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.
Originally posted by slink
E_T there's no need to make this into an anti-American thread.
You forgot half decade (or ~7 years more precisely) long freezing in near absolute zero temperature.
Originally posted by nataylor
As for returning images worse than your web cam... let's see how well your web cam works at -290 degrees F. It's amazing they have any kind of sensor that functions at that temperature.
You can bet your moneys on that!
Originally posted by spike
I would hazard a guess and say that we probably have collected more data on the Saturnian system with this single mission than collected on all the pervious added together.
Originally posted by crisko
SO E_T, our current optics cant handle the extremes of Titan. I'll accept that. So why not develope better ones? In the name of technology advancement and all.
Funny..mars has been mapped and examined for years. It took optics for them for them to figure out here may have been liquid water there at one point.
[edit on 26-1-2005 by crisko]
Originally posted by nataylor
Originally posted by crisko
SO E_T, our current optics cant handle the extremes of Titan. I'll accept that. So why not develope better ones? In the name of technology advancement and all.
Funny..mars has been mapped and examined for years. It took optics for them for them to figure out here may have been liquid water there at one point.
[edit on 26-1-2005 by crisko]
So you want them to "waste" more money developing optics so you can see pretty pictures, when that isn't even the primary goal of the mission?
As for Mars, it's a lot easier to have great optics when you're got a big rover that has solar power which can be used to heat the senors so as to bring them to optimum temperature. On Huygens, using any of the battery power to produce heat for the optics would have just been a waste of energy... energy that went into powering the other sensors to collect data that is much more usable that visible-light images.
[edit on 26-1-2005 by nataylor]
You're the one claiming Huygens was a "waste" of money. Notice how I put "waste" in quotes. I'd figure any addiitional money spent on R&D for Huygens would be considered a "waste" by you.
Originally posted by crisko
Originally posted by nataylor
Originally posted by crisko
SO E_T, our current optics cant handle the extremes of Titan. I'll accept that. So why not develope better ones? In the name of technology advancement and all.
Funny..mars has been mapped and examined for years. It took optics for them for them to figure out here may have been liquid water there at one point.
[edit on 26-1-2005 by crisko]
So you want them to "waste" more money developing optics so you can see pretty pictures, when that isn't even the primary goal of the mission?
As for Mars, it's a lot easier to have great optics when you're got a big rover that has solar power which can be used to heat the senors so as to bring them to optimum temperature. On Huygens, using any of the battery power to produce heat for the optics would have just been a waste of energy... energy that went into powering the other sensors to collect data that is much more usable that visible-light images.
[edit on 26-1-2005 by nataylor]
Waste?
That statement is a little naive don't you think? Waste money to develope new tech? Thank god you weren't around when the space shuttle came to be . "Why do we need felcro?" That's what I see your statement as.
Space pushes tech to it's limits, and causes it to be improved upon. Such advancements are adapted for the commercial market.
Waste of money, I think not.
As to the rest of your post..again..nuclear power
[edit on 27-1-2005 by crisko]
Originally posted by Broadsword20068
And also, I was thinking, though I don't know much about engineering so maybe it is impossible, but I mean, you look at how we build submarines. You need a super-strong submersible to go down to the depths of the ocean to look at little creatures with skins as thick as a soap bubble that can somehow withstand all that pressure that our mighty nucelar submarines would get crushed in. Science still doesn't know how they do it.