New Poll: Moon Yes, Mars No

[spacester]

More sources?<br /><br />No, I'm afraid not. That's kinda the point behind my posting that white paper again and again: that's about the sum of the study that's been done so far!!!<br /><br />Of course, I did my in-depth research over two years ago now, so maybe some googling would turn something up.<br /><br />It would be nice to see something newer than that but just as comprehensive. But who would have been working on such a thing? No one that I know of.<br /><br />IMO deflection will be the way to go. Multiple ion engines strategically placed and fired in coordination, tweaking the orbit into a safe one. We're talking NEAs here of course. Main belt asteroids pose no real threat, they're not going anywhere.<br /><br />IMO there's not a darn thing we can do about a comet headed our way. (Except for something like, oh I dunno, a Mars Colony or something <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> ). We can't see 'em coming in time (they're very dark), the energy involved in defelcting it is huge and basically its just a matter of how you kiss your hind end goodbye.<br /><br />Our defence against Comets is Jupiter. It is quite remarkable to read about how its gravitational influence protects our planet from cometary impacts. It's so uncanny when you do the math that it's one of the emerging arguments for intelligent design. (I know I know, let's not go there.)<br /><br />The bottom line is that the comet's best chance of hitting us is on its very first pass from its long storage in the outer Solar System. After the first pass, Jupiter and Saturn will have perturbed the orbit. Random timing, random results, but it works out that the odds of colliding with an inner planet, especially Earth, go down with each pass (and they were already very low odds). Now if you accept the proposition (speculation?) that the solar system is old enough to have a very low chance of seeing new comets, comets become a low priority hazard, especially if there's not a darn thing you can do about them anyway. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mental_avenger]

<font color="yellow">IMO deflection will be the way to go. Multiple ion engines strategically placed and fired in coordination, tweaking the orbit into a safe one. </font><br /><br />That would work. All we have to do is figure out how to stop the rotation. In fact, stopping the rotation might be more difficult than the actual push to deflect it. Remember also, deflecting does not necessarily mean laterally. Slightly slowing or speeding up the asteroid will also change the intersect point.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">IMO there's not a darn thing we can do about a comet headed our way............We can't see 'em coming in time (they're very dark) </font><br /><br />That is a good argument for having detectors out at Mars orbit at least. The paper mentioned the arguement against outer orbit detectors was the increased area of space to search. But multiple detectors of less power should do a better job. Not all comets are necessarily large, but it is assumed they are very loosely held together. As for deflecting them, perhaps concentrated heating on one side would form gas jets that would alter their orbit. <br /><br /><font color="yellow"> (Except for something like, oh I dunno, a Mars Colony or something <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> ).</font><br /><br />Hmmmm...........not a bad idea.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">The bottom line is that the comet's best chance of hitting us is on its very first pass from its long storage in the outer Solar System. After the first pass, Jupiter and Saturn will have perturbed the orbit. </font><br /><br />Doesn't that depend entirely on the positions of the gas giants when the comet comes through? If they are on the far side of the Sun, they would have no real effect.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Now if you accept the proposition (speculation?) that the solar system is old enough to have a very low chance of seeing new comets..................yellow]<br /><br />IF the Oor</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>

 

[spacester]

Yeah, stopping the rotation will likely be the trickiest part. If you could control the thrusters well enough, you could fire them sequentially, all in the same direction, as it tumbles.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Doesn't that depend entirely on the positions of the gas giants when the comet comes through? If they are on the far side of the Sun, they would have no real effect. </font><br /><br />So one would think. But it turns out to be not that simple and is much more subtle an effect than you would expect.<br /><br />It's one of the paradoxes of solar system dynamics: Orbits are very stable within a certain range of parameters, but in fact the precise trajectory is constantly being preturbed.<br /><br />A comet entering the inner solar system will be affected by the two gas giants and the ice giants as well. Not all of them are likely to be on the opposite side of the system the whole time time comet passes through. One of them will tweak it enough to start a "chain reaction" (mathematically speaking only) of probabalistic "herding" of comets into safe orbits. It has a lot to do with resonance frequencies of the outer planets. The math itself is way over my head.<br /><br />But in an idealized model of the effect shown through simulations, a comet would be most influenced by Neptune, then Uranus and on in, over time as it orbits the Sun.<br /><br />Basically, a lot of the time the outermost planets "protect" us, and if one gets by them, Jupiter will most likely swallow it up or put it in an eternally safe orbit.<br /><br />It's very strange stuff, but that's my understanding: Jupiter protects us from comets. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scottb50]

Jupiter may protect us by intercepting a comet, but in the same regard a near approach would alter the trajectory somewhat, just as it does a spacecraft, in a planned way. It could just as easily aim an object at us as away from us, because it doesn't operate in a planned way. <br /><br />Whether a comet is making it's first orbit, or not, is another story, we have only recorded observation information for a few thousand years and precisely cataloged it for the last few hundred, maybe it is the first time it has been observed and recorded, but not the first time it has orbited the Sun. A comet could very well be on the far side of the Sun, from Earth in one orbit and not be detected. A lot of recurring comets do have defined orbits and those found have their orbit plotted, which should give a pretty good clue as to how far they orbit from the Sun and an idea of how many are out their. That would also lead one to believe that they are not spit out of the Ort Cloud, but have been around since the birth of the Solar System. <br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[k24anson]

One immediate tangible reward from a Mars and or Moon base is to have the youth in the most contentious cultures residing as immigrants in the Western world, and those in their own lands to actually read in a newspaper, to see on the television and hear on streets and alleyways how the Americans have another star on their flag, a big one. The youth in these said contentious cultures realize that big round, white moon they see in the night sky is another "part" of the United States. Mars when we do colonize it deserves an entirely new flag, designed to depict just how (the reader is to insert an appropriate adjective here) we are as a nation, in comparison. And this Mars flag stands side by side with Old Glory whenever the flag is flown. <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />This is political capital we could spend to either have them love us more to want to then be like us, or they'll hate us all the more. <img src="/images/icons/mad.gif" /> Either way, we got the moon and Mars first, not them. They can want to be a part of the world, or lump it. If I was a better world politician now I could express these ideas here better. As it is,I don't really care what polls say, everyone just forget the bleak and barren moon to head for first. I say (again), Mars is the jewel, the prize to colonize first. Any rewarding reasons to spend more resources to colonize the moon can be applied to Mars. Just imagine an atmosphere like Earth ... on Mars!Totally forget about the Moon. Mars is the trophy prize. Absolutely. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <span style="color:#000080" class="Apple-style-span">Stay focused. Go slow. Keep it simple.</span> </div>

 

[dan_casale]

>> (Except for something like, oh I dunno, a Mars Colony or something ).<br /> />Hmmmm...........not a bad idea.<br /><br />This is of course the biggest reason to go to Mars instead of the Moon. But it would be nice if the colony could provide other benefits. It is a bit altruistic to think that Earth will put a colony on Mars just for survival. It would be a lot like playing the game "Which 10 people do you take into the nuclear shelter with you?" I would have to assume that the politics would be staggering and it might even start a few wars.<br /><br />No if we go it must appear to be for other reasons.

 

[qbollv]

Here is my take on America's Space Program. First and foremost, I believe it is a foregone conclusion that most Americans believe we need to expand into Outer Space. But we need to learn more about conservation and renewable power sources. If we take our current modus operendi to other planets, we will be causing the same damage there as here. A new Resource Policy needs to be implemented regarding this fact.<br /><br />That said, quite frankly, we are decades behind where we should be! There is risk in space exploration. There will be casualties but much like joining the military, our Astronauts know the risks and willingly embrace them for the furthering of mankind. While I understand the need to "fall-back and regroup" after a tragedy such as the Space Shuttles <i>Columbia</i> and <i>Challenger</i>, too much worry is voiced over future missions. I say, mourn the dead then get on with it. Risk is PART of the game and we learn from them. I doubt very seriously those that tragicly lost their lives in this endeavor would truly be pleased with how much is expended on them. Solutions to avoiding mishaps such as these can be obtained much more readily, more funding must be appropriated. However, unfortunately, at the risk of a political statement, our Reps in office need to get their heads out of their wallets and personal interests and start thinking about those they represent as well as their own descendants! Decisions they make today will affect future generations. <br /><br />The Space Program should NEVER have been scrubbed after Apollo 17! Anyone can see that we have lost momentum in a very detrimental way. Still using out-dated technology to get out there. To be honest, I wonder if now it is "too little, too late."<br /><br />I say, Moon YES, Mars YES! We need to send people to planets. While a robotic survey mission may be necessary, we've had countless missions to Mars yet still no real plans to send men there. The technology is there to researc

 

[dan_casale]

As this thread appears to have died, I have updated the colonization document with all the information I could from this thread. There are still a number of unanswered questions.<br />1) Martian resources and how to extract them.<br />2) Differences between Martian and Lunar equipment. We started to address thermal managment, but it is still incomplete.<br />3) The equipment list is still incomplete.<br />4) The personnel list is still incomplete.<br /><br /><br />Good thread everyone. Take a break and I'll see you on the next colonization thread.....<br />