orientalNoodle
Banned
Would it be much easier to build small (city size) enclosed habitable zones instead? Much easier than terra form an entire planet.
NASA's Mars Science Laboratory |OT| 2,000 Pounds of Science!
- Thread starter DrForester
- Start date
- Status
Would it be much easier to build small (city size) enclosed habitable zones instead? Much easier than terra form an entire planet.
Partial Gamification
Banned
Pressurizing large cave-structures is a possiblity for large habitations.
[edit:] cave structures pending...
Fine Ham Abounds
Member
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.
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.
Fine Ham Abounds
Member
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
Nah, not really.
Increases in life expectancy/health/wealth are correlated with decreasing birth rates.
People have been saying that as far as 200 years ago. Still hasn't come true yet.
maquiladora
Member
Well as long as I have access to it, I don't mind, I won't take up too much room :3
Yea that would be pretty amazing. Though this is a great resource as well. That Mars sunset photo posted a few pages back pretty much stopped me in my tracks.
IIRC EMP was predicted but the extremity of the effect was unexpected.
Fine Ham Abounds
Member
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
Well, yeah, I don't really see how that contradicts what I said.
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.
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.
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.
Fine Ham Abounds
Member
Sorry, wasn't actively trying to sound dumb, sometimes it just happens ;p
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.
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.
maquiladora
Member
It is a really clever way to get people to remain engaged in the scientific findings beyond OMG WE LANDED and then they quit paying attention.
Lucky Forward
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
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Lucky Forward
Member
Physically? Probably scouring or chemicals from the rocket boosters. Besides that, I don't think they will forget where they landed
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?
Partial Gamification
Banned
I'm not a fan of Twitter but it is a nice use of the social media.
The sinister/cynical side of me thinks that the account will get hacked and a doctored photo of an "alien artifact" will get posted.
Yeah, I thought the same thing, or:
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.
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.
AstroNut325
Member
Yeah, I thought the same thing, or:
Just have to change it from suck to blow.
Zomba13
Member
Self-Portrait on Deck: A bunch of hi-res images stitched together show some of me on Mars
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/pia16027.html
Sharp knees/10
Would not do.
^^ that top section, the mountains? Amazing.
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.
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.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
There is, just grabbed it, thanks!
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
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
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!
timetokill
Banned
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.
The_Inquisitor
Member
Unnecessary weight. All the important cabling and connectors are already weather sealed. Extra covers would mean removing tools.
Partial Gamification
Banned
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.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
So how long does it take for say NASA to receive footage, is it 1 to 1 since its not radio signal?
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.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/nasa-calls-it-a-mission-as-curiosity-rover-fills-u,29115/
NASA Calls It A Mission As Curiosity Rover Fills Up Whole 2-Gigabyte Memory Card
NASA Calls It A Mission As Curiosity Rover Fills Up Whole 2-Gigabyte Memory Card
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Curiosity storage solutions by Nintendo.
Partial Gamification
Banned
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.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
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?
Thanks!
Peterthumpa
Member
Good point.
SniperHunter
Banned
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!
Partial Gamification
Banned
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.
Partial Gamification
Banned
Real nice set. Makes me want to revert to a childlike state and focus all my energies on 3D printing and Lego.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
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.
Then you shouldn't defer to me either, since I'm not an economist too
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