but Mars formed from a less dense and dynamic clump of matter. As a result the Earth has a spinning metallic core that generates a powerful magnetosphere and keeps the planet's mantle heated and molten, but Mars cooled long ago and has little magnetism.
Mars probably has a dense Fe core, but it has cooled. This is because it simply is too small, and cooled more rapidly than the Earth. People may not realize it, but the Earth is substantially larger than Mars.
but the inner atmosphere of Mars would become the equivalent of one huge ozone layer, reaching the surface. Ozone is a dangerous chemical capable of reacting with other substances on the surface much like nail polish remover acts on its target.
As has been pointed out, Ozone is simply O3. It is not a "dangerous" chemical. It does react with other elements, but is not like "nail polish remover".
Soon Mars was reduced to a collection of high energy ionized gases over a rock surface, and an intense greenhouse effect set it.
This is the worst - Mars has a very limited Greenhouse effect. An "intense" GHE would be Venus. btw, without the GHE on Earth, it'd be a big frozen wasteland.
Some far-out proposals suggest engineering a collision between Mars and one of its moons, such as Phobos or Deimos, in order to increase mass and introduce energy into the core.
As has been pointed out, Mars' moons simply have too little mass. Further, they have very little, relatively speaking, metal to add to a planetary core. It would take a pretty large planetesimal to add much to Mars, and the resulting collision would render the surface moltant for millions of years. Hardly a prescription for terraforming.
When I was in CI, agents went to bars all the time hoping to pick up info. Not really undercover, and they often would have their IDs, but they didn't advertise their presence.
Funny story - two agents were in a bar in a rough area, playing pool, looking for info. When one of them leaned over the table to make a shot, his badge fell out. They got the heck outa Dodge.
I just got Office 2004 for the Mac, and it is by far the most useful organizer I've ever had. The Project Center is simply amazing.
Coupled with the appropriate email rules in Entourage, it works amazingly well. I've created projects for each major life/work area. All email, files, notes, tasks, and calendar events are easily grouped for each area.
I even have a standard note called issues in each project that I can keep outstanding issues recorded in. When I create my weekly summary for work, all my project accomplishments, issues, and upcoming schedules are right at my finger tips.
COMSEC rulez! I remember one intercept I had, where some chick called a guy. She was married to a guy he worked with and was having an affair with this dude. We listened for a while (couldn't tape it), and then turned on the timer tones. Gawd, I thought they were going to have a heart attack. Majorly funny.
Yeah, the Hogs were crazy. I was an 05G (the buddy fuckers). The 05H barracks at Devens had a big ass pig painted by the CQ desk. They had nice looking chicks though.
Many years ago (>20), there was a big uproar about the Soviets sending radio waves through the US Embassy in Moscow. At the time, the news reported it as a "health risk". What it actually was was an attempt to know what was being typed.
Actually no. Using adaptive optics with large ground based scopes (Keck, VLT) you can get some amazing images. Not that Hubble is in any way bad. It's just not the most "powerful" scope we have.
The Hubble is a 2.4m mirror. The Keck is a 10m, and the VLT is 4 8m mirrors. Adaptive Optics is really quite good at reducing atmospheric noise in images.
NASA's made a science out of trying to prove manned spaceflight makes some kind of sense, and it just doesn't.
That's because that is what NASA is *supposed* to do. Part of their mission is to prove US superiority in technology. That's not a troll, that is a fact.
Does it make sense now? Maybe not, but one problem with things like the US Manned Program is that they take on a life of their own. Ending manned flight would have a negative PR effect, which would damage the reputation of the US wrt space.
btw, I don't think that the US is alone in this among the space powers. Once you start a program (like Brazil and its attempt to build its own launch facility) ending the program damages your reputation. And with the growing commercial space sector, reputation is important to get new investment
Unfortunately, the number of samples of this type are not sufficient to really extrapolate from. We only have good temp measurements for 150 years, and then for only a small part of the planet. Ice core's are good, no doubt about that, but there just aren't enough places to get them from.
The new crew will need some time to adjust to the microgravity environment. It involves something called Space Adaptation Syndrome. In SAS, the decrease in the body's hydrostatic force (which holds blood in our lower extremities) causes dehydration and headaches (among other problems).
SAS is also a problem on re-entry btw. It can cause some serious performance issues at a fairly critical time
Another problem with thrusters wrt Hubble is that thrusters spew material that can affect the optics. That's a big reason why there are no thrusters - even for course attitude adjustments.
While I agree that its value as an astronomy platform is limited (except maybe for radio astronomy), the Moon is important for other reasons as well.
The Chinese are planning lunar missions. If they establish a base on the Moon, then the political aspects come it to play. High Ground doctrine would seem to dictate that we would also need to have a presence there. Space Control doctrine would indicate a need for a manned base as well.
The cold war may be over, but the need for the US to demonstrate technological and military superiority (cue Bush bashers) is still there. One of NASA's reasons for being is to serve as a showcase for US technological prowess. To allow another country to have the sole presence on the Moon would be unacceptable from both the strategic military and political points of view.
Gravity is less of a problem is there is less mass to the lens. The University of Kansas is working on making lenses out of carbon fiber.
Militarization != weaponization
on
Weapons in Space
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
These are two different things. Space has been militarized almost from the get-go.
Eisenhower's "open-skies" concept was specifically for military use of space, i.e. remote sensing and treaty verification. That is also the idea behind the "sanctuary" doctrine that guides a lot of US policy.
The idea of weaponization can mean many different things, depending on whom you ask. Everything from space-based weapons platforms to ground based ASATs could be considered space weapons.
As far as placing weapons in space, only WMD are prohibited. No one really wants nukes in space anyway. Nuke based ASAT weapons would be pretty indicriminate can would take out a lot of hardware.
I've done 5 x-cart sites, and frankly it's a piece of cake. Totally changing the look of the site is very simple. It probably would have been better for you to take some time and learn smarty and the x-cart directory structure.
There are some really amazing x-cart sites out there btw.
According to this week's SpaceNews Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop all make *billions* annually. Can't do that if there's no investment in space projects.
Slashdot Mirror
Tractors have been computerized for quite some time. Check out NASA's Precision Ag site.
What about the idea that some European countries have about trying someone for crimes commited in another country? Seems like the same principle.
That is my favorite Lobo - although the one where he is sent to hell is pretty good too.
Mars probably has a dense Fe core, but it has cooled. This is because it simply is too small, and cooled more rapidly than the Earth. People may not realize it, but the Earth is substantially larger than Mars.
As has been pointed out, Ozone is simply O3. It is not a "dangerous" chemical. It does react with other elements, but is not like "nail polish remover".
This is the worst - Mars has a very limited Greenhouse effect. An "intense" GHE would be Venus. btw, without the GHE on Earth, it'd be a big frozen wasteland.
As has been pointed out, Mars' moons simply have too little mass. Further, they have very little, relatively speaking, metal to add to a planetary core. It would take a pretty large planetesimal to add much to Mars, and the resulting collision would render the surface moltant for millions of years. Hardly a prescription for terraforming.
You're right. I always hated them forcing me to use the textbooks that *they* chose.
When I was in CI, agents went to bars all the time hoping to pick up info. Not really undercover, and they often would have their IDs, but they didn't advertise their presence.
Funny story - two agents were in a bar in a rough area, playing pool, looking for info. When one of them leaned over the table to make a shot, his badge fell out. They got the heck outa Dodge.
I just got Office 2004 for the Mac, and it is by far the most useful organizer I've ever had. The Project Center is simply amazing.
Coupled with the appropriate email rules in Entourage, it works amazingly well. I've created projects for each major life/work area. All email, files, notes, tasks, and calendar events are easily grouped for each area.
I even have a standard note called issues in each project that I can keep outstanding issues recorded in. When I create my weekly summary for work, all my project accomplishments, issues, and upcoming schedules are right at my finger tips.
By definition, global warming is the increase in global average temperature caused by human activity.
The Green House effect, OTOH, is totally natural. In fact, without it, the Earth would be a dead frozen world.
COMSEC rulez! I remember one intercept I had, where some chick called a guy. She was married to a guy he worked with and was having an affair with this dude. We listened for a while (couldn't tape it), and then turned on the timer tones. Gawd, I thought they were going to have a heart attack. Majorly funny.
Yeah, the Hogs were crazy. I was an 05G (the buddy fuckers). The 05H barracks at Devens had a big ass pig painted by the CQ desk. They had nice looking chicks though.
We've already built several, they were called the Keyhole satellites.
Many years ago (>20), there was a big uproar about the Soviets sending radio waves through the US Embassy in Moscow. At the time, the news reported it as a "health risk". What it actually was was an attempt to know what was being typed.
And yes, I'm former MI
Actually no. Using adaptive optics with large ground based scopes (Keck, VLT) you can get some amazing images. Not that Hubble is in any way bad. It's just not the most "powerful" scope we have.
The Hubble is a 2.4m mirror. The Keck is a 10m, and the VLT is 4 8m mirrors. Adaptive Optics is really quite good at reducing atmospheric noise in images.
That's because that is what NASA is *supposed* to do. Part of their mission is to prove US superiority in technology. That's not a troll, that is a fact.
Does it make sense now? Maybe not, but one problem with things like the US Manned Program is that they take on a life of their own. Ending manned flight would have a negative PR effect, which would damage the reputation of the US wrt space.
btw, I don't think that the US is alone in this among the space powers. Once you start a program (like Brazil and its attempt to build its own launch facility) ending the program damages your reputation. And with the growing commercial space sector, reputation is important to get new investment
Don't have one handy, but we discussed it in Earth Systems science at University.
We have only a few data points from ice cores. Not nearly enough to do modeling on right now.
Unfortunately, the number of samples of this type are not sufficient to really extrapolate from. We only have good temp measurements for 150 years, and then for only a small part of the planet. Ice core's are good, no doubt about that, but there just aren't enough places to get them from.
The new crew will need some time to adjust to the microgravity environment. It involves something called Space Adaptation Syndrome. In SAS, the decrease in the body's hydrostatic force (which holds blood in our lower extremities) causes dehydration and headaches (among other problems).
SAS is also a problem on re-entry btw. It can cause some serious performance issues at a fairly critical time
Another problem with thrusters wrt Hubble is that thrusters spew material that can affect the optics. That's a big reason why there are no thrusters - even for course attitude adjustments.
Why would Brad Templeton give anything to the EFF? It's obviously something he doesn't care about.
While I agree that its value as an astronomy platform is limited (except maybe for radio astronomy), the Moon is important for other reasons as well.
The Chinese are planning lunar missions. If they establish a base on the Moon, then the political aspects come it to play. High Ground doctrine would seem to dictate that we would also need to have a presence there. Space Control doctrine would indicate a need for a manned base as well.
The cold war may be over, but the need for the US to demonstrate technological and military superiority (cue Bush bashers) is still there. One of NASA's reasons for being is to serve as a showcase for US technological prowess. To allow another country to have the sole presence on the Moon would be unacceptable from both the strategic military and political points of view.
Gravity is less of a problem is there is less mass to the lens. The University of Kansas is working on making lenses out of carbon fiber.
These are two different things. Space has been militarized almost from the get-go.
Eisenhower's "open-skies" concept was specifically for military use of space, i.e. remote sensing and treaty verification. That is also the idea behind the "sanctuary" doctrine that guides a lot of US policy.
The idea of weaponization can mean many different things, depending on whom you ask. Everything from space-based weapons platforms to ground based ASATs could be considered space weapons.
As far as placing weapons in space, only WMD are prohibited. No one really wants nukes in space anyway. Nuke based ASAT weapons would be pretty indicriminate can would take out a lot of hardware.
I've done 5 x-cart sites, and frankly it's a piece of cake. Totally changing the look of the site is very simple. It probably would have been better for you to take some time and learn smarty and the x-cart directory structure.
There are some really amazing x-cart sites out there btw.
According to this week's SpaceNews Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop all make *billions* annually. Can't do that if there's no investment in space projects.