Earth. You can see Mars with the naked eye, however obviously you have to know where to look. Anyhow it looks like a bright red star; in fact some of the very bright 'stars' in the night sky are actually planets.
Looking at some older pics of Mars, it appears to have red dirt, so I suppose high iron levels in the crust of Mars may lend to it being a red planet.
Image of Martian soil
 
flexy

flexy

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2001
8,464
155
106
i think this pic shows only a very small part of mars, namely where this canyon is. If it would show the hole mars-globe....where is the icy poles, the dust/sand clouds. etc ? nevertheless nice :)
 
M

matt426malm

Golden Member
Nov 14, 2003
1,280
0
0
Originally posted by: KraziKid
Originally posted by: warcrow
Actually, a base on Mars doesnt make as much sense as a base on the Moon. Mars is *way* too cold for us to inhabit (not to mention the bad radiation we would be bombarded with), but there is nothing scientist could do that a rover (robot) could not -and its cheaper.

I'm interested in the Moon because of the mining opportunities it presents. The Moon has minerals that scientist say are one million times for powerful than coal (the name eludes me now, but it was mentioned in an issue of Time 2 weeks ago), and would be less harmful to the atmosphere. This is a good thing. They are also saying that there is enough of these minerals to sustain the US for 1000 years. This is probably why Bush jumped on the recent aumentation of NASAs budget.
Click to expand...
You're bombarded with more radiation on the Moon. Mars has an atmosphere while the Moon doesn't. The trip to Mars is where you experience more radiation, but once there, it isn't more than the Moon.
Click to expand...

Types of radiation on the moon you are sheilded fairly well from the cosmic radiation ( 85% protons, 14% alpha particles.) On Mars it is with atmosphere, a hab, some dirt on top cosmic radiation is at earth levels. Exposure during space walks is higher but equal or less than ISS levels. Both have UV radiation in VERY high levels this is preventable with a simple space suit.

The moon does have He3 which is fuionable with heavy water deutrium. He3-H2 is the best fusion reaction there is in terms of energy output(slightly more than H3-H2), it also has very low neutron emmision and at lower energies then other reactions. We still need a working fusion plant to use it.

The moon has VERY little water, difficult to extract oxygen (high energy reaction), and 2 weeks dark/2 weeks light so plants would require sun lamps. Ever try and put sun lamps over a field of crops it is going to take TONS of energy. It does have the He3 and it is close. Iron, Titanium, ect in soil but as oxides which aren't easy to extract.

Mars has tons of water ice 20-50% right near the surface at the high lattitudes (Mars Odyessy). It also has all the metals possibly in veins becuae of geologic activity. Crops are growable there without sun lamps but UV resistant top is necessary. It also would be possible to tap geologic areas for geothermal power which would be easier than building a fusion plant on the moon. Although fission or radioisotope plants would be used on both. Mars has Co2 atmosphere which is easy to extract oxygen out of (lower energy).

Yes as Krazi said radiation risk are for GOING to Mars not being there, but about as risky as say 2-pack a day smoking for an equal time period. (52 rem exposure)

Mars is probably better for a large setllement but the moon has it's benefits too He3 / large telescope, soil metals.

Good luck finding life on Mars with a rover it will be sterilizd by UV at the surface. A (several hundered day) manned mission would do more than a 1000 rovers.

Thanks for the new desktop:) replaced my old pic by ESA's Mars Express
 
vi edit

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,345
126
Kinda makes you wonder what the earth would look like "naked" per se with all of it's oceans drained and all vegetation gone.

Basically just a naked crust.

Not that I'd ever *like* to see that day, but it would be interesting to see a rendered photo of earth similar to this one of mars.
 
A

Atlantean

Diamond Member
May 2, 2001
5,296
1
0
Originally posted by: warcrow
Actually, a base on Mars doesnt make as much sense as a base on the Moon. Mars is *way* too cold for us to inhabit (not to mention the bad radiation we would be bombarded with), but there is nothing scientist could do that a rover (robot) could not -and its cheaper.

I'm interested in the Moon because of the mining opportunities it presents. The Moon has minerals that scientist say are one million times for powerful than coal (the name eludes me now, but it was mentioned in an issue of Time 2 weeks ago), and would be less harmful to the atmosphere. This is a good thing. They are also saying that there is enough of these minerals to sustain the US for 1000 years. This is probably why Bush jumped on the recent aumentation of NASAs budget.
Click to expand...

-21 Celsius is too cold for humans to inhabit (I read that is the average temperature on mars)? I know people that live in Alaska and deal with colder temperatures than that. Isn't the moon in the -100's? Also the moon does not have much of an atmosphere and would not offer much shielding from radiation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom