|
Post by dan1 on Feb 18, 2021 11:33:00 GMT
NASA live stream begins 19:15 with landing scheduled for 20:55 (UK times): "Perseverance" would be my choice of name if I were going to set up a new P2P outfit
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,594
Likes: 4,182
|
Post by agent69 on Feb 18, 2021 12:53:02 GMT
NASA live stream begins 19:15 with landing scheduled for 20:55 (UK times): "Perseverance" would be my choice of name if I were going to set up a new P2P outfit I'm not a fan of the vast sums of money which are wasted on space exploration, but the lander (which looks like it was invented by Caractacus Potts) may well be worth a look later this evening.
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Feb 18, 2021 13:17:36 GMT
NASA live stream begins 19:15 with landing scheduled for 20:55 (UK times): "Perseverance" would be my choice of name if I were going to set up a new P2P outfit I'm not a fan of the vast sums of money which are wasted on space exploration, but the lander (which looks like it was invented by Caractacus Potts) may well be worth a look later this evening. Can I ask why you think it's wasted? I guess you're not against R&D spending but just that on space exploration? I think NASA's budget is pretty small beer given the size of the US economy and besides a large proportion of that is aligned with defence spending (which is vast). I do think here in the UK we're suffering from a lack of spending on R&D from many governments of different colours. I'd argue that we want to be one of those countries with high R&D expenditure as a proportion of GDP. From the viewpoint of someone in the UK we get a pretty good deal.... we get gems like this for free Regardless, enjoy it
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,193
Likes: 6,001
|
Post by registerme on Feb 18, 2021 13:34:02 GMT
I disagree, fundamentally, with the notion that money spent on space exploration is wasted. If humanity is to have any long term future it's up there and out there. Virtually infinite free energy, and virtually infinite resources - you address a lot of problems with that. We just have to be able to exploit / leverage it. To be sure, it will be an expensive, dangerous, and risky undertaking, but we've really got absolutely no choice in the matter.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 8,970
Likes: 4,801
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 18, 2021 14:49:31 GMT
Without the space race, we would not have GPS, we would not have satellite comms, we would not a fraction of the information we have on climate change... etc etc etc.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,594
Likes: 4,182
|
Post by agent69 on Feb 18, 2021 19:45:24 GMT
I disagree, fundamentally, with the notion that money spent on space exploration is wasted. If humanity is to have any long term future it's up there and out there. Virtually infinite free energy, and virtually infinite resources - you address a lot of problems with that. We just have to be able to exploit / leverage it. To be sure, it will be an expensive, dangerous, and risky undertaking, but we've really got absolutely no choice in the matter. Looks like I'm in a minority of one again.
We've been sending probes to mars for over 50 years, and the one that hopefully lands safely tonight will have taken about 6 months to get there, which is the same amount of time as Mariner 4 in 1965. And therein lies the problem.
I'm fasinated by the origin of the universe, the ultimate fate of the universe, and all things in between (10 stars in the universe for every grain of sand on the planet, that's a seriously big number). However, the basic method of propelling space craft on their merry way hasn't changed in 80 year. Who cares whether there is life on mars, or on the next habitable planet 10 light years away, because it just takes too long to get there. I am a firm believer that there are billions of inhabited planets out there, but who can afford to wait 43,000 years sitting on a space craft waiting to get there. Even if you could send a message at the speed of light what would be the point? You send a message saying is there anybody out there, and 20 years later you get a reply saying yes.
I don't have a problem with R & D, but don't waste the money on exploring the solar system. Use it to develop a propulsion system that allows you to travel 100 times the speed of light, because that's what's required if you want to go further than Skegness for your holidays.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 8,970
Likes: 4,801
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 18, 2021 20:39:20 GMT
We've been sending probes to mars for over 50 years, and the one that hopefully lands safely tonight will have taken about 6 months to get there, which is the same amount of time as Mariner 4 in 1965. And therein lies the problem. Mars hasn't got any closer to Earth? On balance, I think that's generally perceived as quite a good thing. 205 million km. 47,000km/h average for 180 days. About 40x the speed of sound. If taking months to get somewhere was a showstopper, mankind would never have crossed the Atlantic. China to UK by container ship takes about a month and a half, and we seem quite happy to factor that into logistics. I think there's a few physicists that might like a little chat with you. Light from the moon takes 1.3 seconds to get to Earth. Mars takes about 3 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Feb 18, 2021 21:00:48 GMT
The Rover has landed safely
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Feb 18, 2021 21:17:44 GMT
We've been sending probes to mars for over 50 years, and the one that hopefully lands safely tonight will have taken about 6 months to get there, which is the same amount of time as Mariner 4 in 1965. And therein lies the problem. Mars hasn't got any closer to Earth? On balance, I think that's generally perceived as quite a good thing. 205 million km. 47,000km/h average for 180 days. About 40x the speed of sound. If taking months to get somewhere was a showstopper, mankind would never have crossed the Atlantic. China to UK by container ship takes about a month and a half, and we seem quite happy to factor that into logistics. I think there's a few physicists that might like a little chat with you. Light from the moon takes 1.3 seconds to get to Earth. Mars takes about 3 minutes.My bold. It currently takes 11 minutes 22 seconds for light to travel from Mars to Earth. It would be 3 minutes at their closest and 21 minutes when they are most distant.
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Feb 18, 2021 21:25:39 GMT
Mars hasn't got any closer to Earth? On balance, I think that's generally perceived as quite a good thing. 205 million km. 47,000km/h average for 180 days. About 40x the speed of sound. If taking months to get somewhere was a showstopper, mankind would never have crossed the Atlantic. China to UK by container ship takes about a month and a half, and we seem quite happy to factor that into logistics. I think there's a few physicists that might like a little chat with you. Light from the moon takes 1.3 seconds to get to Earth. Mars takes about 3 minutes.My bold. It currently takes 11 minutes 22 seconds for light to travel from Mars to Earth. It would be 3 minutes at their closest and 21 minutes when they are most distant. If we are being pedantic should it not be 'light to reflect back towards'?
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 8,970
Likes: 4,801
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 18, 2021 21:31:15 GMT
My bold. It currently takes 11 minutes 22 seconds for light to travel from Mars to Earth. It would be 3 minutes at their closest and 21 minutes when they are most distant. If we are being pedantic should it not be 'light to reflect back towards'? Might be some bloke with a big torch. If we don't go there, we'll never know.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Feb 18, 2021 21:33:52 GMT
My bold. It currently takes 11 minutes 22 seconds for light to travel from Mars to Earth. It would be 3 minutes at their closest and 21 minutes when they are most distant. If we are being pedantic should it not be 'light to reflect back towards'?If I was being particularly pedantic, I'd say that was incorrect. As it is not light that originated from earth, it can't be "reflecting back towards us", as it didn't come from here in the first place. The original statement is perfectly correct: it takes x period of time for light to travel from Mars to Earth: its origin, whatever that is for any particular photon in question, is not material to that fact.
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Feb 18, 2021 21:40:59 GMT
If we are being pedantic should it not be 'light to reflect back towards'? If I was being particularly pedantic, I'd say that was incorrect. As it is not light that originated from earth, it can't be "reflecting back towards us", as it didn't come from here in the first place. The original statement is perfectly correct: it takes x period of time for light to travel from Mars to Earth: its origin, whatever that is for any particular photon in question, is not material to that fact. You have 'overpedantid'. its simple mirror theory. As in if you look in a mirror standing next to (or slightly in front in this scenario) somebody, you see their reflection. Their image is reflected back towards you. Edit, Guy with big torch is still possible though.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Feb 18, 2021 22:07:56 GMT
If I was being particularly pedantic, I'd say that was incorrect. As it is not light that originated from earth, it can't be "reflecting back towards us", as it didn't come from here in the first place. The original statement is perfectly correct: it takes x period of time for light to travel from Mars to Earth: its origin, whatever that is for any particular photon in question, is not material to that fact. You have 'overpedantid'. its simple mirror theory. As in if you look in a mirror standing next to (or slightly in front in this scenario) somebody, you see their reflection. Their image is reflected back towards you. Edit, Guy with big torch is still possible though.I raise your over-pendantism. It can't be a guy. Alien life form with a big torch perhaps, but not a guy.
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Feb 18, 2021 22:13:45 GMT
You have 'overpedantid'. its simple mirror theory. As in if you look in a mirror standing next to (or slightly in front in this scenario) somebody, you see their reflection. Their image is reflected back towards you. Edit, Guy with big torch is still possible though.I raise your over-pendantism. It can't be a guy. Alien life form with a big torch perhaps, but not a guy. I have to concede on that one, adrianc was quite specific the species was to be identified as 'bloke'. I clearly just went with a generic variant in error
|
|