"Surely I'm not the only one thinking spiceblows..." -- a commenter on that page, Melissa Swanson
Surely I'm not the only one thinking "Shadow ships! Aiiieee!"
Are Those Spidery Black Things On Mars Dangerous?
111–120 of 122 posts
Re: Are Those Spidery Black Things On Mars Dangerous?
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who said computers couldn't be made out of meat?
I'd say we are proof that they can be. ;) Saying that humans are pattern matching engines seems equivalent to saying VW Bugs are internal combustion engines to me though.
I meant the "essence" of humanity, as in "what separates us from the animals."
That is what it means to be uniquely human: to match patterns, overzealously.
Re: Are Those Spidery Black Things On Mars Dangerous?
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a combination of a scientific and engineering limitation. The Curiosity rover's power source generates an average of about 1/6th of a horsepower of electrical power. In practice this is used to trickle charge the batteries of the rover over night and provide slightly higher total power during the day for driving, even so we're talking about a fraction of a horse power to drive a nearly one tonne vehicle the size…
How much of this is also a reflection of autonomous navigation, risk avoidance, and proceeding at a deliberate pace? While we've got vehicles on Earth which can navigate established highways at, well, highway speed (Google cars), the established road network on Mars is substantially less extensive, and the downside risks (in terms of mission outcome) of even a small mishap on Mars would be very high. So: for both eng…
Another reason why the rovers are slower than cars: cars have air-breathing engines. On Mars, your propulsion system needs to be totally self-contained, or else solar powered.
Re: Are Those Spidery Black Things On Mars Dangerous?
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd say we are proof that they can be. ;) Saying that humans are pattern matching engines seems equivalent to saying VW Bugs are internal combustion engines to me though.
I meant the "essence" of humanity, as in "what separates us from the animals." That is what it means to be uniquely human: to match patterns, overzealously.
Most animals are pattern matchers. Overzealous ones at that. Our specialty is abstraction and formal logic.
Re: Are Those Spidery Black Things On Mars Dangerous?
#115Depends on your point of view I suppose, all of Mars is dangerous (100% lethal!) if you're a human.
Unlike Tellus where nothing is lethal.
Re: Are Those Spidery Black Things On Mars Dangerous?
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not literally a plant? Like leafy, relies on water, comes from a small seed, reproduces via pollen/wind, based on a cell structure. We have plants in the desert here on Earth that blossom once every X years or decades. Is there a reason such a "plant" could not have survived the harsh later years of mars post surface water? Bonus idea: if these are plants relying on ground water, their location would give away th…
"Lithops", or stone plants, fascinate me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithops
Ok, those are some cool plants. One data bit in favor of the plant hypothesis would be the methane blooms that occur on the planet, but sadly that has a more mundane explanation as well : http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120531112349.ht...
Re: Are Those Spidery Black Things On Mars Dangerous?
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are there so slow? Is this an engineering decision or a limitation of the environment they need to operate in?
It's a combination of a scientific and engineering limitation. The Curiosity rover's power source generates an average of about 1/6th of a horsepower of electrical power. In practice this is used to trickle charge the batteries of the rover over night and provide slightly higher total power during the day for driving, even so we're talking about a fraction of a horse power to drive a nearly one tonne vehicle the size…
Why can't they just use nuclear power? Didn't the viking probes from the 70's use that? I might be wrong, but I thought that curiosity actually did use nuclear.
Re: Are Those Spidery Black Things On Mars Dangerous?
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a combination of a scientific and engineering limitation. The Curiosity rover's power source generates an average of about 1/6th of a horsepower of electrical power. In practice this is used to trickle charge the batteries of the rover over night and provide slightly higher total power during the day for driving, even so we're talking about a fraction of a horse power to drive a nearly one tonne vehicle the size…
Why can't they just use nuclear power? Didn't the viking probes from the 70's use that? I might be wrong, but I thought that curiosity actually did use nuclear.
Like the Viking probes, Curiosity uses the heat from natural decay, not fission. It's a much more foolproof system than a reactor, but it only generates 110W, meaning it needs batteries to handle bursts of demand over 110W.
Re: Are Those Spidery Black Things On Mars Dangerous?
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a combination of a scientific and engineering limitation. The Curiosity rover's power source generates an average of about 1/6th of a horsepower of electrical power. In practice this is used to trickle charge the batteries of the rover over night and provide slightly higher total power during the day for driving, even so we're talking about a fraction of a horse power to drive a nearly one tonne vehicle the size…
Why can't they just use nuclear power? Didn't the viking probes from the 70's use that? I might be wrong, but I thought that curiosity actually did use nuclear.
Curiosity does use a nuclear power source (an RTG) but it only provides a little over 100 Watts of power. As I said, the primary use of the RTG is not to drive the rover but to power the batteries over night to drive the rover during the day. Even so, this still amounts to less than one horsepower available to drive a nearly one tonne vehicle.
Re: Are Those Spidery Black Things On Mars Dangerous?
#120A good image of the formations is on Wikipedia: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/PIA11858_...
That looks so much like mold.
I agree, that particular image really reminds me of roots of some sort (though obviously if you zoom in, they're not really roots). However, in this other picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mars_Global_Surveyor_1.jpg the structure really looks more like a Diffusion Limited Aggegrate ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion-limited_aggregation ), which can also be generated by non-living chemical processes.
I'm not sure if these two pictures are of the same phenomenon, actually?