Mars rover

[Matthew3590]

Ok, so I looked at the pictures of Mars and noticed mountains in the distance. Now mountains on earth are from volcanic activity or so they say. Now I see no other evidence of that on Mars like lava flows and the other gases that accompany volcanic activity like sulfur dioxide. I am sure Mars is as old as the Earth. So is Mars evolving or regressing and dying? What minerals does it have? does it have oil? Can it make the same precious metals and gemstones without earth like atmospheric pressure and conditions? I have read all the theories and I think at best we can learn more about the Earth from Mars than about Mars when we compare them.

Or is it what we always thought...? a dead rock in space.

The pictures are interesting.

I believe the mtn chain that Curiosity is looking at is the one caused by asteroids. It is a giant crater.

 

[Bunnylady]

Ok, so I looked at the pictures of Mars and noticed mountains in the distance. Now mountains on earth are from volcanic activity or so they say. Now I see no other evidence of that on Mars like lava flows and the other gases that accompany volcanic activity like sulfur dioxide.

The biggest volcano yet discovered is on Mars:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_Mons


It is now inactive, and there isn't any evidence of recent volcanic activity on any other part of the surface, but Mars once was very active. Why it isn't now is part of the puzzle.

 

[cupman]

They missed their target by 1.5 miles. The target at which they wanted the rover to land. For some perspective it is over 350 million miles from Earth. I don't care who you are, that is incredible.

 

[Q9]

They missed their target by 1.5 miles. The target at which they wanted the rover to land. For some perspective it is over 350 million miles from Earth. I don't care who you are, that is incredible.

I gotta hand 'em that - that is freaking precise.

The equivalent, I suspect, is something like hitting a half-dollar from a few hundred yards with a baseball from a catapult.

 

[call ducks]

Mars is a rock baised planet. I Can only assume it had lava at one point and it all cooled down... Same as we are almost sure it had water on it before it froze.

 

[Gryphon]

Ok, so I looked at the pictures of Mars and noticed mountains in the distance. Now mountains on earth are from volcanic activity or so they say.  Now I see no other evidence of that on Mars like lava flows and the other gases that accompany volcanic activity like sulfur dioxide.  I am sure Mars is as old as the Earth. So is Mars evolving or regressing and dying?   What minerals does it have? does it have oil?  Can it make the same precious metals and gemstones without earth like atmospheric pressure and conditions?  I have read all the theories and I think at best we can learn more about the Earth from Mars than about Mars when we compare them.

Or is it what we always thought...? a dead rock in space.

The pictures are interesting.

Mars is a LOT like earth, or rather, it started off that way. First it was a spinning ball of magma that slowly cooled and developed a crust, which led to plates that shift around and form fissures and volcanoes. Since the core spins, it emits an electromagnetic shell around the planet. (the magnetosphere). Unfortunately for Mars, it's smaller than the Earth, which means it has less gravity so over time a lot of it's lighter gasses escaped into space. Also, since it's so small, it's core cooled off and became solid, which means its magnetosphere (which is caused by an internal dynamo from magma swirling around under the planet's crust) has mostly dissipated. Bad news for Mars, since the magnetosphere helps to deflect the solar wind. Because of that, Mars, which once had all the same gasses as Earth, and even water, got it mostly blown off of the surface. It still has an atmosphere, and it even has ice (you can see its polar caps grow and shrink like ours does).

Venus is not as good an option to explore as Mars, because for one thing, it's covered in sulfuric clouds that would eat into any equipment we send in, it's hot enough on the surface to melt lead, and pictures we take of it would just show clouds. Not that we shouldn't explore it at some point, but with the technology we have now, Mars is a much better option.

As for why bother exploring Mars, because knowledge is NEVER wasted. You would not believe how much technology that helps us every day is because NASA was working on something, and it turned out to have multiple applications.

How about LED's, that emit a lot of light but very little heat, which saves you money? Just about every city in the USA has stoplights made with LEDs now because they save so much money, and they last so much longer than the old lights.

How about fast reading thermometers, which can be used on infants and incapacitated patients without getting shoved into orifices that nobody really wants them shoved into.

Heart pumps? Artificial limbs? Ice free wings for airplanes so you don't risk crashing when traveling in the winter? Firefighting equipment so firefighters have a better chance of rescuing people without coming to harm? How about something you might use every day, like memory foam, or water purification? Ever eat freeze dried food?

All of these inventions are a by-product of NASA space exploration, so I really think the LESS THAN 1% of our government funding going to a program that makes things easier for the people here on earth is a PITTANCE. Consider this, The total cost of the New Horizons mission to Pluto was $650 million, and that costs less than a THIRD of the price of a single B-2 bomber.

People argue that the money was "wasted", that it's "taking away from the people here on earth". Ridiculous. The money, as was pointed out earlier, was SPENT here on earth. It not only gave jobs to people directly, but indirectly. Private businesses made money because of NASA interacting with them. Not only that, but the by-products, the inventions that are made because of NASA's research, end up being used by Americans. So, how is this "wasteful"?

 

[TallChickMagnet]

And some people feel the need to be argumentative by bringing in a touchy subject that has next to nothing to do with the thread in question. Even I don't do that. The rover has nothing to do with the creation/natural origin debate, so kindly don't bring it in. For all the ways I question NASA, it's still an interesting thread, and I'd hate to see it locked.

You are wrong!!! I was only stating a fact. I'm sorry if thinking about the real issues hurts your feelings....

 

[Bunnylady]

You are wrong!!! I was only stating a fact. I'm sorry if thinking about the real issues hurts your feelings....

I don't think hurting feelings comes into it at all. Q9 has been here a long time, and has lots and lots of experience with what can be safely discussed and what gets threads locked.

(Heaven knows, he's done it enough to know!)

 

[Capvin]

Ed...you made a comment regarding space exploration and it's effect on the creationism argument by including God in the equation. I do not want to make any comments regarding religion because I am not a big believer in any organized religion, but I do believe in one God as the God of all things and of all people's .. She is the God of the entire universe and nothing that could possibly be discovered could ever disprove that. However, any argument against exploration of any kind falls on my deaf ears because I can only believe that the exploration in an attempt to discover the mysteries of the universe, the earth or the seas are good things.P

PS...Bunny, experience regarding this forum does not make experience of education and age.

 

[Bunnylady]

PS...Bunny, experience regarding this forum does not make experience of education and age.

No duh!