Post by thread:[OT] Forget planets, how about a *skating* on Mars

I can't believe nobody reacted so far. I posted the message below 4 hours ago. Peter ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:05:55 +0300 (IDT) From: Peter <spam_OUTplpTakeThisOuTplp.home.org> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. <.....piclistKILLspam@spam@mit.edu> Cc: 'pic microcontroller discussion list' <PICLISTKILLspammitvma.mit.edu> Subject: RE: [OT] BREAKING NEWS: Forget planets, how about a skating ring the size of a large city on Mars ? The next Mars rover will be *skating* among dunes ;-) www.universetoday.com/am/publish/water_ice_in_cater_at_north_pole.html?2872005 http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEMGKA808BE_0.html Peter

Jinx, On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:49:07 +1200, Jinx wrote: > > I can't believe nobody reacted so far. I posted the message below 4 > > hours ago. > > Was thinking about getting out of bed at random times to check the > mail but then thought......nah Well I was out at a barbecue, trying to cook in between the rain showers... (If you don't like the weather in England, wait a bit!) so that's my excuse :-) > I like the anaglyph view at ESA. Grabbed my glasses left over from > the 3D episode of 3rd Rock From The Sun. Have great idea for pin- > up calendar > > http://www.skyimagelab.com/hapfaconmar.html I like this comment: "Conventional wisdom holds that the markings inside the crater are placed by chance by natural processes." Oh, rather than that someone on an Ecstasy binge sneaked out to Mars and drew the smiley face on it... OK! Cheers, Howard Winter St.Albans, England

part 1 639 bytes content-type:text/plain; (decoded 7bit) > > http://www.skyimagelab.com/hapfaconmar.html I think I did one better than the happy face This is a portion of M16, "The Pillars Of Creation" http://www.skyimagelab.com/hubm16pilofc.html 1/4 way down on the left pillar Could this be the face of G.. ? Piercing stars for eyes, nose, chin, moustache, shoulder, with the left cheek in profile Might be Saddam though, looks like he's wearing a beret Oooo-er BTW, I had a quick look around for other 3D images to look at with red/blue glasses. This'uns pretty good http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/multimedia/3d/red_blue/3dwall.gif part 2 2726 bytes content-type:image/jpeg; (decode) part 3 35 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii" (decoded 7bit)

Just to be clear: This is a HUGE glacier of ICE (water) on the SURFACE of the red planet. Not some little bit mixed in with the rocks underground. Right up there on the surface in living color... And MEGA TONs of it... http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEMGKA808BE_0.html I've been sort of waiting for the news agencies to pick up on this story.. And none of the US ones have... The BBC reported it http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4727847.stm As far as I can tell, NBC did not. (closest was a 2004 report about water under the south pole) ABC did not report it <infospace.abcnews.com/_1_JKTURT0GFHKEP__info.abcnws/search/web/mars% 2Bwater-ice%2Bnorth%2Bpole%2Besa > CNN did not report it <search.cnn.com/pages/search.jsp?query=mars%20water-ice%20north%20pol e%20esa > Frankly, I find that very disappointing. My concern is that it was not reported because it was the ESA that found it. I hope I'm wrong, but could it be that this shows a very sad, "not in house" problem on the part of US news agencies, at a minimum, and perhaps the US people as well? Or is there some other reason why this is not front page news? In any case, I'll send my personal congratulations to the ESA for one heck of an inspiring find. Well done! As to the importance of the find itself: I would assume this means that anyone who is willing to send humans to mars would have ready access to water without having to dig for it. If the purity of the ice is sufficient, it could also be used as a shield; allowing light to penetrate to some degree while providing protection from meteors which the atmosphere would not. Digging out a home under the ice may well be less expensive and safer than building a dome. It might be that shaping the outside of the ice could concentrate the available solar energy and allow for crops or other energy needs deep in the safety of the ground. Would the ice also provide protection from radiation? I really know very little about these issues, but I find it hard to believe that this news is not one of the most exciting things the human race has heard in many years. --- James. > {Original Message removed}

below James Newton, Host wrote: {Quote hidden}>Just to be clear: This is a HUGE glacier of ICE (water) on the SURFACE of >the red planet. Not some little bit mixed in with the rocks underground. >Right up there on the surface in living color... And MEGA TONs of it... > >http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEMGKA808BE_0.html > >I've been sort of waiting for the news agencies to pick up on this story.. >And none of the US ones have... > >The BBC reported it >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4727847.stm > >As far as I can tell, NBC did not. (closest was a 2004 report about water >under the south pole) > >ABC did not report it ><infospace.abcnews.com/_1_JKTURT0GFHKEP__info.abcnws/search/web/mars% >2Bwater-ice%2Bnorth%2Bpole%2Besa > > >CNN did not report it ><search.cnn.com/pages/search.jsp?query=mars%20water-ice%20north%20pol >e%20esa > > >Frankly, I find that very disappointing. My concern is that it was not >reported because it was the ESA that found it. I hope I'm wrong, but could >it be that this shows a very sad, "not in house" problem on the part of US >news agencies, at a minimum, and perhaps the US people as well? Or is there >some other reason why this is not front page news? > >In any case, I'll send my personal congratulations to the ESA for one heck >of an inspiring find. Well done! > > I agree, James. I am very disappointed that US news people fail to see the significance. There are so many reasons for elation that there is not enough room on the list. But the most significant one is that water is the building block for all living things and it keeps living things alive. {Quote hidden}>As to the importance of the find itself: I would assume this means that >anyone who is willing to send humans to mars would have ready access to >water without having to dig for it. > >If the purity of the ice is sufficient, it could also be used as a shield; >allowing light to penetrate to some degree while providing protection from >meteors which the atmosphere would not. Digging out a home under the ice may >well be less expensive and safer than building a dome. > > > It can be heated and allowed to solidify into liveable shapes easily >It might be that shaping the outside of the ice could concentrate the >available solar energy and allow for crops or other energy needs deep in the >safety of the ground. > >Would the ice also provide protection from radiation? > > Of course. Water is the first protective layer in nucelar power plants. >I really know very little about these issues, but I find it hard to believe >that this news is not one of the most exciting things the human race has >heard in many years. > > Agreed. and I never agree with ANYBODY, normally... --Bob >--- >James. > > > > > >>{Original Message removed}

James, On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 11:13:43 -0700, James Newton, Host wrote: >...< > I've been sort of waiting for the news agencies to pick up on this story.. > And none of the US ones have... My girlfriend (who lives in New York) reports that events outside the US are often not reported on the big networks, and she has to rely on BBC World for information on them. For example, did they report the small Russian submarine that was nearly lost this week? The 7 crew were rescued after being stuck on the bottom for several days, with only about 12hrs of air left. This time (unlike with the Kursk) the Russian government asked for help quickly, and the US and UK responded. In the end a Royal Navy ROV cut away the nets that it was tangled in, and the sub. surfaced safely yesterday. I have to say that if they don't report some events at all (those that are important but of foreign and not US interest), I would be suspicious of the information they do give! :-) Cheers, Howard Winter St.Albans, England

> For example, did they report the small Russian submarine that was > nearly lost this week? I'd heard about it from Google news and certainly on NPR. But you are right; one gets an entirely different caliber and content of news by listening to NPR or BBC World Service (which is carried by my local NPR affiliate) than one gets from commercial US news outlets. I find NPR to be about on par with the World Service in most cases. The crisis in Sudan was big news on NPR many, many months before I ever heard it mentioned from any other news source. Mike H.

On Aug 9, 2005, at 2:40 PM, Howard Winter wrote: > did they report the small Russian submarine that was nearly lost ? It was on the radio, at least in the initial stages. I don't know if it remained 'newsworthy' after it turned out to be the British who saved the day :-) TV news isn't to be trusted, period, IMO. I mean, how much news can you show in 30 minutes, anyway? People who really want to know what's going on should (and presumably do) read the papers. The local papers (San Jose Mercury) web site shows 7 stories on the russian sub, for instance (starting 5-aug, ending 8-aug.) BillW

-----Original Message----- From: .....piclist-bouncesKILLspam.....mit.edu [EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspam_OUTTakeThisOuTmit.edu] On Behalf Of William Chops Westfield Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 12:44 AM To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. Subject: Re: [OT] Forget planets, how about a *skating* on Mars ? Ice the size of a small city found in a crater by ESA probe. Greatpictures. On Aug 9, 2005, at 2:40 PM, Howard Winter wrote: > did they report the small Russian submarine that was nearly lost ? It was on the radio, at least in the initial stages It was in the newspapers here.. You DEFINITELY don't want to be in a submarine accident long enough for it to make the newspapers! (kinda reminds me of "Airplane")

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, James Newton, Host wrote: > If the purity of the ice is sufficient, it could also be used as a shield; > allowing light to penetrate to some degree while providing protection from > meteors which the atmosphere would not. Digging out a home under the ice may > well be less expensive and safer than building a dome. I don't know what your references on this are, but: 1) ice is soft as a material compared to rock/sand. It takes more ice above one's bunker to protect properly from a given threat than dirt/earth. Only plus: It stops neutrons more than dirt and may be a better insulator than rock (but worse than sand or dust). 2) ice a few meters deep is completely opaque, unless it is crystalised. Most natural ice isn't afaik. Ice made from packed snow is particularly opaque. One meter of that and you're in the darkroom. There are reports of people buried in avalanches in broad daylight who could not make out 'up' because it was totally dark only one meter below. > It might be that shaping the outside of the ice could concentrate the > available solar energy and allow for crops or other energy needs deep in the > safety of the ground. > > Would the ice also provide protection from radiation? Yes, but it depends on what is in the ice. For example a radiation shield made of tritium rich frozen water is not a good idea. Same thing for inclusions in water, like salts (Chlorine and Iodine). I have been reading up on these things recently ;-) So ... according to the following document up to 53% of the polar areas surface may be water by mass: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/maik/sols/2004/00000038/00000004/00494842 But as to that skating ring, I think that the most interesting thing would be to drill in it and look for life. If there ever was something larger than bacteria on Mars then its remains should be found in the ice. I also think that *skating* (or ice-walking) robots will be a subject of intense study in the near future. Peter