• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NASA's Mars Science Laboratory |OT| 2,000 Pounds of Science!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not even in the realm of being technologically possible...at the moment. But in a couple hundred years maybe?

What would work best imo would be to grab asteroids from the asteroid belt and "hurl" them at Mars. Each asteroid impact would raise the temperature by a couple degrees and hopefully after a few dozen....thousand...the polar ice caps will melt.

I like this better than building a million greenhouse factories or giant ocean-sized reflector mirrors in space because it's:
a)so much cooler
b)might be easier to implement (gravity does most of the work)
c)so fucking awesome

Would it be much easier to build small (city size) enclosed habitable zones instead? Much easier than terra form an entire planet.
 
Who knows, there may be an amazing breakthrough in slowing down or even stopping the aging process within our lifetime. :)

We're overcrowded enough as it is. If this isn't coupled with a massive decline in birth rates, we'd be murdering each other left and right inside of 100 years.

That is of course assuming more than the top 0.000001% of the population had access to this treatment.
 

FyreWulff

Member
We're overcrowded enough as it is. If this isn't coupled with a massive decline in birth rates, we'd be murdering each other left and right inside of 100 years.

That is of course assuming more than the top 0.000001% of the population had access to this treatment.

Distribution issue. In the US alone, it's something like 97% of the population lives on 3-4% of the land available to the United States.

I can probably see someone living in one of the big cities like New York feeling claustrophobic, but once you leave you just realize the vastness of unused land we have out there, that isn't a national park or usable farmland.
 
Distribution issue. In the US alone, it's something like 97% of the population lives on 3-4% of the land available to the United States.

I can probably see someone living in one of the big cities like New York feeling claustrophobic, but once you leave you just realize the vastness of unused land we have out there, that isn't a national park or usable farmland.

I'm talking resources, not living space. Otherwise I agree, I drove from New Orleans to San Diego one year, the stretch between San Antonio and Tucson might as well have been Mars.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
We're overcrowded enough as it is. If this isn't coupled with a massive decline in birth rates, we'd be murdering each other left and right inside of 100 years.

That is of course assuming more than the top 0.000001% of the population had access to this treatment.

Well as long as I have access to it, I don't mind, I won't take up too much room :3
 
Increases in life expectancy/health/wealth are correlated with decreasing birth rates.

This is certainly true, but it's usually the health and wealth that leads to the life expectancy and decreased birth rates. I'd like to see this trend hold true, it'd be very encouraging to see our population decline and people live comfortably to 120+.

The issue again is one of resources, and the disproportionate amount that the healthy and wealthy nations consume. I'm not saying things couldn't improve, I'm saying we've got a problem right now upon which I'm not convinced increased life expectancy alone would have a positive effect.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
This is certainly true, but it's usually the health and wealth that leads to the life expectancy and decreased birth rates.
Well, yeah, I don't really see how that contradicts what I said.

I'd like to see this trend hold true, it'd be very encouraging to see our population decline and people live comfortably to 120+.
The correlation is pretty strong, I I haven't seen any evidence that would suggest the correlation would be any less strong in the future. I doubt the population will decline, though. The birth rate will go down, but it won't go negative in most places. I can see Japan and some European countries go negative, but not America.

The issue again is one of resources, and the disproportionate amount that the healthy and wealthy nations consume. I'm not saying things couldn't improve, I'm saying we've got a problem right now upon which I'm not convinced increased life expectancy alone would have a positive effect.
Disproportionate consumption of resources doesn't bother me that much. It's disproportionate relative to population, but not so disproportionate relative to productivity.

We use up more resources per capita, yes, but we also get more work done and develop more technology and wealth per unit of energy than poorer nations.

Life expectancy alone won't save us, but as history has demonstrated many times in the past, new technologies open up that accommodates up and makes life easier.
 

.GqueB.

Banned
Yes and no. If we were alive at that time, we wouldn't appreciate it as much.

In a sense yes. We wouldn't marvel at it necessarily but it would still be cool to be able to observe these things first hand rather than thinking ahead to the possibilities that we will never witness. Think of someone back in the day who first saw a car. Amazing then, could only get better in the future. They're a part of our everyday lives but they still have the capacity to wow us.

And we've all seen >THIS< right. Seems like you all follow such things so I'm sure most of you have seen it, but for the few that haven't. I listened to this two nights ago and was instantly humbled.
 
Well, yeah, I don't really see how that contradicts what I said.

Sorry, wasn't actively trying to sound dumb, sometimes it just happens ;p

The correlation is pretty strong, I I haven't seen any evidence that would suggest the correlation would be any less strong in the future. I doubt the population will decline, though. The birth rate will go down, but it won't go negative in most places. I can see Japan and some European countries go negative, but not America.


Disproportionate consumption of resources doesn't bother me that much. It's disproportionate relative to population, but not so disproportionate relative to productivity.

I'm just not sure how accurate that is anymore outside of a few tech industries. I suppose it depends on what industries we consider and what we would call productivity. I'll just defer to you on this, because I'm no economist.

We use up more resources per capita, yes, but we also get more work done and develop more technology and wealth per unit of energy than poorer nations.

Life expectancy alone won't save us, but as history has demonstrated many times in the past, new technologies open up that accommodates up and makes life easier.

No argument here. I will add that to me, nothing is more important right now than increasing the understanding of the general populace that there are still frontiers to explore, that challenging those frontiers is as important and relevant as it always has been, and that innovation almost always comes from unexpected places.
 
4ANHR.jpg
 
Once Curiosity rolls away from its landing site and the tire tracks are obliterated by the wind, will anything be left behind that will mark the spot of the touchdown?
 

Paches

Member
Once Curiosity rolls away from its landing site and the tire tracks are obliterated by the wind, will anything be left behind that will mark the spot of the touchdown?

Physically? Probably scouring or chemicals from the rocket boosters. Besides that, I don't think they will forget where they landed :p
 
Physically? Probably scouring or chemicals from the rocket boosters. Besides that, I don't think they will forget where they landed :p

Yeah, I'm sure they've got coordinates to so many decimal points. I was just wondering if any covers or latches might have been popped off there that would mark the actual spot from a historic point of view. Didn't the other rovers leave behind a lander or balloon base they rolled off of?
 

Parch

Member
The terraforming theories are interesting. You have to realize they're not trying to make paradise, they're just trying to get the place liveable. Probably more like a reasonably habitable arctic environment.

Nukes or greenhouse factories seem doable. We're trying to prevent global warming and greenhouse emissions on earth and failing. Imagine what would happen if we purposely tried to increase gas emissions. Earth's atmosphere would start turning into a Venus atmosphere. They seem convinced that intentional global warming on Mars could make a significant difference in a reasonable amount of time.

We've got the robot geologist doing the ground work. Now let's get the chemists working on a plan for the atmosphere.
 

akira28

Member
^^ that top section, the mountains? Amazing.


Does it make anyone else sad that we'll all be long dead before all the cool stuff starts happening?

We can affect that change you know. Rabid and tenacious space lobbying, promotion and support for space private industry, and creating a need for more and more daring space endeavors beyond orbiting casinos and hotels. But starting with that, for more experience in space construction.

More people speak up for NASA, maybe politicians will listen. If there was a focus and a demand for concrete things? Even better.
 

HeySeuss

Member
I just found a free app from NASA that has pics from the rover and a bunch of other stuff. Its called "Be a Martian" and its on the Google play store. Thought I'd share. Dunno about an iOS version, but I would imagine so.
 

Peterthumpa

Member
I wonder why NASA engineers don't think about some kind of protection gear to cover up all those mechanical and electrical parts. I mean, why don't make it like a car with everything hidden beneath a body? This alone would make dust storms and such much less of an issue.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
I wonder why NASA engineers don't think about some kind of protection gear to cover up all those mechanical and electrical parts. I mean, why don't make it like a car with everything hidden beneath a body? This alone would make dust storms and such much less of an issue.

Seriously, it's already full of dust.

I want more COLOR pictures. Why is it so difficult for them to make color photos instead of B&W? This is 2012!
 
The fines on Mars are basically too much to try and handle... even with "protective" casing that would simply make the rover heavier and harder to launch and to land. The fines are going to get inside the casing either way, around the joints, etc. No way to stop it.
 
I wonder why NASA engineers don't think about some kind of protection gear to cover up all those mechanical and electrical parts. I mean, why don't make it like a car with everything hidden beneath a body? This alone would make dust storms and such much less of an issue.

Unnecessary weight. All the important cabling and connectors are already weather sealed. Extra covers would mean removing tools.
 
Seriously, it's already full of dust.

I want more COLOR pictures. Why is it so difficult for them to make color photos instead of B&W? This is 2012!
They are not running the full data uplink, something about testing each "channel" before they go to the whole 2MB/s (I think that was the total upload speed). They are using only a few KB/s right now, while each "channel" is tested functional. A software update will ensue over the next few days. By this time next week there ought to be some more color being released.
 
They are not running the full data uplink, something about testing each "channel" before they go to the whole 2MB/s (I think that was the total upload speed). They are using only a few KB/s right now, while each "channel" is tested functional. A software update will ensue over the next few days. By this time next week there ought to be some more color being released.
So how long does it take for say NASA to receive footage, is it 1 to 1 since its not radio signal?
 

Anthropic

Member
I want more COLOR pictures. Why is it so difficult for them to make color photos instead of B&W? This is 2012!

Bandwidth back from Mars is pretty slim. They take color photos by taking the shot three times through three color filters, so color photos are three times as large as B&W.

They already have problems getting back all of the B&W photos because of the limited bandwidth.
 

andylsun

Member
Documentary on the making of Curiosity on Nat Geo in about 5 minutes. Repeated throughout the night and also Eight Years on Mars, looking at Spirit and Opportunity.

Do we know what is planned for Sol 4?
 
So how long does it take for say NASA to receive footage, is it 1 to 1 since its not radio signal?
Depends on the file size. It travels in light-time. There is also the process, on the rover, where the digital image is captured by a camera (or data from a sensor) then sent to one of the two on-board computers for the file transfer. So, from picture taken to image received, it isn't a straight-shot, so to speak.
 
Depends on the file size. It travels in light-time. There is also the process, on the rover, where the digital image is captured by a camera (or data from a sensor) then sent to one of the two on-board computers for the file transfer. So, from picture taken to image received, it isn't a straight-shot, so to speak.
Is there a video feed? I was wondering how they control it (I know need to watch the program mentioned above and hit the wiki page).So does this help bypass in a sense the 14 minute radio delay that a human mission would have to deal with by using this method?

Documentary on the making of Curiosity on Nat Geo in about 5 minutes. Repeated throughout the night and also Eight Years on Mars, looking at Spirit and Opportunity.
Thanks!
 
All major planets have cores. Earth has a core which is still hot and causes geologic activity. The gas giants are well, gas so no geologic activity (there are theories for each of the gas giant's core composition). A core can freeze up if there is not enough radioactive material internally, or tidal forces from some close, large body (as would be the case with some exo-planets which orbit very close to their star or moons around large planets, like Io). See, rocky planets naturally cool down until they are just big lumps of rock, like mars did unless there is another factor keeping them hot. Earth has radioactive materials and sheer size (takes longer to cool off) to keep it hot.

Thanks for typing all that, I learned a lot! You got any other reading recommendations on the subject? I hadn't even thought of cores freezing off before!! Amazing!
 
Is there a video feed? I was wondering how they control it (I know need to watch the program mentioned above and hit the wiki page).So does this help bypass in a sense the 14 minute radio delay that a human mission would have to deal with by using this method?
There are failsafes installed that will be in the background but the rover's activities will be pre-programmed prior to any given day's activities. In order for a remote-controlled operation, one of the two NASA birds (or the ESA craft -likely employed soon) need to be in the right places to allow for transmission. Everything is meticulously planned and a human controller might introduce too much room for error.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
I'm just not sure how accurate that is anymore outside of a few tech industries. I suppose it depends on what industries we consider and what we would call productivity.
Yeah, I'm using "productivity" in a more general sense here, so it would depend on an individuals' idea of what is objectively (or in some cases subjectively) "productive".

The transformation of work into money is a simple enough metric for me to be satisfied with, since some of that money is funneled into private R&D projects for reinvestment. Money that is earned that has nothing to do with science will have a portion taken by the government as tax, and some of that tax will be used to fund public R&D/university grants/etc. Even money that seemingly is allocated into something completely tangential to space exploration can be relevant: for example, revenue from James Cameron movies allowed him to develop cool new cameras - one of which had a strong chance of being included on Curiosity.

I'll just defer to you on this, because I'm no economist.
Then you shouldn't defer to me either, since I'm not an economist too :)

nothing is more important right now than increasing the understanding of the general populace that there are still frontiers to explore, that challenging those frontiers is as important and relevant as it always has been, and that innovation almost always comes from unexpected places.
Agreed.

The failure of the past 60 years to increase the understanding of the general populace (in America) is terrible. We spend more money on education per capita than before, yet we still lose out on test scores and overall achievement relative to other countries.


I think the lack of a solid space program is one of the factors in our loss of vision and wonder at the natural world. So many people nowadays take their inspiration from fiction and special effects since there is nothing in the real world that can compare to Hollywood magic. That's not to say that I blame this on our entertainment industry, no. They and the science fiction writers have had more imagination than the government in the last 40 years and we've all enjoyed the stories they tell and the worlds they build.

But it's not real.

We've been wasting money on telling our kids why math and science are important rather than investing it on showing them why math and science are important and what they mean to the future of our species.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom