Reply Tue 26 Aug, 2003 08:54 pm
(Bus, Sci & Tech: an odd conglomeration, me thinks).
Anyway, according to NPR this afternoon, the planet Mars is closer to Earth than it has been in 56,000 years. Astronomers, professional and amateur. are pretty excited.
We went out into the cornfield a few minutes ago. Our neighbors came out, too. And we saw Mars. Maybe it was a little brighter than it was the last time we had bothered to look at it.
I went back inside and heard another NPR story: Mars will not be this close again until something like 2280. And I'm thinking: 56000 years since the last visit and only 300 until the next? How can that be?

I'm going to be amazed if anyone responds to this. It's not as dumb as bumblebee's cooking contest but...
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,291 • Replies: 19
No top replies

 
quinn1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Aug, 2003 09:04 pm
dang...I was gonna go look at that....now I dont want to go out.

Interesting that itll be back so soon so close, I didnt realize it.

Thanks rjb.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Aug, 2003 09:29 pm
Well, if you haven't taken the time to look at Mars lately, you should. It's probably slightly more interesting than contemplating your navel.
If memory serves from the story I heard, when you look at Mars you are seeing something that is 230 million miles away. That's a pretty awesome concept. And the "light" that you are seeing from Mars is from the sun, reflected a mere 3 minutes ago.
It's worth a look. -rjb-
0 Replies
 
fealola
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Aug, 2003 09:47 pm
I am scrambling at this very moment to get my telescope calibrated.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Aug, 2003 09:49 pm
I guess I'll wait until the next showing. Wink c.i.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Aug, 2003 09:50 pm
Actually, NASA will be taking pictures and showing it on the web page. c.i.
0 Replies
 
LibertyD
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Aug, 2003 09:54 pm
I've looked at it for the past few nights -- no telescope or binoculars, but even without those tools, it's amazing. Tomorrow is the day that it's at its closest, right?
0 Replies
 
fealola
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Aug, 2003 09:55 pm
No, now. Tonight. (depending on where you are.)
0 Replies
 
LibertyD
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Aug, 2003 09:57 pm
Oh...good to know -- thanks. I'll be out there to see it!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Aug, 2003 10:02 pm
The views are best from the southern states. Although it can be seen from Alaska, it'll be too close to the horizon. I think I heard south-east as the location. c.i.
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2003 10:21 am
Yep, we've seen it (no binoculars or anything) in a southerly-facing window. It is pretty big for something that normally just looks like a regular star.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2003 03:23 am
And it was very lovely and odd to see it so close - as big and bright as Venus it was - but distinctly reddish hued - you could almost see the disc with the naked eye... The Hubble photos in our newspaper this morning were glorious.

I was wondering what permutations of orbits and such were bringing it back so soon, too. I could go and look it up - but....I may just enjoy its beauty.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2003 05:02 am
My cub and I couldn't find Mars last night...there was no moon out in our neighborhood. We tried around 9:30 or 10 and then again this morning betweeen 4 am and 5 am. No luck, and I'm not used to getting up that early. grrrrrr
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2003 07:15 am
Bugger! Better luck tonight......
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2003 03:47 pm
Bi-polar: I didn't appreciate until ci's post that some parts of the world have better viewing opportunities than others. I went back to your postings to try to discern where "south of sanity" is. No luck. If you are in the viewing area during the hours you mentioned you would certainly have seen Mars.
Dlowan: I'm surprised that no one with a knowledge of astronomy has weighed in. I've already misspoken at least once. Mars is a mere 32 million miles away, not 232 million.
We all know that the universe does not rotate around earth (rjb bites his tongue, thinking about certain teenagers who live in front of our refrigerator and believe the universe revolves around them).
Anyway, take a scrap of paper and draw an ellipse. Near one end, inside the ellipse, put a dot. The dot is Earth and the ellipse is the orbit of Mars relative to Earth. So Mars swings by today and again a couple hundred years from now and then it is gone for a long, long time.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2003 09:17 pm
i am in nc.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2003 10:31 pm
RJB - the ellipse isn't doing it for me...understanding wise...
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2003 08:08 pm
Really, dlowan...let me try again but this may, as I said earlier be a completely bogus explanation. Perhaps someone else with better computer skills than I have (i.e. pretty much everyone) can draw a picture.
Take a piece of paper and, in the center place an X and label it The Sun. Then draw a circle around The Sun about an inch (oops 40 cm -or is it mm's?). Anyway the circle should be about the width of one finger away from The Sun.
Label that circle Earth's Orbit.
We have seasons because Earth, while it rotates every 24 hours, also has a little wobble relative to the sun. This means that, at some times of the year the tilt is towards the S hemisphere, creating summer in Australia and winter in the N hemisphere. Six months later, the situation is reversed and we get our summer.
We don't have extreme temperature changes (I mean thousands of degrees) because Earth's Orbit is pretty much circular: we never get too much closer or much farther away from that circle.
So we have the X representing the sun and the circle that is Earth's orbit.
Now draw an ellipse. An ellipse is a circle that has been squished down into an oval such that it is only about 3 inches high but about 6 inches wide. Draw the ellipse such that the right hand edge is only about an inch or so to the right of Earth's orbit. That will mean that most of the oval will stick out to the left. Label that as Mars' Orbit.
Now, right above the sun (the X) place an * on the
Mar's orbit ellipse and put another * on the bottom in about the same position. Label the top one as "Mars/2003" and the bottom one as "Mars/2330 or whatever I said."
If you have drawn this correctly you can see that the Mars orbit is close to us now & will be close to us again in a few hundred years but then will go away for a long time.

dlowan, I am not an astronomer. This "explanation" may turn out to be totally wrong. But this is my understanding and I wanted to try to express the concept in words that (I hope) readers can grasp. I get pissed off at computer geeks who are incapable of talking to the rest of us in language we can comprehend.
Do you understand what I'm trying to say?
Thanks, and have a nice weekend (I've got to work) -johnboy
0 Replies
 
Thok
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 12:27 am
Scientists make case that there could be life on Red Planet

Quote:
Ten million years ago it was awash with oceans of water. Now it is desert dry. But research published today shows that organic life could still be lurking on Mars.

Scientists will be poring over a slew of papers published by the teams from the US space agency Nasa reporting the results garnered from the two rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, that landed at the beginning of this year and are still exploring opposite sides of the Red Planet.

Even before today's formal publication in the journal Science, many scientists were abuzz over the earliest of the findings, which suggested that water once flowed all over the surface, and is now sequestered beneath it, probably still in liquid form. Furthermore the gas methane, normally associated with biological activity, has been detected in the atmosphere.

"Their findings such as sedimentary rocks [which indicate oceanic activity] are very exciting," said Professor Colin Pillinger, of the Open University, who led the team that developed the European Space Agency's Beagle 2 lander.

"And they are also saying that there's methane in the atmosphere there - which must mean a continuous supply, or it would disappear. My preference is that [methane] is generated through a biological supply - even the reprocessing of already-dead biological material by another living source."

For Professor Pillinger the findings lend extra frustration to the loss of the Beagle 2 lander, last heard of heading towards the Martian atmosphere on Christmas Eve. But he declined to express regret: "We'll get there one day," he said. "I wrote a letter to Nasa three weeks ago suggesting a Beagle 3 lander as a stand-alone element to be included with their 2009 Mars Science Laboratory mission. " He has yet to hear back from the agency.

The work represents the most thorough geological examination ever of a planet other than Earth, offering key insights into how its development resembled and departed from that of our own.


complete report

Let´s fly to Mars and look probably on the monads....
0 Replies
 
Thok
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2004 01:18 am
British scientists push for new Mars mission by 2009

Quote:
British scientists and engineers are pushing for a new Beagle 2 mission to Mars by 2007, or 2009 at the latest. Although the first British attempt to land on another planet failed when the tiny spacecraft reached Mars on Christmas Day and fell silent, the Beagle team still believes it could work.

Colin Pillinger, the Open University scientist who dreamed up the venture in 1998 and pushed it to a £50m reality in five years, revealed yesterday that he had invited the US space agency Nasa to consider Beagle 2 as an instrument for its Martian mobile science laboratory in 2009.

"It could have worked. And it should have worked," he said. "It didn't work, and we don't know the reason why. But there is no reason to believe that there was any fault in the technology of this mission which wouldn't allow us to take it to Mars if the circumstances were right.

"We achieved 81% of the work of 20 months in this project. As far as I am concerned, there is no reason why we couldn't launch a demonstrator lander which carried the science of Beagle 2, and build it in time for a 2007 launch.

"I think a 2007 launch can be achieved if a decision is taken during 2004. This is exploration. Things go wrong. We would never fly Beagle 2 as it is. We would see where we could improve it. I will stick my neck out and say that the team is looking at whatever opportunities exist for the future. We are looking at all opportunities and every opportunity."

Beagle 2 was a phenomenon in British space science. It was proposed, almost off the cuff, by Professor Pillinger after Nasa scientists in 1996 claimed to have found evidence of ancient microbial life in a meteorite known to have come from the red planet. US scientists began to design two robot geologists, both of which landed successfully in January.


full article
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Mars
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/17/2025 at 02:49:03