It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rovers on Titan

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Now with the success of the Huygens Probe giving us tantalizing views
of this alien world, is it time to consider sending rovers such as the ones
on Mars right now? Obviously, solar panels would not work very well on the
surface of titan so they would have to be nuclear powered. I think
this should be the next mission envisioned by NASA or ESA.

We need to study this moon more closely. I need to this world closer!

But what should be the next ambitious project. Lander on Europa
rovers on Titan, Man on the Moon again? What do you think?




posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   
They do not have to be nuclear powered. They can power it by fuel cells, that use methan or ethane both of which are abundant on Titan I believe it can literally be a breathing probe
. I however disagree that we should start sending probes there. There is a much more tantalizing target called Europa. It is the single best chance of finding complex life in the solar system that would be totally alien to us.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Personally i would prefer Venus, but the engineering difficulty of creating a craft to survive its atmposhere is daunting

I think it is time that we should think about Manned exploartion instead of sending all these robots out. We should at least develope a permanet base on the moon, or at least a manned mission to mars

And due to the current US president it is going to probly have to be a joint ESA/NASA effort due to funding problems



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jehosephat
Personally i would prefer Venus, but the engineering difficulty of creating a craft to survive its atmposhere is daunting

I think it is time that we should think about Manned exploartion i


Manned exploration is the best science tool we can use. However, The expense
associated with such missions is large when compared to robotic adventures.

I disagree about Venus though. Although it would be interesting science wise.
Titan and Europa and far more inviting targets.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 11:30 PM
link   
I think we should send a nuclear powered probe to Europa and if we find any life that could be a threat we could just blow it up. Its a win win



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 11:58 PM
link   
My take on what next..

Space Elevator should be our highest priority.

We should build 2 or 3 large human space ships based on Naval ship design for extended long range reusable solar system exploration rather than a one shot small confined ship to drop man on mars and moon.

These ships should be designed with modules that can be replaced as tech improves. Basicaly the structure would be a girder designed for easy replacement of engine modules crew modules, and lander modules, garden modules etc...

Then once we have proven that tech on the moon and around earth we should move on to mars and beyond.

We should also concider capturing and use of smaller asteroids for conversion to colony type space ships. There are football field sized asteroids that could be hollowed out and moded into space ships that could hold colonies of humans to move into deep space. Using nuclear tech they could survive hundreds of years.. Once this tech is proven we then send our first interstellar mission out to another star.. Sure may take several hundred years but why not.. we need to move on....

Man must expand into the universe to survive. We should start as early as possible. Probes are fine but should be back seat to human exploration and expansion into the universe. Unless there is something on Europa that will help us survive I could care less if there are microbes living on the bottom of an ice covered moon.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 12:01 AM
link   

I think we should send a nuclear powered probe to Europa and if we find any life that could be a threat we could just blow it up. Its a win win



Not much point in finding it if your going to "blow it up" !



But what should be the next ambitious project. Lander on Europa
rovers on Titan, Man on the Moon again? What do you think?


Fix Earth!

[edit on 123131p://050112 by instar]



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 01:13 AM
link   
We need to see how well the Mars science lab rover performs on mars first.if its succcesful(i think it will be)then we will probably see the next rover mission going to titan.
I think the technology for exploring europa is still just a little beyond us,as is venus.
Titan and mars are our best bets right now,and its a great place to get our nuclear tech geared up.im all in favor for nucleared powered space craft,im only disapointed we havent been using it the whole time.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheHorseChestnut
But what should be the next ambitious project. Lander on Europa
rovers on Titan, Man on the Moon again? What do you think?


Our next projects should be.
Base on the moon.
man on mars.
Reusable solar system range manned "spaceship".
IMHO



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by instar
Not much point in finding it if your going to "blow it up" !


Umm the type of reaction that would be used could hardly "Blow up"
Despite what you or any Nuclear critics believe there are safe ways to use Nucular technology, its just incredibly complicated and its taken us a while to get a handle on it. It's in my opinion that if nuclear is really the only viable option to speedily and thoroughly explore the solar system then I am all for it. It's just that there may be cheaper ways to achieve it as in order to safely deal with it you gotta put alot $$ into the design and testing. Safety is really only a concern during construction and launch.




Fix Earth!

Earth may be fixable in the near term but we are still incredibly vulnerable to quite alot of things(like Tsunamis for one, Gamma Ray Bursts, etc this list is quite long actually
). Spreading out is really the only way to go, and I will never understand why people say such things are a waste of money(by pointing out that we should Fix Earth first :sigh: ) when the huge cash hole that is the military industrial complex eats up hundreds of billions of dollars a year just in the USA alone. If just a fraction of that were devoted to Space Exploration we would find many of the answers we need out there that we so desperately need on earth. Space missions to the outer and inner solar system push the envelope in technology and science and it without it we would't have developed Solar Panels to the point they are today, almost competetive with conventional polluting power plants. Fuel Cells are another Space innovation that will help to allievate alot of problems on earth. Man there is sooo many things that Space Exploration has givin us that I cannot list them all(but I'll try just to illustrate my point
) Without Satellites we would probably not be discussing the issue right now on ATS. We would still be using BBS's
We wouldn't have computers nearly as good as they are today if Nasa hadn't invested in them during the Apallo missions. Well I can't think of any more but please if anyone has anyother invention that we all take for granted developed by NASA(or ESA/RSA).

We wouldn't have well alot of things we take for granted nowadays. Anything that uncovers yet more about the Universe in which we live in has the potential to improve the Human Experiance in the near term. With the new century we need to be thinking outside of the box and not stick to old patterns that really don't improve anything all that much.

One last question instar, how do you propose to fix earth when Developing Nations are hell-bent on becoming a Developed nation by any means possible. You think China or India is gonna go for that? I don't think so. EU might go for that sort of thing, well some countries in the EU might but most would not. North-America is trying to Change but its looking like a half-hearted effort at best as the economics of "Fixing the Earth" are not in our favor(ie They cannot make money off of it and are too shortsighted to realize they will have to pay in the end, either them or the GrandChildren or GreatGrandchildren etc etc.)

Samhain, the Mars rovers respective missions have already been deemed a success and more rovers are on the way. I believe one is to be launched this year(either that or its about to enter Mars Orbit I forget)

Man this was a long post



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Things space exploration has givin us.
Satellite technology is a biggie.
Medical imaging.
Bar coding.
Fire Fighter suits.
Smoke detectors.
Automobile Design tools.
Invisible bracelets.
Advanced plastics.
Not to mention the Mountain of computer and navagation tech.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
Samhain, the Mars rovers respective missions have already been deemed a success and more rovers are on the way. I believe one is to be launched this year(either that or its about to enter Mars Orbit I forget)

Man this was a long post


I was talking bout the mars science lab,the humvee sized nuclear powered one.
i wanna see what that baby can do!

Then we need to build one for titan.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   
I don't understand this obsession with having to send people on suicide missions just to plant a pair of feet on some sand.

With limited amount of money sending robots would be more sensible. We would probably get more scientific and useful data out of robots than a blasted TV-show showing a group of people walking around on Mars and waving to the cameras.

We should wait with sending people until the robots have given enough data. And when we do go, it should be to stay there, creating a base or city.
Or we can wait with sending people out there until robots have made bases on these planets and moons so everything is ready for the settlers.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Actually, I was a bit dissapointed about the Huygens results, There are strong hints, but no conclusive evidence yet, for the methane seas, the probe landed in some slushy tundra. It would be so exciting if it splashed down instead in a sea and it found some vulcanic hot springs at the bottom, bringing on speculation for Black smokers Bacteria....

Personally I like the concept of the mars-flyer, to potentially cover much more terrain in good detail than ground robots...

With surface based robots and rock abrrasion tools we get very detailed infor about some very specific local spots, but very little terrain, with the reconnaissance satellites in orbit you get to see the grand scale, but low detail....

What we really need now, is the low flying planes to get the intermediate scale/detail, so that we can make extrapolations and glue together the small with the large.


www.pbs.org...


[edit on 22-1-2005 by Countermeasures]



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   
WE wont be going back to the Moon. Do a Google search "warned off the moon" Neil Armstrong reported back to NASA that the aliens were already there.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Ok, I did a search, let me post a scrap from such stories:

According to hitherto unconfirmed reports, both Neil Armstrong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin saw UFOs shortly after that historic landing on the Moon in Apollo 11 on 21 July 1969. I remember hearing one of the astronauts refer to a "light" in or on a carter during the television transmission, followed by a request from mission control for further information. Nothing more was heard.

Ok, UNCONFIRMED reports

other scrap:

According to a former NASA employee Otto Binder, unnamed radio hams with their own VHF receiving facilities that bypassed NASA's broadcasting outlets picked up the following exchange:

mmmm, UNNAMED radio hams

Those sories are full of "according to sources", "allegedly" , "unverified" etc etc...

I say UNMISTAKINGLY banter and the European SMART-1 mission now underway will make it pretty clear that the Nasa has not made contact with the "alledged" retillians, greys, or whatever species may find the dark side of the moon a more attractive place than just invade the lucious earth....


[edit on 22-1-2005 by Countermeasures]



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 10:01 AM
link   
I like the idea of a probe similar to huygens decenting slowly for 2.5 hours sending back radar images of the landscape. Or even a Casini craft with radar and maybe ground penetrating radar.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghaele
I don't understand this obsession with having to send people on suicide missions just to plant a pair of feet on some sand.

With limited amount of money sending robots would be more sensible. We would probably get more scientific and useful data out of robots than a blasted TV-show showing a group of people walking around on Mars and waving to the cameras.

We should wait with sending people until the robots have given enough data. And when we do go, it should be to stay there, creating a base or city.
Or we can wait with sending people out there until robots have made bases on these planets and moons so everything is ready for the settlers.


I see your point,but think about this.
One person on mars would learn more in one hour than 50 rovers could in a year.
Not to mention that rovers are mega expensive,and in the long run human exporation would give us much more data pound for pound.
i would goto mars in a heartbeat,even if they said there was only a 50/50 chance of making it back.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 10:33 AM
link   
I am really in to the mars glider idea, that's just a wonderful proposal...

As for a suicide mission to mars, train me and i'll do it, i'll gladly risk my life, wouldn't you?



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Mars Glider is a good idea but Im not sure if it can accomplish more then
an orbiter. Mars atmosphere is very thin and I think an orbiter can gather
just as much science as a glider.

Titan should be the next rover target, We have already found a safe landing
area. There are a few factors to consider though.

1. There are currently no orbiters that could handle data on a daily basis
positioned at Titan. I always thought they should have had Cassini orbit
Titan instead of Saturn. Lets face it, It's really the only interesting place
in that system.

2. Power Consumption. The Nuclear powered rover going to Mars has a fair
amount of sunlight to deal with and fairly balmy temps compared to Titan.
daily power consumption on Titan would be far greater because of lack
of sunlight and the extreme cold.

3. Liquid unknowns. It is believed to rain methane on Titan's surface.
also channels were observed and the area where Huygens landed was
believed to awash with methane. The rover would also have to have the
ability to float.

4. Spongy Surface? along the last point I believe the rover would have to be
fairly light to keep from bogging down on the surface.

I think alot of new engineering would have to be accomplished in order to put a rover on the surface of Titan.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join