General

Why Mars? Why not the moon?

1235720

Comments

  • edited May 2019
    The blades look like conventional drone blades. I think the big difference is the RPM's, 10,000 for the Mars helicopter, 600 to 1000 for a helicopter here.
  • edited May 2019
    @SCCRENDO

    You could also tell Mitch that ICE's can't even run on a CO2 laden atmosphere and will stall out instantly if it is introduced into the intake.
  • edited May 2019
    Ya you could fly a passenger airplane on mars. It would just have to travel 5x the velocity and have 2x the size wing. Not literally, but for the sake of conceptual understanding.
  • edited May 2019
    @andy. Doing anything on Mars does not make sense at face value when it it would be far simpler to do anything on Earth. But we like challenges and adventure. Advancement of science requires exploring as much as we can. In the long run even if we do not succeed we develop new technologies in other arenas. And of course we are looking for a potential plan B for when we utterly screw up life on Earth.
  • edited November -1
    Maybe they will do it right and have vacuum tube trains.
  • @Darth and SCCRENDO,
    Here's another hint about how they do it:
    https://www.aviationtoday.com/2018/07/05/aerovironment-build-mars-helicopter-nasa/
    And, rather than go off the deep end about AGW, let's do something more fun and less controversial. Let's tie it to something we all agree on (Tesla):
    If you connect the dots:
    https://teslaownersonline.com/threads/who-is-alan-cocconi-and-why-does-he-matter-to-the-modern-ev.7701/
    https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-12-05-mn-6000-story.html
    http://evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1772
    . . . you'll see that some of the Mars Helicopter comes from the same roots as Tesla!
  • edited May 2019
    @Earl and Nagin .
    Thanks for the links. The history is interesting.
  • edited May 2019
    The only reason the US went to the moon was because of the space race with Russia. There is no compelling reason to go back to the moon. Going to Mars may invoke an emotional response from Americans and be willing to pay for it. for me, the moon is been there, done that
  • edited May 2019
    Looks like we are going back to the moon
  • edited May 2019
    I think it' more interesting for researching
  • edited May 2019
    Just out on lunar base. Maybe Beso would like to finance the endeavor since cash is an issue. Good read.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/9119244/secret-nasa-plan-moon-outpost-rocket-launches/
  • edited May 2019
    Interesting article on how the earth may have gotten its water
    https://apple.news/AOoyDq6lLQl6y859Q1r15Sw
  • edited May 2019
    SCCRENDO Didn't know about that theory which seems to have more evidence. Now instead of I thank my lucky stars it will be I thank my lucky Moon.
  • edited May 2019
    Practically speaking, IMHO, the greatest obstacle to our longevity in off-world travel at this point (since we've pretty much managed to figure out workarounds for gravity (afterall, it is pretty easy to induce and sustain enough centrifugal force to suffice) is circumventing our exposure to the varying and ever increasing degrees of harmful, ultimately deadly radiation once we've breached the Earth's protective atmosphere (our second greatest obstacle, again, IMHO...did you know that a spacecraft needs to be going about 7 miles per second, or over 25,000 miles per hour, aka, "escape velocity", just to break free of the Earth's gravity and enter orbit) and managed to enter the vacuum of Space.

    Perhaps a moonbase would, in addition to providing us with a launching platform free of the hindrances of gravity, enable us to devise ways of protecting ourselves from the ravages of high dose radiation exposure by proving us with an "in-field" laboratory to test various ideas in order to find a solution?
  • edited May 2019
    For those who were curious, Is there an atmosphere on the moon?
    What little atmosphere the Moon has consists of some unusual gases, including sodium and potassium, which are not found in the atmospheres of Earth, Mars, or Venus.
  • edited May 2019
    Nothing with a gravitational pull has "no atmosphere". But the moon would not be able to hold down enough gasses to provide anything remotely considerable to an "atmosphere".
  • edited May 2019
    Andy. When we say no atmosphere we do not mean zero. But we mean negligible to the point of being worthless
  • edited May 2019
    correct. I have also not considered the radiation issue.
  • edited November -1
    Doesn't all mass exert a gravitational pull?

    Talk about a distinction without a difference.
  • edited May 2019
    Yes indeed. But the atmosphere may be negligible that it is no different from zero.
  • edited May 2019
    i have an unmeasurable amount of gravity. congrats
  • edited May 2019
    @owlegrad2, and to a lesser degree, @SCCRENDO

    That depends on what your understanding of what constitutes "mass" is.
  • edited May 2019
    @blue adept. I guess you need to explain to us.
  • edited May 2019
    @andy.connor.e

    You'd be amazed at just how many people overlook the radiation that is an inherent constituent of the vacuum of Space, probably because we're largely unaware of it given that we're protected from it by the Earth's atmosphere and supportive magnetic field so it doesn't come to mind.

    Nonetheless, there are actually three different varieties of radiation in Space, exposure to a concentration of any of them for an extended period of time, let alone ALL of them, can result in all manner of ailments and physical detriments, including death.

    So, yes, radiation exposure HAS to be a priority consideration in any thoughts of Space travel.
  • edited May 2019
    @SCCRENDO

    Just wanting to point out that an object's SIZE isn't necessarily indicative of its mass or whether it even has any at all.

    I know I've addressed this somewhere on here before....
Sign In or Register to comment.