IR images from Mars: Natural Formation or Ruins?????
Mars Odyssey Infrared Image of The Hydroates Chaos Region of Mars.
Potentially even more momentous than the arrival of an Apple PDA:
<a href="http://www.ENTERPRISEMISSION.COM/right.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.ENTERPRISEMISSION.COM/right.htm</a>;
Check it out, check out the site and discuss. :eek:
Aries 1B <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[ 03-02-2002: Message edited by: Aries 1B ]</p>
Potentially even more momentous than the arrival of an Apple PDA:
<a href="http://www.ENTERPRISEMISSION.COM/right.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.ENTERPRISEMISSION.COM/right.htm</a>;
Check it out, check out the site and discuss. :eek:
Aries 1B <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[ 03-02-2002: Message edited by: Aries 1B ]</p>
Comments
Jeff
[ 03-02-2002: Message edited by: TJM ]</p>
Hoagland writes:
The mesas themselves are shockingly geometric, not really what one might expect from a fluvial erosion process.
<hr></blockquote>
Actually,they are far less geometric than the sand deposits carved by the receding tide I see on the beach everyday.
Unless the Martians explain it to us...
One question does this waffle come from an another planet, or does it belongs to martians, who where geant. Mars as a lower gravity than earth that's why martians are bigger.
they were able to put a man on the moon (supposedly
Looks cool though.
<strong>NASA is so sad.
they were able to put a man on the moon (supposedly
Looks cool though.</strong><hr></blockquote>
and what would be the point of going back to the moon??? there is nothing to gain from the moon...which is exactly why we're concentrating on mars and the moons of jupiter and saturn. the moon landings were merely to prove the point that we got there first. other than that, it really didnt mean anything. and they have made breakthroughs, just not to the point of sending manned missions to other planets--we're very close to doing that though. we're in the preperation stages of these missions. before we can just through astronauts onto these planets we have to know as much as we possibly can about them.
btw, do u know how much more difficult it is to break orbit and time a manned shuttle to another planet versus going to the moon??? they are completely different strategies. the moon landing is childs play in comparison.
<strong>
and what would be the point of going back to the moon??? there is nothing to gain from the moon...which is exactly why we're concentrating on mars and the moons of jupiter and saturn. the moon landings were merely to prove the point that we got there first. other than that, it really didnt mean anything. and they have made breakthroughs, just not to the point of sending manned missions to other planets--we're very close to doing that though. we're in the preperation stages of these missions. before we can just through astronauts onto these planets we have to know as much as we possibly can about them.
btw, do u know how much more difficult it is to break orbit and time a manned shuttle to another planet versus going to the moon??? they are completely different strategies. the moon landing is childs play in comparison.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, if you want to know a good use for landing on the moon I would say it is a good stepping off point for going to other planets. Build a lunch pad there and a base of operations. Then from there launch to mars or other planets. Should tak a lot less fuel for lift off and the actual structure (the moon itself) is already there. Makes sense to me.
<strong>
Actually, if you want to know a good use for landing on the moon I would say it is a good stepping off point for going to other planets. Build a lunch pad there and a base of operations. Then from there launch to mars or other planets. Should tak a lot less fuel for lift off and the actual structure (the moon itself) is already there. Makes sense to me.
yep. we're close...but not quite at that step yet.
also, getting all those materials over there would be a pain the *** ...but would save time and energy in the long run...
another use would be to put a observatory on the dark side of the moon. do u know how great a viewpoint that would be?? no light to bother the optics plus no atmosphere to interfere w/ clarity. i dont know why they havent done that part yet...but i know fer a fact that they will eventually...
but simply landing and hanging out on the moon, as we did before, is pretty useless. moon rocks really arent anything special...
<strong>
and what would be the point of going back to the moon??? there is nothing to gain from the moon...which is exactly why we're concentrating on mars and the moons of jupiter and saturn. the moon landings were merely to prove the point that we got there first. other than that, it really didnt mean anything. and they have made breakthroughs, just not to the point of sending manned missions to other planets--we're very close to doing that though. we're in the preperation stages of these missions. before we can just through astronauts onto these planets we have to know as much as we possibly can about them.
btw, do u know how much more difficult it is to break orbit and time a manned shuttle to another planet versus going to the moon??? they are completely different strategies. the moon landing is childs play in comparison.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There are lots of things we could do on the Moon - an observatory at one or both poles comes to mind immediately. There's lots of basic information about the Moon's geology and history that is unknown, which will tell us a lot about Earth's geology and history. There are lots of scientists who would give their right arm for a chance to spend some time on the Moon. There are probably lots of mineral deposits that would be worthwhile to mine. It would also be one of the Ultimate Vacation Get-away places.
The reason we haven't gone back is that it's still too difficult and expensive. In the 1960s, it was just barely within the technological abilities of the country. The Apollo program provided a focus for national pride and a reason not to tear ourselves apart over Viet Nam and race relations. Once we did it (mainly just to show we could), it became a "been there, done that" sort of thing and no one cared anymore. It was a national adventure, and it was over. The enormous drain on the national treasury simply could not be justified any longer.
We will return to the moon on a permanent basis once our space technology improves to the point that it is economically feasible. It will become an important scientific and technological outpost (it would be a whole lot cheaper to launch a rocket to Jupiter from the Moon than from Earth, once the Moon has the capacity to construct them, for example). The Space Shuttle is intended as a first baby step in that direction. We've still got a long ways to go, though. It may be 100 years before we get there - but get there we will.
The fondest memory of my childhood was hearing the words, "Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed." The images of Neil and Buzz and the others in later missions are still burned into my retinas. I remember looking up at the Moon in the sky and thinking, "For the first time in the entire history of Man, there are people up there!" I still get tears in my eyes and shivers up and down my spine when I think about it. I'd give a lot to be able to experience that again. Those of you who weren't there have no idea what you missed.
[Edit: Apologies to alliance and NoahJ for duplicating your arguments - I got interrupted while writing this, and your posts came in while I was still composing.]
[ 03-02-2002: Message edited by: TJM ]</p>
<strong>
The reason we haven't gone back is that it's still too difficult and expensive. In the 1960s, it was just barely within the technological abilities of the country. The Apollo program provided a focus for national pride and a reason not to tear ourselves apart over Viet Nam and race relations. Once we did it (mainly just to show we could), it became a "been there, done that" sort of thing and no one cared anymore. It was a national adventure, and it was over. The enormous drain on the national treasury simply could not be justified any longer.
We will return to the moon on a permanent basis once our space technology improves to the point that it is economically feasible. It will become an important scientific and technological outpost (it would be a whole lot cheaper to launch a rocket to Jupiter from the Moon than from Earth, once the Moon has the capacity to construct them, for example). The Space Shuttle is intended as a first baby step in that direction. We've still got a long ways to go, though. It may be 100 years before we get there - but get there we will.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
exactly. u make some good points. and i would give almost anything if i had the opportunity to do all these things. i think it will all be possible eventually...but im afraid i will be too old when that happens. the realist in me always beats out my optimist side...
<strong>Hate to play the skeptic, but it looks to me like the typical anomalies you'd expect-another set of "canals" or a "face"
Jeff</strong><hr></blockquote>
'Typical anomolies'? You have a high threshold of amazement!
This thing is miles across.
Aries 1B
<strong>NASA is so sad.
they were able to put a man on the moon (supposedly
Looks cool though.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Check out the rest of the site! The images from the moon are very cool.
Originally posted by _ alliance _:
<strong>
and what would be the point of going back to the moon??? there is nothing to gain from the moon...</strong><hr></blockquote>
There are any number of books available that describe how industries can be established on the moon which will make those with the ambition to get there rich beyond Bill Gates's dreams.
<strong>which is exactly why we're concentrating on mars and the moons of jupiter and saturn. </strong>
36,000,000 miles to Mars and more to the other planets. And why are the moons of Jupiter so much more interesting than our own moon (250,000 miles or so away)?
<strong>the moon landings were merely to prove the point that we got there first. other than that, it really didnt mean anything. </strong>[/QUOTE]
'...it didn't mean anything.'? I was 11 on 20 July 1969. It sure in the hell DID mean something. My father and uncles were amazed that we were actually going to land on the moon. The first moon landing was a demarcation between Before We Walked On Other Worlds and our push out into the universe. (grump-harrump!)
<strong>and they have made breakthroughs, just not to the point of sending manned missions to other planets--we're very close to doing that though. </strong>[/QUOTE]
NASA's big accomplishment has been to maintain its monopoly on space transportation systems and the crushing of any private sector effort to exploit space. I was especially impressed with NASA's awarding Lockheed Martin the SSTO vehicle contract. On the selection basis of 'the greatest tecnological challenge' they gave LM billions of dollars for a program that was ultimately cancelled. Couldn't select a simple, brute strength alternative; they had to go the Star Trek route: imbeciles. We're nowhere near sending manned missions to other planets. Columbia is in orbit as I write this (fresh from her multi-tens of millions of $ refurbishment) and one of her two cooling systems is on the verge of shutting down. You really ready to take that kind of technology all the way to Mars?
<strong>we're in the preperation stages of these missions. before we can just through astronauts onto these planets we have to know as much as we possibly can about them. </strong>[/QUOTE]
We can prepare for these missions from a moon base (I personally prefer that it be built at Clavius Crater). Your next point kind of has me stumped...
<strong>btw, do u know how much more difficult it is to break orbit and time a manned shuttle to another planet versus going to the moon??? they are completely different strategies. the moon landing is childs play in comparison.</strong>[/QUOTE]
Orbital Mechanics haven't changed much since the first probes were sent to Mars in the 1960's. Those same orbital mechanics (all them equations 'n such) will still work today. But if it is so much more damned difficult to get to the planets than it is to get to the Moon, let's just go to the moon. It's right here (comparitively speaking).
Aries 1B
some of the moons around jupiter and saturn are actually still active, and one even has the potential of spawning life.
[quote] '...it didn't mean anything.'? I was 11 on 20 July 1969. It sure in the hell DID mean something. My father and uncles were amazed that we were actually going to land on the moon. The first moon landing was a demarcation between Before We Walked On Other Worlds and our push out into the universe. (grump-harrump!) <hr></blockquote>
my point is that it really doesnt help us now. it was meant to inspire the public and give us hope. and thats exactly what it did. if it wasnt fer that, the moon landing wouldnt have inspired the same feelings if we werent in the same situation as we were during the cold war.
[quote] We can prepare for these missions from a moon base (I personally prefer that it be built at Clavius Crater). <hr></blockquote>
3 words: international space station. first things first my friend.
[quote] Orbital Mechanics haven't changed much since the first probes were sent to Mars in the 1960's. Those same orbital mechanics (all them equations 'n such) will still work today. But if it is so much more damned difficult to get to the planets than it is to get to the Moon, let's just go to the moon. It's right here (comparitively speaking). <hr></blockquote>
because we dont learn as much studying a big rock that used to be a part of the earth. its very similar to our own planet as it is...
on Mars, we basically look into our own future. it is the picture of what the Earth could become in the future. also, there is the possility that it could have sustained life at one point, which will always attract attention from scientists. the moon doesnt offer such a promise...
a trip to a planet outside our orbit takes perfect timing. if u miss by just the slightest degree, u could end up being hurled out to space in a lost trajectory, never to return back to the original intended path. this is why everythings been unmanned so far. the risks are very high. remember the mars mission that burned up in its atmosphere?
besides...the moons been done. we need something new. something unknown. the human species has a love for exploring the unkown, n'est pas?
But we can make a ton of money from it.
>>>>>on Mars, we basically look into our own future. it is the picture of what the Earth could become in the future. also, there is the possility that it could have sustained life at one point, which will always attract attention from scientists. the moon doesnt offer such a promise...<<<<<
If Mars could have harbored life, could it have harbored a civilization as well? I think both possibilities are possible.
>>>>>a trip to a planet outside our orbit takes perfect timing. if u miss by just the slightest degree, u could end up being hurled out to space in a lost trajectory, never to return back to the original intended path. this is why everythings been unmanned so far. the risks are very high. remember the mars mission that burned up in its atmosphere?
I remember Apollos 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,16,17 making 'mid-course corrections'.
>>>>>besides...the moons been done. we need something new. something unknown. the human species has a love for exploring the unkown, n'est pas?<<<<<<
The moon's not done; not by a long shot.
<a href="http://members.evansville.net/slk/lunascan.html"; target="_blank">http://members.evansville.net/slk/lunascan.html</a>;
Space exploration must be made to pay for itself. We can put factories on our moon and start building a self-sustaining infrastructure.
Nearly 500 years passed from the time of the Viking visits to North America to the opening of the continent by Columbus. I'd rather we be Columbus vs. the Vikings.
Aries 1B
[ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: Aries 1B ]</p>