Starship Asterisk*

by **BDanielMayfield** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 4:42 pm

JRB wrote:-290 is obviously F. even still, to say: " The Huygens data and a decade of exploration by Cassini have shown Titan to be a tantalizing world hosting a complex chemistry of organic compounds, dynamic landforms, lakes, seas, and a possible subsurface ocean of liquid water. Really!?

Yeah, the "complex chemistry of organic compounds" would have to be "complex" relative to other bodies in our solar system apart from Earth. If we could compare complete lists of all the cabon containing compounds found in both Titan and Earth Titan's list would seem simple indeed.

The "possible subsurface ocean of liquid water" is very plausible though. H₂O is abundant in the outer solar system, and the interiors of large bodies at this point in time are always warmer than their surfaces.

Bruce

by **Chris Peterson** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 2:45 pm

Red in Blue wrote:
JRB wrote:-290 is obviously F. even still, to say: " The Huygens data and a decade of exploration by Cassini have shown Titan to be a tantalizing world hosting a complex chemistry of organic compounds, dynamic landforms, lakes, seas, and a possible subsurface ocean of liquid water. Really!?
Ditto here.

What does "absolute" in "Absolute Zero" mean anyway, if -273 F can be breached?

Absolute zero essentially describes the temperature of a system whose constituent particles are at a minimum kinetic energy level, and therefore can't get any colder. That occurs at −459.67° F.

by **Red in Blue** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 1:42 pm

JRB wrote:-290 is obviously F. even still, to say: " The Huygens data and a decade of exploration by Cassini have shown Titan to be a tantalizing world hosting a complex chemistry of organic compounds, dynamic landforms, lakes, seas, and a possible subsurface ocean of liquid water. Really!?

Ditto here.

What does "absolute" in "Absolute Zero" mean anyway, if -273 F can be breached?

by **MarkBour** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 4:59 am

The Huygens images are truly beautiful. Titan looks like a glistening penny in these fish-eye images.

So, if you have a whole world teeming with "complex chemistry of organic molecules", and if Titan does turn out to have a subsurface liquid ocean, then do you have all of the ingredients for life as we know it? What would you say that such a world lacks that is essential? If it lacks the ability to form carbon-based life, does it at least have the ability to form truly complex molecules? What is the best it can produce?

by **Guest12** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 3:02 am

Chris Peterson wrote:
geckzilla wrote:I wonder if an asteroid-stricken Earth would still be easier to survive than Mars?
Almost certainly. We are a very resilient species. It would take one heck of a hit (much bigger than what took out the dinosaurs) to kill us off. Sure, it would wipe out our civilization and probably set us back a few hundred or even a few thousand years. But I'm sure enough humans would survive that we'd still have much greater genetic diversity on Earth than we'd see on Mars for a very long time.

And the Earth at its worst after an impact is certainly going to be a better environment for survival than Mars, which is as inhospitable and deadly to humans as the Moon or space.

Y'all have great conversations and debates here. I thoroughly enjoy reading them. I appreciate how most of you are polite and go out of your way to help educate the readers. Thanks.

by **Boomer12k** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 12:14 am

Gosh!! Has it been ten years???
I was so sick back then, I don't remember much I guess.....darn squirrels....

:---[===] *

by **Chris Peterson** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 8:15 pm

geckzilla wrote:I wonder if an asteroid-stricken Earth would still be easier to survive than Mars?

Almost certainly. We are a very resilient species. It would take one heck of a hit (much bigger than what took out the dinosaurs) to kill us off. Sure, it would wipe out our civilization and probably set us back a few hundred or even a few thousand years. But I'm sure enough humans would survive that we'd still have much greater genetic diversity on Earth than we'd see on Mars for a very long time.

And the Earth at its worst after an impact is certainly going to be a better environment for survival than Mars, which is as inhospitable and deadly to humans as the Moon or space.

by **Chris Peterson** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 8:12 pm

rstevenson wrote:Establishing off-world colonies to protect ourselves from ourselves would indeed be absurd, if that was the only reason. Protecting our race from the universe is more to the point. We don't want to be watching the approach of the killer asteroid while thinking, "Gee, I guess we should have started a Mars colony years ago. Oh well, too late now!"

If we had a colony on Mars and the Earth was hit by a killer asteroid, everyone on Mars would be dead before long, as well. We are very far from having the technology to survive on Mars indefinitely without a great deal of support from Earth.

Your argument is fine when we're considering the distant future. But I'd laugh at somebody proposing we spend money for a manned Mars mission for the purpose of taking all our eggs out of a single basket.

by **geckzilla** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 8:07 pm

I wonder if an asteroid-stricken Earth would still be easier to survive than Mars?

by **rstevenson** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:51 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:Besides "what" humans would bring to a Mars mission, maybe a better point would be "why" humans might need to go:
1.To establish an alternate place, other than the Earth, for continuing human existence.
Probably not something to consider for centuries yet. We totally lack the capacity to create a large enough colony on Mars to be self-sufficient. We are demonstrating an inability to survive on Earth. Finding another planet as a solution to that particular problem is pretty absurd.

Establishing off-world colonies to protect ourselves from ourselves would indeed be absurd, if that was the only reason. Protecting our race from the universe is more to the point. We don't want to be watching the approach of the killer asteroid while thinking, "Gee, I guess we should have started a Mars colony years ago. Oh well, too late now!"

Rob

by **Chris Peterson** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 6:41 pm

Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:Besides "what" humans would bring to a Mars mission, maybe a better point would be "why" humans might need to go:
1.To establish an alternate place, other than the Earth, for continuing human existence.

Probably not something to consider for centuries yet. We totally lack the capacity to create a large enough colony on Mars to be self-sufficient. We are demonstrating an inability to survive on Earth. Finding another planet as a solution to that particular problem is pretty absurd.

2.To establish an alternate place, other than the Earth, for every other life form that could be brought to sustain itself on Mars.

Same response as above.

by **Ron-Astro Pharmacist** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 6:32 pm

Boomer12k wrote:My humble opinion....
As long as Robotics can do the science and exploration....we have no need to go....and indeed we ARE THERE...through our "little eyes".... We get data and knowledge with little to no risk.

BUT I WOULD GO IN A NEW YORK SECOND!!!!

:---[===] *

Besides "what" humans would bring to a Mars mission, maybe a better point would be "why" humans might need to go:
1.To establish an alternate place, other than the Earth, for continuing human existence.
2.To establish an alternate place, other than the Earth, for every other life form that could be brought to sustain itself on Mars.
3.
Of course then that leads to the who, where and when parts too. Why are questions so much easier to ask then to answer? Like, "Should we go and mess it up too?" Lots to think about before we set out. "Clean" machines might be the most appropriate for now. Rarely has the human race "looked before it leaps" when it comes to ethical and moral issues. Mars might be a good time and place to start while we still have the luxury.
Hey – wait a minute. This is about Titan? I shouldn't be proselytizing about Mars. Or maybe it is the right time?? I'll join you Boomer.

by **Boomer12k** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 6:14 pm

My humble opinion....
As long as Robotics can do the science and exploration....we have no need to go....and indeed we ARE THERE...through our "little eyes"....

We get data and knowledge with little to no risk.

BUT I WOULD GO IN A NEW YORK SECOND!!!!

:---[===] *

by **Boomer12k** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 6:08 pm

Awesome pics.....reminds me of TOFFEE CANDIES!!!

:---[===] *

by **Ron-Astro Pharmacist** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 4:41 pm

I think we could look back to the human exploration of the moon and ask, "Are we happy with that effort and would we choose to do it again?" Many of us have lived through the excitement and fall-off the that enthusiasm many times now for many of our initial journeys to the various space environments. To have an overriding reason for humans to go is crucial, it seems, to keep our interest – as people versus individuals who would push on for their specific interests just as you pointed out.

by **Chris Peterson** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 4:10 pm

Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:I'd be curious to see a list (or to start a discussion) on what only humans could bring to a Mars mission. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mission_to_Mars
1.Describe with human senses what it feels like to be standing on Mars – eyes, ears, smell, feel, taste http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense Of course that would have to be mainly from the confines of a habitat but it would be possible once established and it would be different from anything a machine was able to do.
2.Real time geology – i.e. investigating leads that only a human's presence could see and determine for close follow-up

#1, for sure (outside the fact that smell, feel, and taste are likely to be quickly fatal). #2, doubtful that people could do better than machines.

All in all, I think we need to realize that you don't send people to Mars (or anywhere else) for science. It's about exploration, politics, glory... whatever. Whether these kinds of things justify the expense is a matter of opinion, but a pretty solid case can be made that we're not going to do very advanced science this way.

by **bystander** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 4:04 pm

http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=34349

by **Ron-Astro Pharmacist** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 4:03 pm

I'd be curious to see a list (or to start a discussion) on what only humans could bring to a Mars mission. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mission_to_Mars
1.Describe with human senses what it feels like to be standing on Mars – eyes, ears, smell, feel, taste http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense Of course that would have to be mainly from the confines of a habitat but it would be possible once established and it would be different from anything a machine was able to do.
2.Real time geology – i.e. investigating leads that only a human's presence could see and determine for close follow-up
3.Other ideas ?

Everything else might be possible by machine. If the list comes up with enough real reasons, then humans should go. Of course, like in the Wanderers, maybe humans need to go to establish basic human fulfillment. I would bet "the human list" has already been discussed in NASA groups but I am not privy to those conversations.

by **Chris Peterson** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:15 pm

rstevenson wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:
BDanielMayfield wrote:But, consider how short a period it was between the invention of manned flight by the Wright brothers (1903) and people standing on the surface of our Moon (1969). In view of that, many have imagined that people would have reached at least Mars by now.
Perhaps you overlooked the news. We have been to Mars many times in recent decades. And far beyond that.
You're being disingenuous, Chris. You know he was referring to humans going to Mars, as opposed to just sending devices there.

Indeed. But putting people on Mars is merely an engineering problem, entirely within the capabilities of the technology we have developed (and the real discussion here is technology). Because there isn't much reason to send humans there physically, we haven't done so. Nothing to do with technology. In fact, just getting to Mars isn't all that different from getting to the Moon. Old stuff. The real technological advances since going to the Moon have been in computers and robotics, which have allowed us to explore Mars and the rest of the Solar System in a way that would have been completely impossible in 1969, and indeed would still be impossible if we were dependent upon sending humans.

I would argue that our not having sent humans to Mars is a reflection of how advanced our technology is, not an indicator of any lack.

by **rstevenson** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:09 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
BDanielMayfield wrote:But, consider how short a period it was between the invention of manned flight by the Wright brothers (1903) and people standing on the surface of our Moon (1969). In view of that, many have imagined that people would have reached at least Mars by now.
Perhaps you overlooked the news. We have been to Mars many times in recent decades. And far beyond that.

You're being disingenuous, Chris. You know he was referring to humans going to Mars, as opposed to just sending devices there.

Rob

by **Chris Peterson** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:05 pm

BDanielMayfield wrote:But, consider how short a period it was between the invention of manned flight by the Wright brothers (1903) and people standing on the surface of our Moon (1969). In view of that, many have imagined that people would have reached at least Mars by now.

Perhaps you overlooked the news. We have been to Mars many times in recent decades. And far beyond that.

by **JRB** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:00 pm

-290 is obviously F. even still, to say: " The Huygens data and a decade of exploration by Cassini have shown Titan to be a tantalizing world hosting a complex chemistry of organic compounds, dynamic landforms, lakes, seas, and a possible subsurface ocean of liquid water. Really!?

by **Steve Dutch** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 2:51 pm

We can't commemorate Huygens without a huge shout out to Boris Smeds, an engineer who literally saved the mission more or less single-handedly. He realized they had never tested how Huygens and Cassini would communicate once separated. This is obviously not the sort of thing you can do in space. He finally pestered ESA to the point where they ran a test. They came up with a Rube Goldberg system whereby Huygens would transmit to Cassini, Cassini would send the signal to Earth, we'd process it to simulate Huygens' motion once detached, send it back, and Cassini would bounce it back again. To their horror, they got back gibberish. They'd correctly allowed for the Doppler shift between Huygens and Cassini, but failed to realize that would also affect the relative timing of the on-board computers. So they reconfigured the mission and separated Huygens much earlier to keep the timing issues manageable. And thus we have pictures from the surface of Titan. Yay Boris.

And to me, that certainly looks like standing liquid in the most famous picture from the surface. Not only is there a very flat surface but "rocks" within it are flattened as they would be by immersion in a liquid with higher refractive index.

by **FloridaMike** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 2:31 pm

henrystar wrote:
BDanielMayfield wrote:
hoohaw wrote:I never could have imagined that in my own lifetime I would see the surface of Titan! Less than 400 years after Titan's discovery by Christian Huygens! http://www.esa.int/About_Us/Welcome_to_ ... r_of_Titan
But, consider how short a period it was between the invention of manned flight by the Wright brothers (1903) and people standing on the surface of our Moon (1969). In view of that, many have imagined that people would have reached at least Mars by now.
Very good thought, that! My mother was born just before the Wright Brothers flew, and lived to after men walked on the moon. Absolutely flabbergasting, no doubt about it!

Compare and contrast this to how long it took the wheel to go from invention to traveling at 40 mph. Then from 40 mph to Mach 1. In your mothers grandmothers lifetime things would have barely changed at all.

by **henrystar** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 1:39 pm

BDanielMayfield wrote:
hoohaw wrote:I never could have imagined that in my own lifetime I would see the surface of Titan! Less than 400 years after Titan's discovery by Christian Huygens! http://www.esa.int/About_Us/Welcome_to_ ... r_of_Titan
But, consider how short a period it was between the invention of manned flight by the Wright brothers (1903) and people standing on the surface of our Moon (1969). In view of that, many have imagined that people would have reached at least Mars by now.

Very good thought, that! My mother was born just before the Wright Brothers flew, and lived to after men walked on the moon. Absolutely flabbergasting, no doubt about it!

Starship Asterisk*

APOD: Huygens Lands on Titan (2015 Jan 16)

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: APOD: Huygens Lands on Titan (2015 Jan 16)

Re: APOD: Huygens Lands on Titan (2015 Jan 16)

Re: APOD: Huygens Lands on Titan (2015 Jan 16)

Re: APOD: Huygens Lands on Titan (2015 Jan 16)

Re: APOD: Huygens Lands on Titan (2015 Jan 16)

Re: APOD: Huygens Lands on Titan (2015 Jan 16)

Re: APOD: Huygens Lands on Titan (2015 Jan 16)

Re: APOD: Huygens Lands on Titan (2015 Jan 16)

Re: APOD: Huygens Lands on Titan (2015 Jan 16)

Re: APOD: Huygens Lands on Titan (2015 Jan 16)

Re: APOD: Huygens Lands on Titan (2015 Jan 16)

Re: APOD: Huygens Lands on Titan (2015 Jan 16)

Re: APOD: Huygens Lands on Titan (2015 Jan 16)

Re: APOD: Huygens Lands on Titan (2015 Jan 16)

Re: APOD: Huygens Lands on Titan (2015 Jan 16)

Re: APOD: Huygens Lands on Titan (2015 Jan 16)

Re: APOD: Huygens Lands on Titan (2015 Jan 16)

Re: APOD: Huygens Lands on Titan (2015 Jan 16)

Re: APOD: Huygens Lands on Titan (2015 Jan 16)

Re: APOD: Huygens Lands on Titan (2015 Jan 16)

Re: APOD: Huygens Lands on Titan (2015 Jan 16)

Re: APOD: Huygens Lands on Titan (2015 Jan 16)

Re: APOD: Huygens Lands on Titan (2015 Jan 16)

Re: APOD: Huygens Lands on Titan (2015 Jan 16)

Re: APOD: Huygens Lands on Titan (2015 Jan 16)

Re: APOD: Huygens Lands on Titan (2015 Jan 16)