Slashdot Mirror
Mars Rover Ready for Risky Descent into Crater
Riding with Robots writes "After months of scoping out the terrain, the robotic geologist Opportunity is ready to drive down into Victoria Crater on the Meridiani Plains of Mars. Mission managers acknowledge the hardy rover may never come back out, but say they think the potential for discovery is worth it. 'The rover has operated more than 12 times longer than its originally intended 90 days. The scientific allure is the chance to examine and investigate the compositions and textures of exposed materials in the crater's depths for clues about ancient, wet environments. As the rover travels farther down the slope, it will be able to examine increasingly older rocks in the exposed walls of the crater. '"
And I'm still not sure Vista is really 'out there' yet.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Collisions with Jupiter do not help us much with understanding craters on Mars. I should have been clearer that I'm specifically speaking about impacts between non-gaseous planets. Those impact craters tell us the most about the process that's happening.
The one single impact that we've observed in space in great detail, the Deep Impact mission, raised *way* more questions than it answered. It was clearly a rejection of mainstream models for comets, and yet there was never any subsequent realization or reaction to that data. It's never been accepted to be the paradigm-shift that it should have been. It's been swept under the rug, as if nothing anomalous occurred with that mission at all.
One would think that scientists would want to know the precise details of what happens when two solid bodies collide. It wouldn't be completely absurd to imagine an experiment involving pushing a small asteroid into Mars with cameras waiting on site or something (it might even make for a good NASA PR campaign -- the public obviously likes explosions). The unusual characteristics of craters within the universe demand as much. But what we get instead, for the most part, are computer simulations as evidence that the mainstream views of what happens during collisions are correct. It's not considered a pertinent question. The whole thing is considered resolved, and we've now moved on to assuming this point in our interpretation of observations of Martian craters. A consensus has formed even though numerous enigmas remain within the field of crater studies. There have been anomalies from day one, starting with Meteor Crater in Arizona that remain mysterious.
Humans are masters of convincing themselves of whatever they want. If we can convince ourselves that an omnicient, invisible being monitors our every movement and decides our eternal fate when we die, we can surely convince ourselves that Mars is exactly what we want it to be. We'll find the evidence, I assure you!
But is this real? Are we creating an artificial reality? If you only ask the specific questions that pertain to the answers that you want to find, without much consideration for finding things that you don't expect, and always settling on the favorable interpretation when multiple possibilities exist, won't you create your own self-perpetuating myth? What consideration is being put into alternative non-water causes for the Martian geological observations? I propose AB-SO-LUTE-LY NONE.
"A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
People on Slashdot like to allege that EU Theory is absurd. So, let's get down to business!
...
When the rover descends down into Victoria crater, NASA will be surprised to find that what they thought were sand dunes down there are in fact glassified sand. That peculiar formation down there is a fulgarite. It's not sand. It's more like solid rock. I'm guessing that the rover will be able to figure this out. Shouldn't be too hard. Wallace Thornhill discusses the formation of these Victoria Crater fulgarites in depth on his holoscience page.
NASA will discover this and then, for a brief few moments, wonder why this particular pattern became glassified (as opposed to just a flat melted bottom). Then, not understanding what they're seeing, they will move on to other things -- because, after all, if it doesn't have to do with evidence for water or life, why would they be interested?
It would be nice to think that getting this prediction right might mean something to some people out there, but there will be other opportunities
"A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.