New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: This forum is accepting new registrations by emailing newmarsmember * gmail.com become a registered member. Read the Recruiting expertise for NewMars Forum topic in Meta New Mars for other information for this process.

#1 Re: Not So Free Chat » Celestial Cartography » 2005-09-08 18:49:37

Well the picture area was actually not public. Sorry about that.
Here 's another link where I have posted my M2

http://www.buytelescopes.com/gallery/vi … p?pid=6794

with no registration, only the icons will appear.
Bye all,

#2 Re: Not So Free Chat » Celestial Cartography » 2005-09-08 18:39:38

Hi all,
I am a kind of a new guy in Mars Forum, so long time, I forgot about the netiquette.
I hope there is no guys here that want to go to the moon to dig for helium3. They would better go to Mars and drink a good in situ producted beer than stay on the moon and drink their own reverse osmosed pipi and eat shushi  (the chineses have actually announced they want to dig the Moon for He3, good luck to them).

That said ( I needed to say something about Mars) , here is my first picture, made with the Meade DSI-pro, of the globular cluster M2 :
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/me … %26.view=t


problem, is, I am not sure this is a public yahoo group. If not, sorry. I should  remake my web site to include astro pictures ...
Anyway, comments are welcome.

#3 Re: Not So Free Chat » Celestial Cartography » 2005-06-25 10:51:57

I was interested in trying my hand at astrophotography as a kid.  Maybe I'll take it up after all, but I'm not sure.  I'm too impatient for it, probably.  :-\  And I'd need a larger 'scope (I don't own a 6-inch Newtonian, but a 4.5-inch). 

Please keep posting your astrophotos.  I'm curious as to what you're doing with this.  smile

--Cindy

You don't have automatic track, but if your mount is an equatorial you can still manually track and since you can pggyback your camera. Short focal camera won't show much of the error tracking.
I've done that numerous time as a kid, manually tracking for half an hour, sometimes more, with a 50 mm objective on my slr camera. Quite easy actually if you are decently polar aligned.
Now, people have digital camera. If yours is advanced enough to pose several seconds, you might give a try. Don't even need tracking for a couple of seconds. Mine pose 15 seconds and it's enough to see magnitude 8 stars, as in :
http://www.buytelescopes.com/gallery/vi … ...c=29107
Not enough for M101 though.

#4 Re: Life on Mars » Utah Microbes Point to Mars - Research into extremophiles » 2005-06-25 09:36:15

... And those 250-mill yrs old bacteria... S. Rads? How could they otherwise stay viable? In that timeframe, their 'data' (DNA) must've gotten seriously corrupted by background radiation...

I guess we can fairly confidently state that when there's liquid water, there's life, count on life to be able to adapt to extreme situations.

The way Deinococcus Radiodurans bacteria survives DNA fragmentation is by keeping copies of information.
You can imagine that after exposure to radiation or dessication one copy of chromosmal DNA is very fragmented, the other DNA copy is also fragmented but at other random sites. Radiodurans has 4 copies, thus increasing the chance of information redundancy.
This is well described here :
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.htm … ?pid=10359

Regarding the equation Water = Life, I beg to difer. This would be true only if you consider "Life" as nothing more than one long, very long, chemical reaction, with many intermediate products (like humans beings), and which final state we ignore.
If that was true, and it could be such, then as with any chemical reaction, it's just a matter to get the ingredients together and the cinetic, the thermodynamic,  dictates what you get statistically after one billion year of reaction, two billion years of reaction etc. In this case, if there is water on mars, then life is granted.

But "We" are the molecules of this long reaction, it's difficult for us to know from within the reaction in the flask if this is actually a reaction.
Granted, everything that is observable from within the flask indicates that life is indeed just about chemistry, but philosophy doesn't necesseraly agree with that and even suggest that it could exist a world outside the flask that would deny us the title of chemical reactives agitated by brownian movement.
I am puzzled, why a chemical reaction would create a reactif intermediate (the mind) that would basically question it's own unminded, chemical, nature ? It seems that our mind allow us, through philosophy for example, to voyage out of the flask, which science doesn't allow, never. Indeed, until man and consciousness appeared, when only plants and animals were roaming earth, nobody could discuss the chemical nature of life and life was consistent with itself, being a chemical reaction. But now our existence threatens this interpretation and thus the presence of life on Mars.

#5 Re: Not So Free Chat » Celestial Cartography » 2005-06-25 07:44:48

Can see those Uranian blues in your photo.  :up: 

I checked the remainder of your photo gallery as well.  You should have included the lunar landscape shot in your post.

Thanks Cindy. I'm no big fan of the moon either. In fact, Mars and Uranus made my night.
There is a guy in the gallery that shot Uranus with a C14 and you can actually see the equatorial bands ! Almost everybody use the Philips ToUcam  for its sensititivity and stack the resulting pictures by hundreds, showing details impossible to see visually. I just use a single shot with no staking, but I can say the colors are well rendered, if not the details.
I don't think I'm gonna invest in a TocAM, rather a low cost CCD camera.
If you have a digital camera Cindy, all you need is an adapter. You can go to Scopetronix.com to see if they have your particular adapter. You also don't have to buy the all DigitT max system with the scoptronix eyepiece. I got my adapter for about 60$ and I use my 25 mm Celestron Plossl for best result. Vignetting is very reduced.

BTW, if you have a Sony digital Camera, then you are lucky as Sony uses HAD CCD, more sensisitive than other brand CCD, you could possibly picture deep sky object in a couple of seconds with your 6 inches Newtonian.

#6 Re: Not So Free Chat » Celestial Cartography » 2005-06-24 20:47:02

I am tired of Jupiter. This is Mars forum here right ? So I think I have posted the first picture of Mars of this year !
I was in Lake Ray Roberts state park, and I shot Mars with my C9.25.
But I payed for it : I was attacked all night long by ferocious mosquitos when, at last around 2 AM, Mars finelly rose from the eastern horizon !
Couldn't focuse that small planet easily though. So please, don't compare my picture with the Mars of 2003, I know it's fuzy.
http://www.buytelescopes.com/gallery/vi … ...c=29107
After shooting Mars with my digital camera like crazy. I used the GOTO of my CG5 mount (reviewed in the last Sky and Telescope) to spot Uranus.
I said "Dude, GOTO Uranus !" and the telescope obeyed like G. Bush when asked to GOTO war by God. "Bzzzzzzzzzzz, bbzzzz, bzzzz, zzzzzb,  Here is Uranus Master" said my scope.
"Dude, it's not exactly exactly at he center of the field ? I have to use my tired fingers to recenter 3 arc seconds !". "Sorry Master, but you are at 200X magnification, it's hard to be so precise". "well OK, that's not so bad" I said.

So, I believe I also pictured the first pic of Uranus of this year (still pretty low on the horizon and very very small).

http://www.buytelescopes.com/gallery/vi … ...c=29107

Happy that my computerized mount did a so good job, I finished my bottle of wine and went back to bed. (the mosquitos were probably all drunk). That was fun believe me.

PS : whoever is the guy's name at the bottom of the picture, it's not me, please ignore and don't mention. My name's DickBill as you all know.

#7 Re: Not So Free Chat » Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one) » 2005-06-21 22:09:34

Probably some of the detainees are innocent and were wrongly picked up with a bunch of bad apples; innocent bystander, wrong place/wrong time situation.  But most are probably dangerous genocidal nuts.

Now that we've got them...what do we do with them?

No doubt about that. Plus, after a couple years at gitmo, some of the initially innocent bystander are now dangerous psychopat too.
Personnaly I see that : the innocents (say a guy picked up on the field, but which after 4 years at gitmo, provided he had survived, has still not been charged of anything) will be dealed like any judicial mistake : "oops sorry, here is 10 000 $ for compensation and good luck back home ".
The guilty (say a guy that has been proved to train in an Alquada camp) : deported to a muslim country other than afghanistan or iraq, where the US military has some control like maybe Pakistan ? I don't know.

#8 Re: Not So Free Chat » Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one) » 2005-06-21 20:22:10

Tack into the wind they say.

I have come to the firm conclusion that I am wrong. My assumptions are colored by partisan beliefs not fully predicated on the facts that are known, and are in fact substantiated by a belief in assumptions, derived from the varied hints and allegations that seem to continually surface as time marches ever onward.

With this realization I will accept your point of view, for within it, I see a rational and balanced approach to the available information, built upon a strong foundation of known facts and truth.

The war in Iraq is just. Never mind that the reasons for our engagement have changed from what they once were at the onset. We had credible evidence that Saddam Hussien was a threat to our way of life because he might provide religious fundamentalists within his secular state weapons of mass destruction, by which to harm America, or her allies. The Western World was immediately threatened because intelligence suggested that over ten years of crippling sanctions and continual UN inspections was not enough to curtail Saddam’s ambitions for weapons of mass destruction. Our intelligence suggested that even if Saddam did not give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, he had weapons of mass destruction on standby that could be launched against Western Europe or American bases in the gulf in less than an hour. The suspicion of such threats, after the experience of 9/11, dictated that America become proactive and actively seek to remove any potential threat to its own security or that of our allies.

The war in Iraq is just, regardless of the actual facts derived from our intelligence, simply because the intentions and capabilities of that dictatorship were suspect. Suspicion alone justifies all that we have done, and all that we will do. This is the fair price we pay for our security, and the assurance that if future attacks are not prevented, they must at least be reduced.

It is with this realization that I also accept the necessary degradation, humiliation, and as events dictate, the systematic torture of prisoners within US custody. US soldiers, acting justly outside American borders, are engaged in a war to protect our way of life, and those who oppose American troops, even if they are nationals of their own country, represent a threat to the United States and have no real rights accorded by the Geneva Convention or by the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Since I accept that suspicion alone justifies the invasion of another country, I also summarily accept that suspicion alone is enough to justify any and all means necessary to extract information from individuals we suspect of being enemies of America.

I also accept and applaud the current process of screening individuals within the United States, and holding those suspected of being a possible threat, indefinitely. I see no reason to charge individuals with crimes, or to allow them access to judicial proceedings and oversight. Suspicion will protect us. Suspicion will keep us safe.

I can’t say I am worried anymore about the US military’s inability to find WMD’s in Iraq. Not finding dangerous weapons in the hands of a known war criminal is a good thing. I am glad that President Bush had the will and perseverance to create a blue ribbon panel to search into the reasons for the intelligence failure. Hopefully such massive intelligence failures will not happen again, and at least this way our future suspicions will be better substantiated, thus allowing us  not to doubt as some do.

I appreciate your patience with me as I slowly arrived at these conclusions. I thank you for showing me the value of suspicion in these times of turbulence. I do feel safe now, knowing that our leaders are acting in our best interests, for the betterment of not only our country, but the entire world. By actively engaging those threats that we suspect may be out to harm us, we make ourselves safer. The world will one day see the wisdom.

Nice post. Are you drinking the hemlock again Clark  ? (la cigue de Socrate). You survive so well this breuvage that I believe you are now addicted. Anyway, in your nice post you forgot the religious side of the situation.

One thing I don't understand is all these references to the christian God in the US republican policy. And I pray there, And you prey here for me, And Jesus Christ here and there, and Jesus would do that. And God this and That.
Well, I have a hard time to believe JC, with all his known background as a perturbator of the public order, would support so easily JWB policy. And the opposite : despite all his background as a claim born again christian (whats that a "born again"  by the way), Dubya would not be St Peter, or even Mary Magdalen, I don't know, I see him more like the Great Priest of the Temple, or maybe Pilate ?

#9 Re: Not So Free Chat » Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous » 2005-06-04 08:15:27

LO
Surrealistic !
The Spanishes voted Yes to the EuroConstitution WITHOUT having it all. They could get a sumarize in their press, but to have it all, they soulld have to PAY for a full edition.

This fuzziness reminds me of the question for the referendum in Quebec,

"Acceptez-vous que le Québec devienne souverain, après avoir offert formellement au Canada un nouveau partenariat économique et politique, dans le cadre du projet de loi sur l'avenir du Québec et de l'entente signée le 12 juin 1995?"

The English translation was also on the ballot: "Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?"

Strangely again, after such a clear question, the NO won.This was crowned by Parizeau's genial comment (after his defeat he was pissed) on the influence of money and ethnic votes.

It seems that politicians, on purpose, introduce fuzziness and incertitude in formulations of important issues such as all interpretations and future modifications, plus their opposites, are always possible. I guess it was the same thing In the case of the EU constitution.

#10 Re: Not So Free Chat » Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous » 2005-06-02 21:14:50

Is France weakened with this NO vote ?

Not quite sure.

Hmmm, not sure about that.
For example, you know about the tractation between Iran and EU. Eu was certainly a moderator in the issue, otherwise I believe Iran would have been striken a long time ago by US or Israel, as announced by Dick Cheney himself. Remember he said somethiong like " well, Israel might strike first and let the international community clean the mess after". That didn't happened, probably because of the strong involvment of the EU who buffered the situation.
But now, the Iranian might ask, "what credibility has the EU now? we will be attacked anyway, and the french and the german alone won't do or can't do anything alone so we might as well..." and so on.
So, the No change the political situation worlwide.

I also followed the ITER (an international project to control thermonuclear fusion) story. Japan was a strong bider in this project  but they couldn't outweight the EU voices united to support the frecnh site at Cadarach.
I was curious to read the Japanese reaction. The first morning after the frrench No, I did a search on Yahoo and found that a Japanese minister had  already declared somthing like "well, the french have spoken to Chirac, they want him to invest in social reforms, not in scientific international projects, ITER should be better in Japan". You see the picture.

In short, I think this "NO" gonna cost a lot, in the short term, to the french and to the other people that depended of the EU credibility. What Europe needs now are charismatic leaders like De gaulle or Adenauer, able to redinamise an European ideal based on a model not like the anglosaxon model, as said Chirac (but this is not Chirac invention I precise). By the way, Chirac made another mistake : mix together Sarkozy and Villepin. He is really dumb.
I predict it's not gonna take long before you gonna see a fight between these two.
And Villepin is a clown if he thinks he can fix the unemployment rate as fast as he does say it, or maybe he knows that the unemployemnt will be fixed by itserf, via the demographic trend to aging, and that the only thing to do is wait and take credit for anything positive that happen.

PS :No, I have not been paid, like Challhbabi or Halwarwi, by the CIA or the pentagone to cheat on Chirac. It's my natural temper.

#11 Re: Not So Free Chat » Open Debate: Military Spending vs Space Exploratio - Is our military spending worth it? » 2005-05-30 10:12:00

American Moon Base? clark is crazy!  :laugh:

No you are not. After all these posts describing US space policy that you posted last year, nobody can be surprised. So a US base on the moon is possible, although personnaly I see that like nothing more than a robotised observation station with some "interceptions" capabilities maybe with lasers or cinetics projectiles. No humans.

But, here I want to say something about the US military spending in space or Iraq or wherever.
Only regarding the Bush rhetoric of "spreading democracy and the national security of the USA" :
First, how much is the bill for Iraq now ? 400 billions ? well, what IF, instead of this war, just a tenth of the amount had been spent to active and peaceful funding and promotion of democracy in middle orient ?
like funding grants for Iraqi students to study abroads in democractic countries, funding hospitals, education, doing GOOD things. On the long term, I think this strategy can actually seeds the root of democracy to the most backward dictature.
That would achieve much of  the goals of the bush administration.

Second, beside his extremely accurate description of the nuclear capabilities of Iraq (the yellow cakes) in his adress to the nation, the US president also mentioned developping energy independance from middle orient through, you remember, HYDROGEN CARS !
Well, here again, what if a tenth of the amount spent in irar had been spent in this project to develop energy independancy ?
Wouln't be a durable and solid way to build long term security to the US ? with 100 billion dollars you can certainly promote a nationwide campain to buy hybrids/electric cars and decrease the grasp of petrol producers over the US economy.
But the money is gone, so is the time.

Well, I forgot, none of that is necessary anymore : "Freedom is on the march and America is more secure"...already.
Hydrogen cars ? peaceful promotion of democracy ? these are obsolete concepts only good for antipatriotic liberals. America doesn't need that anymore.

#12 Re: Not So Free Chat » Empire vs Rebel Alliance » 2005-05-28 15:14:24

I just saw the movie today. Great, congratulations to Lucas.
Maybe the best of the serie ?
He is right to stop here, anything more would be surperfluous, when everything has been done and said.
And as the movie said : there are some good people on both side of the fight but Evil is everywhere.

#13 Re: Not So Free Chat » Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous » 2005-05-22 12:54:37

So all this boo hoo about a French plot, is just an attempt to hide the real facts from the American people behind a pack a lies. It what also known as propaganda and which is generally based on lies, which the Bush Administration is putting out there.

Well, I never believed it either, but who knows, when you play dirty, there is always a chance that it get out of control.

Actually, I cannot retrieve the article or comment that I remember...Was it in FOXNEWS faired and balanced or the Washington Times, I am not sure now ?
I did a search in both and cannot find it. But I read it for sure.
At least I found a link in the News telegraph that confirm that this theory (the french forged the yellow cakes documents) has circulated on Internet for a time:
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.j … ...r19.xml


Now the "old college student" memo theory that you mention, I don't buy it either. How could the White House use a college student memo as an incentive to go to war ?
This look more like another convenient explanation.  I think it has been forged on purpose to push the balance a little bit further to the war.
This is an important issue and obviously the white house has no interest to see somebody finding something more uncomfortable that a bunch of college student that created a hoax for fun, so it's gonna be buried for a while.

By the way I am french, I think that a couple of guys should have been fired in france after their link with the Saddam regime (among other things) was revealed, the same apply to the US role in funding an supporting the Sadam regime against Iran. Rumsfeld was handshaking Saddam as often than Chirac, just the picture hasn't been broadcasted much often in the fair and balanced media news.

#14 Re: Not So Free Chat » Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous » 2005-05-21 11:30:11

Hi all,
Long time no post.
I would be personnaly interested to know WHO or what organisation created the fake " yellow pancake" documents, that GWB mentioned in his adress to the nation before the war (the document revealed that Hussein had acquired nuclear "yellow cakes" from Niger). That document scared so much the US that nothing could stop the march to the war after that.
It was soon dismissed as a hoax, actually the information that it was a fake document was already circulating on the internet at the time of W's speech. Indeed, a couple of weeks later, Colin Powell didn't mention it in his talk to the UN.

So, Who created this clever fake that made the President of the United State Himself, by mentioning it in His adress to the Nation, a victim of a terrible conspiracy ???
It would interesting to know since it was one of the strongest justification for the war.
I read in FOX NEWS that it was the french, that forged the document. They officially did everything they could to avoid the war, while secrelety plotting to force the US to go to war, while later they would know that the US who be ridiculised once the hoax would be known.
So the "Niger Yellow Cake" document was created by the french for the only purpose to ridiculize the US.
Is this really what americans think ? I think there are enough intelligent people in the US (like me, but I am not american) that deserve to know the truth. This, just in case the french plot, even if it was displayed in fox news, which is guaranty of veracity, is not true... just in case.
If it's the french, let it be known, if not then who else ?
after all thousands of people have died upon this infernal machination.

#15 Re: Not So Free Chat » Political Potpourri III - The next round. » 2005-02-21 17:22:00

I've said this before and I'll do it again. In the eyes of a European Conservative, in America you don't experience Conservatism, you experience leftism.

Come on, Gennaro, Leftism in America ?
I know a couple of republicans in my family, they are not leftist, they are real conservative conservative, I mean, they believe in Bush more than in God.
They are exactly on line with the Le Pen ideology in France, called conservatism in the USA, I maintain that. That doesn't make them bad. Le Pen look bad because the french leftist media make Le Pen caricaturily bad.
Listen, in the Dallas Morning News the other day, I was reading that all sexually transmitted desease in America are coming from foreigners and that immigrants are a plague, more or less to be exterminated. You want other examples ?
The French support terrorism, litteraly, by Bill O'Reilly in Fox,  just read his web site. At a WWWestler show in Iraq that I saw on TV, one of the westler (with a french name and a big french flag) get more booed by the GIs that even the worst iraqi terrorists. OK, I noticed that some of the boos were not really spontaneous  (kind of, if you don't boo the french flag, you gonna go to the next patrol mission), etc.

But God damn O'Reilly and his french boycott propaganda, I'll bring my in laws in France to swim in a pool of wine this summer ! I hope the wine won't turn vinegar.

#16 Re: Not So Free Chat » Political Potpourri III - The next round. » 2005-02-20 21:26:53

This quote is classic Hobbes. Genuine peace comes when a single Leviathan dominates all political life and obtains a monopoly on the use of force:

It won't work that way. All occidental countries are already "democracies" , all are already "free society" and as a result, people of these countries vote.
Here is where the bill stops.
Will be Blair reelected ? what's the impact of the US votes on the EU votes ?
I personnaly think that one of the impact of the Bush policy, which is, in short, to promote war, is to strengthen the far right wings parties of all the european countries, including Russia. When the drums of war beat everywhere, people get scared, they start to listen more to the strong guys that could protect them, not the reasonable moderates with big brains but small muscles.

Reading Thucydides is more important than ever.  Especially if we start to see the Bush-ies attempt to support the right-wing parties across Europe. And US Democrats seeking to ally with the EU left-leaning folk.

That's not what I mean. I don't think that Bush policy is aimed at supporting the right wings, or any other political parties, of europe. Bush doesn't care about that. I mean that there is a trend in Europe, towards conservatism and nationalism, that despite not growing, stays surprisingly stable. People would expect it to recess below 5%, instead it float around 15%. I believe this is in part a side effect, a reaction if you want, to the US conservatism.
I read in the Dallas Morning News that Karl Rove said that Conservatism is now the major political force in the US.  He's right, want it or not, Conservatism IS the political drive of the current US policy. And Conservatism didn't came a major player by chance, it is there to stay for a while too.

People in europe know that and think "so if it's OK to be conservative and nationalist in america, why not here ?"
In Europe, we have been teached that conservatism and nationalist are "bad" or at least retrograde values, just good for grand-grandpa.
One far-right political party of France understood that, it was part of the  french Front-national before it splited and re-named itself party "republicain" "something" (I am not sure of the real name since I am not a member of any of these political party, but I remember that they introduced the word "republicain"). Just a matter of cosmetic wording, I know, but it works.

#17 Re: Not So Free Chat » Political Potpourri III - The next round. » 2005-02-20 16:49:38

This quote is classic Hobbes. Genuine peace comes when a single Leviathan dominates all political life and obtains a monopoly on the use of force:

It won't work that way. All occidental countries are already "democracies" , all are already "free society" and as a result, people of these countries vote.
Here is where the bill stops.
Will be Blair reelected ? what's the impact of the US votes on the EU votes ?
I personnaly think that one of the impact of the Bush policy, which is, in short, to promote war, is to strengthen the far right wings parties of all the european countries, including Russia. When the drums of war beat everywhere, people get scared, they start to listen more to the strong guys that could protect them, not the reasonable moderates with big brains but small muscles.

#18 Re: Life support systems » Getting air on Mars » 2005-02-20 14:59:52

One of the viking experiment also produced Oxygen : in The gas exchange experiment (GEX), a little bit of martian soil was introduced into a canister aboard the viking lander, a little bit of water was added and a rise in oxygen concentration was observed in the canister.
The GEX was initially designed to detect life, and the rise of oxygen could be a signature of microorganisms present in the soil, but instead, this was intepreted by the presence of peroxydes in the martian soil, like H2O2 which in presence of water decomposes into H2O and O2. The interpretation is still controversial, people talked about superoxydes or even that it was real proof of the presence of microorganisms.
Whatever, the raw martian soil could thus be another source of oxygen if necessary.

#19 Re: Life on Mars » Perhaps Shaun Barrett - is RIGHT! :-) » 2005-02-19 09:24:15

However, the article suggested that the individual NASA employed scientists - - in their personal opinion - - stand by the original report

In space daily the article title was thast "NASA scientists say that Mars may have life" or something similar, but I rmember the "may" because I checked twice. Nothing wrong with that or to redraw.
"may" is fine in the context of Viking experiments, abundant past liquid water and methane in the mars atmosphere.

#20 Re: Life on Mars » Perhaps Shaun Barrett - is RIGHT! :-) » 2005-02-18 23:03:20

About the methane in Mars atmosphere, it has been said that it could have 2 origins, bio or volvano.
The latest eruptions or lava flow on Olympus Mons have been dated at about 10 million years (with the impact craters counting method, said Hartmann in his "Traveler's guide to Mars" ), so It's very well possible that Olympus Mons still holds some pockets of hot magma that leak some gas from time to time.
But since hot springs are also a hot spot for thermophilic lifeforms, maybe the bio and volcanic explanation could overlap here. Maybe the carbon isotopic ratio C12/C13 could help to differentiate between the two (on Earth the biogenic carbon is enriched 20 to 30% in carbon 12 verus C13). So if this CH4 is biogenic, the isotopic ratio of carbon and hydrogen might help to know. it's a bit too far for the rovers to go in these regions but they seem unfatiguable. Maybe in 3 or 4 years they will be still there and find a fossilized hot spring with tiny rod shaped mineral in chains !

#21 Re: Interplanetary transportation » The Myth of Heavy Lift - (Let the fight begin...) » 2005-02-18 08:46:53

No, no you can't.

This is one of those times that it makes sense to wait so you can afford to develop the more capable hardware.

If you haven't noticed, MarsDirect calls for a launch vehicle with about six times the lift as Ariane-V ECB, 3-4 times the lift as a hypothetical "mega Ariane-V+" that doesn't exsist, and don't forget that you have to include several tons of your TMI mass for the aerobrake shield and lander (with enough fuel for late-term course adjustments).

.

GCN, then maybe the Mars direct or semidirect must be re-designed for LEO assembly, a shorter "stay" on the floor of mars, with less people, but with a faster trip, at least for the crew vehicle, because a compact nuclear reactor would allow it.
Very likely, France will be choosen soon to harbor the "International" thermonuclear Reactor facility (ITER) at Cadarache, because of its expertise in nuclear research. France and UK also have an expertise in nuclear submarine reactors. Then can probably design a nuclear reactor that would fit in the 5-6 tons range for a space ship.

The reason that Ariane can't be used to assemble a Mars ship in orbit any more then Delta-IV can is due to one big problem: too many pieces: splitting up the LOX/TMI, LH2 fuel tanks & solar pannels, the manned ship, the lander/aerobrake shield,

well, poeple could have say that of the ISS, and still, the ISS has been assembled. Maybe the ISS could be used as a Martian space ship assembling dock as well.

Also Hydrogen boiloff is an issue: That unless the Hydrogen fuel is used promptly, preferably within a month, you will lose alot of it. This places some pretty heavy scheduling concerns and would be

You mean for the in situ propellant reactor on MArs ? no H2 needs to be kept in huge amount for a long time sinec it has to be recombined to make Ch4 and O2. Pressured Ch4 liquid would be stable on Mars.

Even if you drop the need to carry hydrogen in the hyperinsulated tanks for the ISRU system, and you send the ERV seperatly (which is a bad idea, since if you miss the landing then fueling it is a hazardou question mark),

Apparently NASA showed an excellent precision in their landing. But I agree that some work must be done here to improve the landing target area to a walkable range.

Zubrin thinks Mars can be done for $25Bn I thought... and I think this ****** too low by a multiple to get to Mars safely, and about one third the cost to go to Mars "well" with options for more then exploration.

i agree, probably 100-400 billion dollars is more reallistic because of cost of development organization redundancy etc.
Just a fraction of the cost of the war in Iraq anyway.

#22 Re: Interplanetary transportation » The Myth of Heavy Lift - (Let the fight begin...) » 2005-02-17 21:11:19

matter of how big your rocket is. Ariane-V is not that big.

Swapping out the SRMs for Zenit straptons might increase the payload to match the Delta-IV+ "Super heavy," but probobly not much more then this.

Hardly enough to do the Moon, definatly not enough for Mars.

Not enough to Mars...it depends.
In the "case for mars" one of Zubrin's idea is to make the manned mission to Mars step by step. Put the Habitat first with the In situ propellant reactor and accumulates enough fuel for a return. Note that in the "Case", zubrin included several tons of H2 to make the CH4/O2 mixture with the Sabatier reactor.
This is no longer necessary since we know there is plenty of ice easily accessible in the upper latitudes, meaning H2 and O2 through electrolysis. Robert Dyck said about 13 tons to mars insertion can be sent from a single Ariane V, roughly it means maybe 10 tons on the floor. And "maybe" 10 tons on the floor is now enough since theoritically, the fuel for the return can be completely synthetized in situ. These 10 tons would be entirely devoted to the HAB module and harware.

For the manned spaceship, maybe 2 or 3 modules like this would be necessary, included a nuclear reactor. So, im my opinion, even a Mars mission is feasible with ArianeV. It's just a matter of how many ArianeV you need.
Here on that link ESA even described an ArianeV ES ATV needed to resupply the ISS, with a maximum of 21 tons in low earth orbit :
http://www.esa.int/export/SPECIALS/Laun … ..._0.html

and in this site a description of a future reusable launcher that looks like a compact space shuttle :
http://www.esa.int/export/SPECIALS/Laun … GQD_0.html

Clearly, you go to Mars with the space fleet you have, not the space fleet you whish to have, to quote somebody famous.
I bet that if you ask Zubrin, he still stands to its 15 billions bill for the MArs mission. And I believe he is right.

#23 Re: Not So Free Chat » Diabetes - Just been diagnosed. » 2005-02-07 19:40:06

Considering how poorly my diabetic friend chose to live (he was also homeless and lived in his cadillac parked in a parking lot for about 6 months) losing some teeth and poor eyesight at age 39 is not bad at all.  Most diabetics who take care of themselves live perfectly normal lives.

My grandfather has type II, was dianosed at about 70  and is now...89. He drinks red wine too, occasionaly.
Poor baby Flint, I have a yound daughter too (18 months) and I understand what you feel Ian.
You can find good doctors for your daughter and help from parents that have diabetic kids too.

#24 Re: Not So Free Chat » Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous » 2005-02-05 20:46:11

I invoke the history of Europe leading up to WWII. If the European powers had elected in unison to go to war with Hitler's Germany on any one of several occasions prior to 1939, the Second World War as we know it today would have been averted. In addition, the routing of Nazi Germany before its power grew too great would have resulted in the toppling of Hitler from power long before the instigation of the infamous death-camps which took so many innocent lives.
                         smile

Possibly Shaun, but who knows what would have happened if things had not been what they were.
But back to that article of Robets et al. in the lancet (Lancet 2004; 364: 1857–64) and the value of about a thousands death for war casualties in Iraq.
Quoting the paper :
"We estimated the death toll associated with the conflict
by subtracting preinvasion mortality from post-invasion
mortality, and multiplying that rate by the estimated
population of Iraq (assumed 24·4 million at the onset of
the conflict) and by 17·8 months, the average period
between the invasion and the survey.
interviewed."
So, how they evaluate the pre and post war mortalities ?
I quote the paper again :
"33 randomly selected locations were visited and
988 households were chosen between Sept 8 and 20,
2004. These households contained 7868 residents on the
date of interview. Of these residents, 237 (3%) were
younger than 1 year, 1004 (13%) were younger than 5
years, and 3084 (39%) were younger than 15 years. Of
the 4453 (57%) residents age 15–59 years, 2220 were
men. Of the 331 (4%) residents age 60 years or older, 152
were men."

So they interviewed themself 988 households. That gave them, as said earlier, an interval of "8000-194 000" with 95% of confidentiality. Then the "100 000" lays about in the middle. I pass on the details and numerous problems they faced. I cannot copy paste illegally here the full text but if you want the whole paper email me confidentially. I personnaly think they are serious, they made conservative assertions, this value of about 100 000 postwar extradeath, including many women and children, is the price paid officially until other studies prove otherwise.

How's that possible ? well, it's not because it's not on FOX News that it didn't happen. I quote again a comment of Bushra Ibrahim Al-Rubeyi....just his name casts doubts ? however, listen to what he said about this article , in the same Lancet numero:

"...the death toll from the invasion and occupation of Iraq is
about 98 000 civilians, and it might be considerably higher.
The deaths are mostly related to air strikes.
After this survey was reported, politicians reacted
promptly—casting doubt on the findings and questioning
the methodology used. They frequently referred to the Iraq
Body Count Database, implying that it more accurately
reflects the civilian casualties than other reports. The figures
on the Iraq Body Count Database include about
7350 deaths caused by the coalition’s major-combat phase,
which ended on May 1, 2003, and about 16 352 Iraqi...
...I was in Baghdad for 5 weeks in May, 2003. In my first
2 weeks there were daily battles between US soldiers and
Iraqi gunmen, particularly in the Adheymia district. When a
shot was fired at US troops, it almost always led to random
shooting by US troops at anyone at the site. In one of these
incidents, 60 Iraqi civilians, mainly women and children,
died in a shopping centre. The media did not mention this
incident.
In the UK, government ministers have insisted that they
do not have official figures for Iraqi civilian casualties. They
repeated Tommy Franks’ (US Central Command) statement
that they “do not do body counts”..."

Possible that everybody is lying in the Lancet, but until we see a full retraction of the paper, these value are going to stay.

#25 Re: Not So Free Chat » Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous » 2005-01-31 22:55:47

Dickbill then takes the extraordinarily shaky figure of 100,000 extra deaths and extrapolates it in a way I find uncharacteristically illogical, coming from him.

No, I am talking about the total count at the end of the war. When is the end of the war ?, that's a good question and I have no idea, but recount at that moment.
I have to admit that this kind of article is not my cup of tea. But give me some time to read outside the abstract. anyway, it seems that you already put more energy to read that in more details than I did, Shaun. I give you that. Maybe it's true that the lancet wanted to make a political point. I am not naive to believe that there is no politic in scientific publication.

Grrrr...forced to read an article about the iraq war in the lancet, why do I put myself in trouble ?

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB