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.

 

New discoveries are confirming electric sun theories.

page: 5
114
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mgmirkin
www.junkscience.com...

Notice the downturn trending in the graph over the last 3-4 years? Seems we' may still be in the overall downturn (though still with some variability).


The key thing i think to remember here is that the suns power output and brightness does not neccisarily correlate with the amount of ions flowing out of it. As NASA has confirmed the solar wind has stopped completely for two entire days before science.nasa.gov... , it was a very unique event and they still dont fully know why.

The flow of ions in the solar wind is essentially an electric current, these currents are able to generate heat and warm the upper atmosphere of the earth. So we get direct electrical energy from the particles, aswell as the EM energy traditionally accepted from light.

Now what was particularly interesting from that graph is that there is a very sharp dip in global temparatures during 1999, after the maximum point in 1998, which is when the solar wind completely stopped for two days.



might just be co-incidence, but i thought it was woth pointing out. Maybe thats why the temparature started to drop so suddenly, as the suns output virtually stopped for those two days.


I'm wondering, from some of my recent readings and notions about the sun versus the Birkeland terella, whether the opposite of your statement true:

IE, if the increase/decrease in solar cycle is due to external current flow, then perhaps the decrease in current flow to the sun has led to a decrease in current flow to the Earth, as well.

Might that lead to the decrease in the Earth's field? An open question, purely speculative. Interesting, nonetheless.


I think that much about the solar system can be determined by the amount of current input from external cicuits, much of it we still dont fully know how it changes the solar system. I suspect that the orbits of the planets are also effected in some way by electrical activity, as it has been shown recently that the magnetic fields of Earth and the sun are linked. Actually i would go even further and say it is more likely that gravity is an electrical effect, and most objects are held in orbit by magnetism and the forces in space plasma, rather than incredbly weak gravity. People often forget that gravity is not a law, it is called Newtons theory of gravitation.

On the other hand gravity is a very sucessful theory, but since whatever causes it has never been discovered, maybe that is why, because it is an electromagnetic effect in the first place.

[edit on 20-12-2007 by ZeuZZ]




posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
The flow of ions in the solar wind is essentially an electric current, these currents are able to generate heat and warm the upper atmosphere of the earth. So we get direct electrical energy from the particles, aswell as the EM energy traditionally accepted from light.


I disagree with that based on this fact: the astronauts who spend any amount of time in orbit would be quickly cooked right inside their space vehicles if such energy transfer was of any significant value.


I suspect that the orbits of the planets are also effected in some way by electrical activity, as it has been shown recently that the magnetic fields of Earth and the sun are linked.


By cross checking the orbital motion of the planets and their moons in the solar system, it is possible to see if it matches with a purely gravity driven picture. And you know, it does. Scientists calculate minute perturbation of the motion of space probes based on gravity, not on an extra magnetic force. To me, that's a clear proof that such force is negligible.

There is indeed direct pressure from solar wind and one can build a solar sail, but that's still a minor effect compared to gravity.



Actually i would go even further and say it is more likely that gravity is an electrical effect, and most objects are held in orbit by magnetism and the forces in space plasma, rather than incredbly weak gravity.


I would say that this is not based on facts. We don't know what gravity is, but saying it's magnetic in nature is as baseless as saying it's based on psychic power.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 



thank you very much squiz I appreciate the clarification. I am about to watch the video you suggested.This is a very interesting subject to be sure..the way that the EU is being described almost makes me think that what used to be called the "Ether" may not be such a far off concept..sure the language has changed but the basic concept is there..Ill be keeping an eye on this thread and look around for more info on the web...great info from all...



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
The flow of ions in the solar wind is essentially an electric current, these currents are able to generate heat and warm the upper atmosphere of the earth. So we get direct electrical energy from the particles, aswell as the EM energy traditionally accepted from light.


I disagree with that based on this fact: the astronauts who spend any amount of time in orbit would be quickly cooked right inside their space vehicles if such energy transfer was of any significant value.


I disagree with that based on the very definition of an electric current, the flow of charge. The current is diffuse and spread evenly, but the solar wind is technically a plasma, as it is in a quasi-neutral state. Whenever a chage moves it cretaes a magnetic field, and whenever a charge moves it is called an electric current. That is exactly what the solar wind is made of, flowing electrons and protons. Exactly the same as what is flowing through the wires in your house, which are clearly called Electric currents.

And astronomers do get damaged by the particles in space, radiation from the solar wind permeates the enitre spaceship and the astronauts. Thats why the temparature is not absolute zero until you get really far away from the sun.


By cross checking the orbital motion of the planets and their moons in the solar system, it is possible to see if it matches with a purely gravity driven picture. And you know, it does. Scientists calculate minute perturbation of the motion of space probes based on gravity, not on an extra magnetic force. To me, that's a clear proof that such force is negligible.


You fail to to see the point i was making. I am not suggesting that gravity is wrong, it is obviously there and we can measure it, i am suggesting that the forces that have been attributed to gravity could actually be caused by something else. The sheer weakness of gravity has made it near impossible to test how it works, no scientist has any real idea how gravity works.

The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.

First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory with all of its arbritrary metaphysical constructs, like dark matter, and dark energy. Other forces in plasma have been shown to be far stronger than gravity and so probably play a much bigger role than most astronomers realize.




There is indeed direct pressure from solar wind and one can build a solar sail, but that's still a minor effect compared to gravity.


Solar snail? i'm not sure whatthat means. I was under the impression that the earth formed a plasma magneto-pause, magneto-sheath and magneto-tail. Just google 'earth sun connection', the earth and sun are linked by magnetic fields and by eletric currents in the solar wind.

[edit on 20-12-2007 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
And astronomers do get damaged by the particles in space, radiation from the solar wind permeates the enitre spaceship and the astronoughts. Thats why the temparature is not absolute zero until you get really far away from the sun.


You stipulated that the upper atmosphere receives significant amounts of heat from the solar wind. This would mean that astronauts would receive a lot of heat, too. Even now they have to fogure our strategy to minimize radiation exposure from solar flares, but if the flux was so large as to cause heating... Man that'd be nasty. So it's a nice thought but doesn't work out.





The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.


It's good enough for us to steer a probe around Saturn, then turn it and direct it to the center of the Solar systems, do a few flybys and finally crash it on purpose into Mercury. If this precision of gravity calculation doesn't impress you, I don't know what will.


Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory


I'm truly sorry but this sounds like nonsense to me.


Solar snail? please explain.


I didn't say "snail". I said "sail". You can easily research it on the web.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
And astronomers do get damaged by the particles in space, radiation from the solar wind permeates the enitre spaceship and the astronoughts. Thats why the temparature is not absolute zero until you get really far away from the sun.


You stipulated that the upper atmosphere receives significant amounts of heat from the solar wind. This would mean that astronauts would receive a lot of heat, too. Even now they have to fogure our strategy to minimize radiation exposure from solar flares, but if the flux was so large as to cause heating... Man that'd be nasty. So it's a nice thought but doesn't work out.


I can't see how incident particles could result in anything other than heating of atoms in the atmosphere. Heat is proprtional to the kinetic energy of particles in any space, and if the atmosphere is having trillions of protons being fired into it from the sun that would significnatly increase the movement of the particles, and thus the temparature of the atmosphere.




The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.


It's good enough for us to steer a probe around Saturn, then turn it and direct it to the center of the Solar systems, do a few flybys and finally crash it on purpose into Mercury. If this precision of gravity calculation doesn't impress you, I don't know what will.


But we still do not know that it is just the mass of the atoms that causes the force due to gravity. This is a conceptual issue. When a satelite travels around the sun it never once measures gravity, nothing can measure gravity, you can only measure the force due to gravity at that point, and then work out the strength of the gravitational field from that force. Since there is no physical process by which gravity works what i am saying is that another apsect of EM theory and plasma physics could be what is causing the force due to gravity. I am not saying that gravity does not exist, just that it may not be an individual force in its own right, but a consequence of other forces. I say this mainly because it is so unbelieveably weak when compared with all other forces, it seems logical to suggest that electro-magnetism could play a role in space aswell as gravity.


Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory


There are many papers that agree that newtons theories of gravity are not applicable to everything. They are very hard to verify due to the weakness of gravity and the strength of EM forces. Newtons theories are getting pretty old now, over 300 years, and still going strong! they are mathematically fine, theres just no physical process to pin them down to.




I didn't say "snail". I said "sail". You can easily research it on the web.


My mistake
I was thinking snail?
, never heard that before

[edit on 20-12-2007 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ



I didn't say "snail". I said "sail". You can easily research it on the web.


My mistake
I was thinking snail?
, never heard that before


Oh man, but you should! It's the most awesomest, bestest thing!





Solar Snail Solar Powered Bike


 


On topic, I keep hearing people say this is like a paradigm shift and all that hoopla, but what's the actual applicable impact it would have on society in general?

Also, isn't attributing everything to plasma physics kind of over-doing it? Like people attributing everything to global warming.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   
For a good introduction to Plasma Cosmology in general, read "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric J. Lerner. Also "Cosmic Plasma" by Hannes Alfven.

Plasma Cosmology is a disciplinary framework which has a different set of basic assumptions and thought processes which form it's underlying scientific and spiritual foundation on which to build further meaning. It is by definition a different paradigm than that of the standard Big Bang cosmology.

Beachcoma you ask how the paradigm shift may effect culture: At the basis of Plasma Cosmology are many ideas which integrate into a semi-coherent world-view that is quite different than that formed within the Big Bang framework. As an example, within Plasma Cosmology is the idea that Cosmogony and Eschatology of the universe as a whole is not entirely within the realm of humanly verifiable knowledge, hence the question of how the universe as a whole began or will end takes a back seat to the more verifiable question 'what processes are at work currently, that we can measure and study.' The universe is viewed as 'eternal' for all we know, and this view can have an effect on ones understanding of himself within the universal processes that are constantly ongoing. When one views the universe itself as something that does not die, one can recognize that his/her own death is but a transition, a process. That is just one somewhat out-of-context example. There are far reaching implications that if properly understood by the majority of a culture would significantly change its overarching goals. Here is something I wrote elsewhere, touching on the same point:


Plasma Cosmology appears to be a Metaphysical Cosmology that attempts to incorporate and reconcile some aspects of process philosophy with the parts of Physical Cosmology that are not inherent to and dependent on the BB paradigm. Cosmogony of the universe itself (as opposed to solar systems, which are considered) takes a back seat in this framework, as the focus is switched to the current processes and manifestations of observables.


Process philosophy comes into play in a much greater extent under this paradigm. The gravitational, object oriented viewpoint is replaced by an electromagnetic, process oriented viewpoint.

In Plasma Cosmology on the very large scale the universe is viewed as cellular with defined regions of different energy, with natural energy flow over large distance taking place through different types of current. Energy flow between galaxies, between stars, similar processes at work over scales that differ in orders of magnitude. When one conjectures as to what information the large scale energy flows may represent, it is possible to view the large scale universe as something greater than the sum of its parts.

And Beach, it is not that we are attributing everything to Plasma. In standard Big Bang cosmology for a long time everything was being attributed to one force, gravity. If you take a look at the current situation, they are scrambling to assimilate the ideas of plasma astrophysics into their own paradigm, yet they still call plasma a 'hot gas' instead of by its proper name. Gravity is not solely ignored within PC, even when Peratt ran his computer simulations of two parallel Birkeland type currents, gravity was one of the variables. If it appears as though everything is being attributed to plasma in one way or another, you are witnessing the different paradigmatic process at work. It is true that the effects which the mainstream currently calls 'black holes' might instead be the byproduct of a large Z-pinch type plasma process. It is true that quasars might be ejected from AGN due to transfer of energy through intergalactic currents, all attributed to plasma type processes.

Squiz you have reinvigorated me, in fact to see so many people show interest in this great topic, has truly made me feel vindicated for all I have sacrificed to defend plasma cosmology in the past.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Ionized
 


Great post Ionized, you sum it up far better than I could. Glad to have you here

And welcome to Michael and Dave, I've gain much from your posts at thunderbolts, hope you stick around.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkSide
I just found out thanks to all the posts about plasma that the suns corona is much hotter than it's surface which contradicts the laws of thermodynamics. As said somewhere else it would be like sitting infront of an oven and feeling hotter 5m away from it than next to it. How does standart theory explain this? How does plasma universe explain it?


Don Scott explains it in his monograph "The Electric Sky," which I don't have right in front of me, or I'd quote it. Perhaps later, when I get home.

But, yes, Intensity laws generally state that the further from a point source of heat, the lower the received / radiated energy should be per square unit of surface area receiving it. Thus at Earth you get a lower influx than at Mercury. At Mars, you get a lower influx than @ Earth, At Saturn you get a WAY lower influx than @ Earth or Mars. Neptune & Pluto get all but nothing. The sun is but a mere glowing speck in the night sky to them... I'd wager about as intense as any other "star," perhaps slightly more so, but not by much.

So, it's a bit nonsensical to think that the sun's outside layer(s) should be so much hotter than its inside layers. IE, corona @ several million K, chromosphere around 20,000-50,00 K and the photosphere is a whopping (only) 5000 K, give or take. The question of why it seems to get cooler as you move inward is a good one, if one assumes the sun's "furnace" "fusion reactor" is internal, shouldn't the INSIDES be hottest, and shouldn't there be a gradient of temperature getting cooler and cooler as you get further away from the core?

Perhaps that's oversimplifying. Granted. But still an open question to those "in the know."

~Michael Gmirkin



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 07:51 PM
link   
I once read that a possible explanation for the Corona being hotter is due to an in-flux of particles and energy onto its surface from the interstellar plasma it is moving through, with the outflow of the circuit being at its polar regions. Polar filaments (termed 'jets' by the mainstream community) have been detected and known for many years, lending credence to this idea.

[edit on 20-12-2007 by Ionized]


Dae

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   
I just want to thank all the cool people who have joined ATS because of this thread. For a while now I have wanted to email a bunch of EU theorists and invite them to ATS to share the knowledge but I never had the guts to do it!

It makes me glow inside to know that EU and ATS have finally been introduced properly!



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Dae
 


I had been reading things here for a long time but when Squiz posted this other thread www.abovetopsecret.com... I could no longer resist making an account. I realize my first few posts on that thread are self-centered, but I was just trying to qualify my viewpoint and history (oh and being poverty level because I refused to follow the status quo kind of makes a guy a little crazy.) When you have devoted your life to something to the point where sacrifices are made for truth, it becomes a very personal subject.

ATS is a fun place and it is wonderful to know that there are this many people finally taking interest in Plasma Cosmology (I will always think of EU as a subset of PC just because PC is an older framework and is the more proper semantic phrasing, EU is more of a popularization term, and it seems to be working. Regardless of what people call it, it is great to see an interest.)

For years all that I encountered was resistance against this topic, it is very refreshing to see more people wake up. At this point the institutionalized scientists can continue doing what they do because as long as enough free thinkers recognize the truth, those of us who continue to work and have worked hard in the past to bring it to light, can rest in peace at night.

I want to thank all the others that have devoted their time and effort towards EU and PC. Together we will bring to light what the pioneers have begun, and continue down the unbeaten path with a brightly shining torch helping us see the way.

[edit on 20-12-2007 by Ionized]



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Sometimes pictures do speak louder than words, so I hope I've got this image thing right.


Very cool twisting filaments, reminds me of a plasma ball.




When I look at Saturn charged up like that I can't help but think that matter that makes up the rings is inclined to find the path of least electrical resistance.
We have counter rotating currents of clouds at the poles of Jupiter and Saturn and geometrical shapes, a vast vortex on Venus. We recently discovered a counter rotating "bubble" within our own galaxy.
The same patterns on different scales.



Galaxies strung on a wire? an even bigger scale? Does the scaling indicate their origin?



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ionized
Process philosophy comes into play in a much greater extent under this paradigm. The gravitational, object oriented viewpoint is replaced by an electromagnetic, process oriented viewpoint.


I like that


I can relate to it. It's kind of like my own personal philosophy of 'there are no such thing as boxes, only the relationships between the arbitrary concept of boxes'.

Edit to add:

You are right about the current establishment being very object-oriented in their viewpoint. I remember asking my physics teacher in school a question -- what is fire? She couldn't answer it, although the question intrigued her.

It was only years later when I posed the question to a very good friend of mine that I got an answer, which led me to the above philosophy. Her reply was "fire is a physical manifestation of the process of burning."

Nice! She wasn't even a science major.

[edit on 21-12-2007 by Beachcoma]



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 04:02 AM
link   
I've read the majority of the posts in this thread with much intrigue and wonder. I had never heard of this until I stumbled upon the post. It is simply amazing.

Now after reading, I wanted to pose a somewhat uneducated question in hopes someone could shed some light.

In an EU, where I think someone described all of the living beings that inhabit earth as tiny electrons that buzz about in a nondescript fashion. Using what I've read before and some ideas of my own....wouldn't this lend itself to the theory of "reincarnation"?

Excuse the lack of knowledge on this one....just starting some research. Now if I'm not mistaken (which I probably am), electrons can move about inside an atom and jump from one "level" or "ring" if you will to another to make something higher up in the table of elements, correct?

If we all know that energy can neither be created or destroyed, that would mean that each living thing on our earth possesses an energy, or "soul" as some would call it. If we are all nothing but electricity it seems, that would make for a great explanation as to why we know nothing before birth and after death. If we were to be reincarnated we would have no knowledge of a previous "existence".

Another question of mine is, if our universe is electric in nature, then what could explain all of that energy to be here in the first place? I mean, I know it can't be "created", only transferred. So going by that, if our universe hasn't been this way for infinity before, what exactly was it? I suppose an example I would use is a dam used to make electricity. The falling water powers the generators I suppose to transfer the energy into electrical current. So what was our "waterfall" before the universe was supposedly teeming with electricity?

Please forgive me if I am way off base here but its something I couldn't help but think about last night after reading some of the thread and watching the video posted on page 2. I realize what I'm asking is probably more than over simplified. Any light shed would be greatly appreciated. This website is the greatest and It has caused me to think about things in a completely different manner than what is the socially accepted norm. Hence deny ignorance I suppose eh?

Thanks again,
milkman



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by milkman450
 


This is another part of the EU theory that is so great, it relates to so many issues of life as you mention.

And in my opinion it defines reincarnation.
As your life energy, when dying, is transformed rather than destroyed. You merely transform into another state of energy, your body is burried or burned or whatever, and eventually becomes earth and other forms of energy. There is talk about the body loosing weight when dying and maybe that is the electric energy of your body being released?
And who is to say that you will not be "merged" into the energy used to create another human life?

If energy cannot be created or destroyed, than the universe will have to have always been here in one form or another.

EU theory relates to mythology and philosophy aswell as science and that is important when looking at the bigger picture of things.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by milkman450
 


I could be wrong here, but I would say that this isn't the case. The theories of Birkeland and Alfvén which gave rise to the Electric Universe idea primarily deals with plasma and the nature of how it works.

For this reason I think the term 'Electric Universe' can be somewhat misleading. It should rightly be called 'Plasma Universe', nothing more, nothing less. Using the term 'electric' does appeal to the public more than the term 'plasma', though. After all most people have enough basic understanding of what electricity is. Plasma and it's properties on the other hand is still somewhat mysterious, even to physicist. Even though plasma carries an electrical charge, it isn't the same as electricity, which is simply the flow of the electric charge.

By using the proper term, I think we could avoid the 'over-attribution' I was talking about earlier. For example, your ideas, while interesting, isn't very much grounded in physics. It's more suited to the realm of meta-physics.

If you wish to better understand the whole concept, you ought to have some basic knowledge on what plasma is. I recommend you read the Wikipedia article on plasma first. Then you can move on to the other dedicated wiki on the plasma universe theory. The explanations in the former is quite simple, while the latter is relatively complicated, but enlightening nonetheless.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by mgmirkin
Don Scott explains it in his monograph "The Electric Sky," which I don't have right in front of me, or I'd quote it. Perhaps later, when I get home.


I do
That book is really brilliant, thats the whole reason i started paying attention to EU theory after i read that book. Even my Uni physics teacher was impressed with it when he read it, and he usually agree's with mainstream ideas.



So, it's a bit nonsensical to think that the sun's outside layer(s) should be so much hotter than its inside layers. IE, corona @ several million K, chromosphere around 20,000-50,00 K and the photosphere is a whopping (only) 5000 K, give or take. The question of why it seems to get cooler as you move inward is a good one, if one assumes the sun's "furnace" "fusion reactor" is internal, shouldn't the INSIDES be hottest, and shouldn't there be a gradient of temperature getting cooler and cooler as you get further away from the core?

Perhaps that's oversimplifying. Granted. But still an open question to those "in the know."


The explanation in Don Scotts 'The Electric Sky' has this to say about it;


It does this by showing that charged particles are not much affected by external electrostatic forces when they are within the photosphere, only diffusion motion and Brownian motion occurs. Temperature is simply the measurement of the general kinetic energy of particles. This means that the ions have their maximum potential energy when they are in this photospheric plasma; however their mechanical energy is relatively low. At a certain point when a +ve ion randomly moves out of the photosphere and into the electric field (voltage gradient) it will result in it being accelerated outwards. The particles are basically transferring the high electrical potential energy they had in the sun into kinetic energy by gaining an extremely high outwards radial velocity. In this region between the photosphere and lower chromosphere the ions become very organised (parallel) and they are much more diffuse, thus their temperature, which is a measurement of their random motion, drops to a minimum.

When these rapidly travelling particles travel through the chromosphere they move beyond the outwardly directed e-field force that has been accelerating them, (ie, they have reached the bottom of the hill and are now moving much faster than they were at the top). Because of their kinetic energy any collisions at this point involve a lot of energy, and create high amplitude random motions, therefore ‘re-thermalizing’ these ions to a much higher temperature as they react with each other after gaining their original burst of energy.


Seems quite scientifically sound to me, plus it doesn't require any metaphysical constructs like magnetic reconnection, or dark matter. All it takes is a sun that has the ability to retain charge and exhibit a high voltage. This charge creates the electric field that accelorates and heats up particles in the solar wind.

To date this is the only explanation for the coronal heating problem, and the particle acceloration problem, i have seen anywhere.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 09:39 AM
link   
How about watching an asteroid impact mars and comparing an impact crater to a plasma discharge scar?!?!?!?

Los Angeles Times



An asteroid similar to the one that flattened forests in Siberia in 1908 could plow into Mars next month, scientists said Thursday.




The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, which is mapping the planet, would have a front-row seat. And NASA's two JPL-built rovers, Opportunity and Spirit, might be able to take pictures from the ground.




top topics



 
114
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join