NASA needs to pursue “aggressive” development of space nuclear propulsion technologies if the agency wants to use them for human missions to Mars in the next two decades, a report by a National Academies committee concluded.
https://spacenews.com/report-recomme...n-development/
Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom
Mars rovers safe from lightning strikes, research finds. The friction of colliding Martian dust particles is unlikely to generate big electrical storms or threaten the newly arrived exploration vehicles or, eventually, human visitors.
https://phys.org/news/2021-02-mars-r...lightning.html
Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom
I kind of agree that it seems like a lot of effort to test something that doesn’t seem to be a big problem. And as you said, they were just using a laboratory model that may well replicate conditions on Mars.
I have a suspicion, and I am saying this as a person who writes press releases on research papers... My suspicion is the research is probably not just about safety but about modeling atmospheric phenomena in exo-atmospheres, but that in the press releases they played up the safety issue because it’s easy to understand and thus likely to generate press coverage (and attention on science Internet forums)!
As above, so below
So to test this hypothesis, I went to the paper, and although I can't access the full text, I did read the abstract, and indeed there is no mention at all about safety. The abstract is just describing it as an interesting phenomenon and the research as something that will contribute to an understanding of the Mars atmosphere. I think it would be easy enough to ask the authors about that.
As above, so below
We test, we verify. It's a reasonable thing, IMO, to check that we may have simply missed something in intermittent and widely scattered snapshots of Mars.
"I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright
So you are saying that my reading of the abstract was wrong and that it was primarily a safety study rather than basic science based on previous studies. I could only read the abstract, but perhaps there was something in the paper that says something I couldn’t see?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As above, so below
You seem to be attributing intentions to me based on something other than my posts.
I mentioned nothing about you or what you said. I was replying to what cjameshuff posted. My fault for not quoting, I think.
Basic experimental science is what I was talking about. We experiment, we simulate, we check and re-check results. I never mentioned safety as a concern.
"I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright
Yes, perhaps the problem is that you made your post right after mine, without quoting. I think it's better if you make clear what post you are responding to...
However, you also said.
And yet, in post 1178, you said:I never mentioned safety as a concern.
That's not about safety?We like to avoid unpleasant surprises when considering possible human habitation.
As above, so below
OK, understood. So I understand that when cjameshuff said:
You replied:We've been operating surface probes there for half a century with no clear detections of lightning. Is their next report going to be on the tsunami risk?
But what you really meant to say is:"No clear detection" is no guarantee. We like to avoid unpleasant surprises when considering possible human habitation.
"I think the research was just about experimental science, and wasn't about safety."
Then you should have said so in the first place.... It would have made things much easier to understand.
As above, so below
Stop putting words in my mouth. If you have questions about what I mean, ask me what I mean.
"I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright
To you specifically, to the world in general. It pushes my buttons like nothing else to have someone reinterpret my statements and add their own meanings without actually asking me.
I don't mean to be insistent about this but I have my own communications issues, it's hard enough for me to be sure someone understands me when it's just my own words.
As for the specifics of my post # 1187, I doubt I made sense, because my brain goes all wonky when I get upset and makes me prone to overstatement. So I probably did say things that are not viable.
"I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright
Sorry, i’m not trying to be overly argumentative, that’s really not my goal, but I really don’t understand what I wrote that was putting words into your mouth. If you can point out the place I can go back and see what I was misinterpreting.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As above, so below
Sorry to repeat myself, but I don’t think anyone likes that. I don’t like it when people reinterpret my statements, so I try not to do it to others. So I’d like to know where I did it to you, so I can be more careful in the future.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As above, so below
Well, "So you're saying" and "But what you really meant to say is". Telling instead of asking, at least that's how it comes across to me.
How about "What did you mean by", ""what are you saying here" or "could you clarify this"?
Sorry to be so pedantic, but this is a trigger issue to me.
"I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright
OK, in post 1189, I wanted to ask:
In post 1178, you wrote:
And in post 1187, you said:We like to avoid unpleasant surprises when considering possible human habitation.
What did you mean by saying that you never mentioned safety as a concern?I never mentioned safety as a concern.
As above, so below
I was mistaken.
To make my point clearer, I'll say even if human safety were not a concern, even if we never set foot on Mars, my view is that experimentation to verify a hypothesis based on intermittent localized observation of surface conditions would still be justified. The hypothesis being that there's no lightning on Mars.
"I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright