It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
Just two weeks after landing its Curiosity rover on Mars, the US space agency has announced it will send another robot to the planet in 2016.
The InSight spacecraft will be a static lander that will carry instruments to investigate Mars' deep interior.
Scientists say this will give them a clearer idea of how the rocky planets formed - the Earth included.
true. But people wouldnt go for a 3 trillion dollr mission to mars. Though.. We should consider a more sophisticated, faster transmittable system, that allows for more hands on integration.. Then.. The money is worth it.. We need to send the information faster. We cant have delay.. So.. We should work out that kink before deploying more.
Originally posted by CaptainBeno
reply to post by Myendica
I don't have anything against this at all. Just wonder why they can't have one "do all" rover?
I would have thought that was obvious by the amount of volcanic activity present on the surface of Mars
I'm not sure I get your point. Cheaper than what? NASA is scratching for every penny right now. Insight Mars is a bargain basement job.
Surely it would be cheaper option?
Not quite complete free of radioactive products but a lot less than other methods. It wouldn't exactly "redo" our current reactors. We would need completely new types of reactors (fusion), something we don't have and aren't very close to having.
Its from the sun, and is estimated to deliver enough NON-RADIOACTIVE Nuclear Energy that would completely redo our current nuclear reactors worldwide, and even maybe replace fossil fuel as we use it in abundance today.
No. It doesn't burn. We don't see much of it on Earth because the magnetosphere keeps it away. The Moon may be "covered" by it but that doesn't mean it's easy to get. It's thought to exist in concentrations of about 15 parts per billion. It's not just a matter of "scooping it up".
Except it burns up in our Atmosphere, yet on the Moon there is no Atmosphere and they estimate the Moon is covered by it.
Not until there are fusion reactors which can use it and there probably won't be for quite a while. Helium 3 is not a good reason to go to the Moon, not for a while anyway.
Whoever gets to the Moon first and begins excavating will own the business.
Originally posted by interupt42
Riding the current success and attention of the Curiosity rover is a good time to mention the next trip.
After a couple of years of rock analysis and no sign of life the thrill will surely be gone for the masses.