The emergence of the field of Quantum Mechanics has thrown the entire world of Physics into a tailspin, causing many a physicist to rethink many concepts/understandings/bits of conventional wisdom that were once held immutable, but then, much of Science as a whole has always been provisional in nature, hence the "theory" aspect of Einstein's "THEORY of Special Relativity".
@blue, totally agree, but, sorta sure SR does have experimental evidence.
Tho not sure anyone has reached C, so who could actually make the case that I’m a four hundred pound guy in a basement...about as infinite mass as you get. ;-p
SR defines Mass as 'a property of a physical object' which, apparently, is the result of 'a measure of its resistance to acceleration when a net force is applied' (a measure of its physical 'weight') while relegating the object's gravimetric influence to being merely a byproduct of its Mass as opposed to being an actual contributing/defining attribute.
That's a mistake which completely undermines Einstein's Theory but, again, this is not the sort of forum for that type of discussion.
'Quantum transport' is intricately complicated even as merely a topic of discussion.
As for Mars, I guess it really depends on whether or not those are traces of actual H2O rivers or some other sort of fluid-like substance, IF traces of river beds at all.
SpaceX is launching a rocket at 11pm EST tonight with a bunch of satellites on it. Hopefully it will be clear and I can see it. I live about 150 miles away but used to live around 40 miles from the launch pad. The entire beach was lit up like daylite when they did the shuttle launches at nite.
Nothing is a guarantee. Its about the best decision. Mars has an atmosphere, so that at least has the potential to allow people to walk outside and breathe without a spacesuit. If neither Mars nor the Moon have water, then life is unsustainable anyway.
Moon would make a great base due to the low gravity.
Mars absolutely has an atmosphere. Atmospheric presence is most significantly dependent on the planets gravitational strength. Moon does not have an atmosphere, not enough gravity to hold down the gasses.
Personally, I vote for Europa (one of Jupiter's planets). It has an atmosphere and liquid water. It's just a bit farther than Mars.
Mars' atmosphere is mostly CO2 but very thin. Mars surface atmosphere is about the density of the earth's atmosphere at 100,000 ft.
Nobody will probably be breathing it directly.
Look for the next NASA/JPL rover to be extracting oxygen from the Mars CO2 atmosphere and for a helicopter to be flying there.
Mars atmosphere https://www.space.com/16903-mars-atmosphere-climate-weather.html
It is 95% CO2. But don't tell Mitch. He will tell you that Mars proves that fossil fuels don't cause greenhouse gases because there are no cars on Mars. But we could answer that if CO2 was so good for plants how come there are no plants on Mars
Physics is physics. They just need to design the blades to push enough “air” to counteract the weight of the aircraft vs Martian gravity. More interesting to me is how advanced the automation needs to be since remotely piloting such a craft over Mars to Earth distances would be a serious challenge.
Comments
The emergence of the field of Quantum Mechanics has thrown the entire world of Physics into a tailspin, causing many a physicist to rethink many concepts/understandings/bits of conventional wisdom that were once held immutable, but then, much of Science as a whole has always been provisional in nature, hence the "theory" aspect of Einstein's "THEORY of Special Relativity".
Tho not sure anyone has reached C, so who could actually make the case that I’m a four hundred pound guy in a basement...about as infinite mass as you get. ;-p
https://www.thoughtco.com/star-trek-instantaneous-matter-transport-3072118
Mars history is being discovered slowly. .
https://www.space.com/mars-big-rivers-billions-years.html
SR defines Mass as 'a property of a physical object' which, apparently, is the result of 'a measure of its resistance to acceleration when a net force is applied' (a measure of its physical 'weight') while relegating the object's gravimetric influence to being merely a byproduct of its Mass as opposed to being an actual contributing/defining attribute.
That's a mistake which completely undermines Einstein's Theory but, again, this is not the sort of forum for that type of discussion.
'Quantum transport' is intricately complicated even as merely a topic of discussion.
As for Mars, I guess it really depends on whether or not those are traces of actual H2O rivers or some other sort of fluid-like substance, IF traces of river beds at all.
@Ross1, +1
https://sputniknews.com/science/201905121074932320-mars-nasa-scientists-signs-of-life-underground/
(my opinion)
https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/is-there-life-on-mars-let-s-assess-the-evidence
Nothing is a guarantee. Its about the best decision. Mars has an atmosphere, so that at least has the potential to allow people to walk outside and breathe without a spacesuit. If neither Mars nor the Moon have water, then life is unsustainable anyway.
Moon would make a great base due to the low gravity.
Mars' atmosphere is mostly CO2 but very thin. Mars surface atmosphere is about the density of the earth's atmosphere at 100,000 ft.
Nobody will probably be breathing it directly.
Look for the next NASA/JPL rover to be extracting oxygen from the Mars CO2 atmosphere and for a helicopter to be flying there.
https://www.space.com/16903-mars-atmosphere-climate-weather.html
It is 95% CO2. But don't tell Mitch. He will tell you that Mars proves that fossil fuels don't cause greenhouse gases because there are no cars on Mars. But we could answer that if CO2 was so good for plants how come there are no plants on Mars
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/mars-helicopter-to-fly-on-nasa-s-next-red-planet-rover-mission/
I was curious as to what the blades need to look like to force enough air in that thin atmosphere