1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.ASTRO.AMATEUR

  • Uranus mission most important thing to consider?

    From RichA@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 19 11:22:32 2022
    Personally, I can think of better uses of limited funds. This will likely gives clues as to why so many of these type of planets exist, but we should be concentrating on the potentially habitable worlds, not gas-giants.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-61155725

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From W@21:1/5 to RichA on Tue Apr 19 12:41:13 2022
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 2:22:34 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
    Personally, I can think of better uses of limited funds. This will likely gives clues as to why so many of these type of planets exist, but we should be concentrating on the potentially habitable worlds, not gas-giants.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-61155725

    It's a priority because there is a launch window in 9-10 years time, just about enough time to get the hardware designed and built.

    Spending resources on this does not preclude doing other projects too.

    Mars isn't going anywhere.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris L Peterson@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 19 13:21:58 2022
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 11:22:32 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    Personally, I can think of better uses of limited funds. This will likely gives clues as to why so many of these type of planets exist, but we should be concentrating on the potentially habitable worlds, not gas-giants.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-61155725

    There are no human habitable worlds. There are a few places in the
    Solar System where we might find life, and those have active missions
    or missions in the works. One of the most important questions we're
    still working on is the formation of planetary systems. So a detailed
    look at another gas giant makes very good sense.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Quadibloc@21:1/5 to Chris L Peterson on Tue Apr 19 15:46:39 2022
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 1:22:02 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

    There are no human habitable worlds.

    Mars is a world that can be settled by people. Not that terraforming it would be practical with foreseeable technology, but people can live in underground habitats, with the surface not being so inhospitable that they can't go to the surface to set up solar collection mirrors, to collect resources, and so on.

    Of course, much the same could be said of the Moon, but Mars does have
    more resources, and the gravity there is not quite as low, although it is significantly lower than that of Earth, which is still a problem.

    John Savard

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Quadibloc@21:1/5 to RichA on Tue Apr 19 15:46:05 2022
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:22:34 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
    Personally, I can think of better uses of limited funds. This will likely gives clues as to why so many of these type
    of planets exist, but we should be concentrating on the potentially habitable worlds, not gas-giants.

    The temperature of Uranus recently changed suddenly in an unexplained fashion!

    So maybe we will discover something on Uranus that will help to save Earth
    from global warming!

    John Savard

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris L Peterson@21:1/5 to jsavard@ecn.ab.ca on Tue Apr 19 22:56:29 2022
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 15:46:05 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
    <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:22:34 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
    Personally, I can think of better uses of limited funds. This will likely gives clues as to why so many of these type
    of planets exist, but we should be concentrating on the potentially habitable worlds, not gas-giants.

    The temperature of Uranus recently changed suddenly in an unexplained fashion!

    So maybe we will discover something on Uranus that will help to save Earth >from global warming!

    John Savard

    We already know how to save Earth from global warming. It's quite
    simple. All that's missing is the political will. And we're not going
    to find that on Uranus!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris L Peterson@21:1/5 to jsavard@ecn.ab.ca on Tue Apr 19 22:55:08 2022
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 15:46:39 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
    <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 1:22:02 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

    There are no human habitable worlds.

    Mars is a world that can be settled by people. Not that terraforming it would >be practical with foreseeable technology, but people can live in underground >habitats, with the surface not being so inhospitable that they can't go to the >surface to set up solar collection mirrors, to collect resources, and so on.

    Of course, much the same could be said of the Moon, but Mars does have
    more resources, and the gravity there is not quite as low, although it is >significantly lower than that of Earth, which is still a problem.

    Mars is no more habitable than the bottom of the ocean. Less. At our
    current level of technology, there is no hope of people living on it
    without extreme dependence on the resources of Earth. That's not what
    I would call "habitable".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Michael F. Stemper@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 20 08:43:09 2022
    On 19/04/2022 14.41, W wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 2:22:34 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
    Personally, I can think of better uses of limited funds. This will likely gives clues as to why so many of these type of planets exist, but we should be concentrating on the potentially habitable worlds, not gas-giants.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-61155725

    It's a priority because there is a launch window in 9-10 years time, just about enough time to get the hardware designed and built.

    Spending resources on this does not preclude doing other projects too.

    Mars isn't going anywhere.

    And it's doing it at 24 km/s

    --
    Michael F. Stemper
    Deuteronomy 10:18-19

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Quadibloc@21:1/5 to Chris L Peterson on Wed Apr 20 08:09:33 2022
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 10:56:33 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 15:46:05 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
    <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:22:34 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:

    Personally, I can think of better uses of limited funds. This will likely gives clues as to why so many of these type
    of planets exist, but we should be concentrating on the potentially habitable worlds, not gas-giants.

    The temperature of Uranus recently changed suddenly in an unexplained fashion!

    So maybe we will discover something on Uranus that will help to save Earth >from global warming!

    We already know how to save Earth from global warming. It's quite
    simple. All that's missing is the political will. And we're not going
    to find that on Uranus!

    That's true enough.

    I could see politicians using a mission to Uranus as a way to justify doing nothing, of course.

    I've already explained how I feel about this. Nuclear power. It lets conservative politicians feel they're still "owning the libs"! More importantly, it's a _proven_ way to produce energy, and it isn't strictly limited by the amount of available sunlight or wind. That doesn't mean
    wind and solar, and the energy storage needed to make them more
    useful, shouldn't be developed, but if we want to get to zero fossil
    fuel use, and we don't want to crimp heavy industrial production at
    all, nuclear fills the bill.

    Need more energy? Build another plant.

    John Savard

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Quadibloc@21:1/5 to Michael F. Stemper on Wed Apr 20 08:12:07 2022
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 7:43:20 AM UTC-6, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
    On 19/04/2022 14.41, W wrote:

    Mars isn't going anywhere.

    And it's doing it at 24 km/s

    While it's true that Mars is *in motion*, as a consequence of being
    in orbit around the sun, it still isn't "going anywhere" in the sense of
    being on the way out of the Solar System, or otherwise becoming
    inaccessible in future.

    Of course, Mars _could_ have a slight secular increase in the
    semi-major axis of its orbit, but for practical purposes of space
    travel, it's inconsequential.

    John Savard

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JJ@21:1/5 to RichA on Wed Apr 20 11:31:28 2022
    On 4/19/22 14:22, RichA wrote:
    Personally, I can think of better uses of limited funds. This will likely gives clues as to why so many of these type of planets exist, but we should be concentrating on the potentially habitable worlds, not gas-giants.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-61155725


    There was a reason why the Creator put so much distance between worlds.
    There are plenty of planets out there with life, but humans will never
    make contact. Oh, we'll strive and study, send probes and the like but
    it's never going to result in actual contact. Sorry to rain on the
    parade, but true.

    Much life exists out there, some at our level, some not. There are also
    worlds in significantly better shape than ours is, thanks to the
    Creator. We are one of the lowest, but there are some that are actually
    worse.

    Free will says "believe it or not." I choose to believe, but then again
    I don't believe in what I consider bogus theories, such as the "big
    bang." Just my opinion.....

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Quadibloc@21:1/5 to Quadibloc on Wed Apr 20 08:16:47 2022
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:12:09 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 7:43:20 AM UTC-6, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
    On 19/04/2022 14.41, W wrote:

    Mars isn't going anywhere.

    And it's doing it at 24 km/s

    While it's true that Mars is *in motion*, as a consequence of being
    in orbit around the sun, it still isn't "going anywhere" in the sense of being on the way out of the Solar System, or otherwise becoming
    inaccessible in future.

    Of course, Mars _could_ have a slight secular increase in the
    semi-major axis of its orbit, but for practical purposes of space
    travel, it's inconsequential.

    Or, in simpler language, if you're going around in circles, you won't
    get anywhere. That's even true if you're going around in ellipses
    instead.

    Although if the ellipse has a high enough eccentricity... but Mars
    is not in that category.

    John Savard

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From W@21:1/5 to Michael F. Stemper on Wed Apr 20 11:25:35 2022
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:43:20 AM UTC-4, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
    On 19/04/2022 14.41, W wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 2:22:34 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
    Personally, I can think of better uses of limited funds. This will likely gives clues as to why so many of these type of planets exist, but we should be concentrating on the potentially habitable worlds, not gas-giants.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-61155725

    It's a priority because there is a launch window in 9-10 years time, just about enough time to get the hardware designed and built.

    Spending resources on this does not preclude doing other projects too.

    Mars isn't going anywhere.
    And it's doing it at 24 km/s

    It's been going around the same ole star for billions of years. It will have a new launch window every two years. Uranus' launch windows are over a decade apart.

    Try to read for comprehension, OK?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)