1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Watch NASA’s Perseverance Rover Land on Mars! This Thursday 18 Feb :-)

Discussion in 'General Chit Chat' started by aposhark, Feb 15, 2021.

  1. aposhark
    Offline

    aposhark Well-Known Member Lifetime Member

    Can you get them to pass over in an hour or two - I've just seen this post ;)
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. Anon220806
    Offline

    Anon220806 Well-Known Member

    So they reckon there are large volumes of water locked up in the bedrock of Mars. And there is a lot of whispers about a potential water table beneath the surface.
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2021
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. oss
    Offline

    oss Somewhere Staff Member

    There has been speculation on this for a long time, one major issue is where is the methane coming from is it geochemical or is it life somewhere in below surface water.

    What a prize it would be to discover large reserves on the planet, amongst other things if you could get at the water you can make rocket fuel just with the aid of sunlight (and quite a bit of infrastructure) and you could support a colony it would make the planet liveable and potentially give us our species the second home we desperately need to avoid the end of the life in the event of an extinction level event occurring on Earth.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Anon220806
    Offline

    Anon220806 Well-Known Member

    My understanding is that there will possibly be a lot of water in the bedrock itself, below the surface. Just like it is on Earth. Certain sedimentary rocks on Earth contain water. But they are also talking about water locked up in some minerals. And then there is the potential for free water too.
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2021
  5. Anon220806
    Offline

    Anon220806 Well-Known Member

    I didn’t realise quite how much speculation there has been or the nature of it. Not everything hits the news, TV or the papers.

    Googling reveals a lot that we wouldn’t normally be aware of. I have been surprised to see that a geological time scale is already in place such as here:

    https://sci.esa.int/web/mars-express/-/55481-the-ages-of-mars

    Also referenced in Wikipedia. And this paper for example, which of course is speculation, sums up the thought processes behind the entire mission:

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2017JE005478

    I like the way they include a plain language summary:

    “This paper reviews the rocks and minerals on Mars that could potentially host fossils or other signs of ancient life preserved since Mars was warmer and wetter billions of years ago. We apply recent results from the study of Earth's fossil record and fossilization processes, and from the geological exploration of Mars by rovers and orbiters, in order to select the most favoured targets for astrobiological missions to Mars. We conclude that mudstones rich in silica and iron‐bearing clays* currently offer the best hope of finding fossils on Mars and should be prioritized, but that several other options warrant further research. We also recommend further experimental work on how fossilization processes operate under conditions analogous to early Mars.”

    The thrust of the paper confirms my assertion that rock samples are everything in this mission. Until they get some under the microscope then it will remain speculation. They have picked a good spot and got the kit on the surface. Now they need to cut some core and either send people up there to study them or get them back down to Earth for the same purpose.

    * Note the reference to muds and clays. Their great hope of finding these is in the fan deposits just inside what remains of the crater lake.
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2021
  6. Anon220806
    Offline

    Anon220806 Well-Known Member

    I see Ingenuity has just completed its maiden flight on Mars. I am looking forward to some good images in due course.
  7. aposhark
    Offline

    aposhark Well-Known Member Lifetime Member

  8. Jim
    Offline

    Jim Well-Known Member Trusted Member

    Ironic that India are running out of oxygen and are involved with rocket science.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  9. Anon220806
    Offline

    Anon220806 Well-Known Member

    Thought to have been broken down by the freeze thaw action of ice / water.

    773E94B1-4833-4178-BB7E-151606C0AB34.jpeg
    • Like Like x 1
  10. oss
    Offline

    oss Somewhere Staff Member

    We had huge disparities in the availability of advanced technologies back in the industrial revolution as well, developing nations can be exploring the limits of technology while the majority of its population is still relatively poor.

    Look at China a nation that was largely rural and peasant based 50 years ago but it still had the capability to develop Nuclear weapons and ICBM's and also India had Nukes as far back as 1974 and Fusion Nukes from 1998, I don't think it is fair to say that they should ignore frontiers of Science and Technology until they sort out their politics and treatment of the masses, I don't think any country has ever done that and I don't see any way to compel them to do that.
  11. oss
    Offline

    oss Somewhere Staff Member

    It almost looks new, fascinating, little weathering on the crack which I suppose is the result of having an extremely thin atmosphere for a very long time.
  12. Anon220806
    Offline

    Anon220806 Well-Known Member

  13. Anon220806
    Offline

    Anon220806 Well-Known Member

    So they have been having trouble getting a core on Mars.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58148756

    This could easily be because the rock isn’t well cemented. Either loose or weakly cemented. Or because the coring device is struggling to allow the cored rock into the barrel or tube (jammed) and has ground down the remainder.
  14. aposhark
    Offline

    aposhark Well-Known Member Lifetime Member

    Well, it is time to take the telescope seriously now, Druk1.
    My son wanted me to look at the stars last week when we had an amazingly clear, star-filled view.
    I went inside to get my camera and tripod and by the time I got outside again, we couldn't see diddly squat.

    Do you have a telescope?

    Does anyone here have any interest in the skies and beyond?
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2021
    • Informative Informative x 1
  15. Druk1
    Offline

    Druk1 Well-Known Member

    I don't have a telescope, I have a spotting scope, a pair of binoculars, and an image intensifying night sight all bought when I lived on Gibraltar.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  16. aposhark
    Offline

    aposhark Well-Known Member Lifetime Member

    I am looking at a Aomekie Telescope and laser collimator on Amazon but dallying as there is a Sky-Watcher Skyliner-200P Classic Parabolic Dobsonian for £420 at Wex. (No tripod though - perhaps I can use my own.
    https://www.wexphotovideo.com/sky-watcher-skyliner-200p-classic-parabolic-dobsonian-telescope-10565/

    I am looking to find a friendly forum like ours to ask many questions.
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2021
    • Informative Informative x 1
  17. oss
    Offline

    oss Somewhere Staff Member

    Have you got binoculars Mike, the best place to start anything in Astronomy is with a good pair of 7x50 binoculars, the low magnification is best because the shake from hands is much less obvious also the wider angle view makes it easier to find some star groups, you can get away with 10x50 binoculars but they have much more pronounced shake.

    This was old Patrick Moore's first advice to anyone getting into astronomy.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  18. Jim
    Offline

    Jim Well-Known Member Trusted Member

    I have good uninterrupted view from the 3rd floor of my house, facing East but North I have light pollution from Dumaguete City. I go up there and see if I can recognize the planets and stars, it's nice and cool with a bottle of light beer. I have also a decent view from the back bedroom window, I like to look at Venus as it descends behind the mountain (West)
  19. aposhark
    Offline

    aposhark Well-Known Member Lifetime Member

    Thanks for that, Jim.

    I bought the kids a pair of Olympus 8x40 binoculars a few years ago, Jim.
    They were reasonably priced and I was encouraging my son to help me see more detail when I got the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 out and onto the 7D.

    It seems that stargazing in our country is hindered by cloud cover and I don't know if paying for a more expensive scope will be worth the money because of the cloud problem.
    I am not clear if telescopes can see through the clouds very well.
    I know you have some good photos of the moon. How many nights did you wait for good visibility?
  20. oss
    Offline

    oss Somewhere Staff Member

    There are a few basic rules about the minimum optics needed, again from old Patrick but he was absolutely right, the 50 mm objective lens size for binoculars is the minimum size needed to gather enough light to make enough stars visible to make the sky interesting, narrower objectives are best for things like birds.

    The second important rule is that there is little point in buying a refracting telescope with an aperture of less than three inches for much the same reason and for a Newtonian reflector you want a mirror of at least 6 inches, anything below those guidelines is usually disappointing.

    Crisp clear nights are best, heavy cloud cover is generally impossible to get through and broken cloud just gets frustrating as you keep losing the view particularly of a subject like the moon.

    The moon is obviously the best object for us to view as it is pretty big and a decent telescope is going to let you see a lot of detail, again Patrick used to advise that for serious viewing a 3 inch refractor was the minimum but 4 inch refractor was much better for the moon, while it might not seem that there is much difference between a 70mm objective and 76.2 mm (3 inch) there is actually quite a difference in light gathering power (f-stop-number basically).

    I should get out and take some more shots as mine are very old and at the time I did not have the best of telephoto lenses for my camera at that time.

    Where I lived in Scotland was a few miles from direct light pollution, I was 4 miles from Port Glasgow and if it was a nice cold clear night I would just get the camera and tripod out and have a go but later I bought a Celestron (second hand) from Quiggs in Glasgow.

    [​IMG]

    This was a 125mm f10 schmidt cassegrain type which was actually slightly too small a mirror, it did disappoint a bit but I was able to get those pictures all those years ago.

    [​IMG]

    The key thing for me was that the mount was pretty good (in the first picture) at the time although I could also use the scope on my camera tripod the camera tripod I had was not great.

    It's all a little bit harder than it looks Mike and very easy to waste money on something that would be disappointing, most smaller scopes are really only good for daylight viewing subjects, and the focal length is also important for astronomical subjects as that determines the angle of view, my Celestron had an effective focal length of 1.25 metres and that was just a fraction too narrow and meant I could not get the whole moon in the frame as in this shot.

    Also while the Celestron was not bad it was not the sharpest mirror, my camera lenses were much better but didn't have the reach to give good pixel coverage on the 8 megapixel camera I had at the time.
    [​IMG]
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2021

Share This Page