This is an archive of past discussions with User:Rowan Forest. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Of possible interest? => In March 2019, scientists reported evidence that suggests the planet Mars, in some near-equatorial regions, currently contains a deep groundwater system.[1][2]
Hello. When I look at the History tab of any page, I am now seeing additional functions at the top that I do not want to see or use. They appear in a large rectangle and state:
"Show revision history" and has two fields bellow to complete. The first field states:
"To date: " The second field states: "Tag filter". I do not want to use or see this option but I am unable to inactivate every time I open a History tab. Any help making it go away will be appreciated.
Thanks Rowan Forest (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at SpaceIL shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)12:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Rowan Forest - Sorry to template you like this. I'm doing this in order to be a completely neutral party and to be fair to all users involved, and make sure that everyone is treated exactly the same (which includes leaving the same warning for everyone). :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)12:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Never mind; please disregard the warning I left you above. I just realized that this IP user is part of a range that I just blocked earlier today due to IP-hopping vandalism, disruption, and other abuse. I apologize for leaving the warning and messages above before realizing the connection here... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)12:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
No problem. That was one nasty disruptor that knows the strings, and unless the administrator looks into the story, they usually get away with it. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@Rowan Forest: Latest on finding methane on Mars? => On 22 June 2019, scientists working with the Curiosity rover on the planet Mars reported the detection of a significant amount of methane (21 parts per billion), a possible indicator of life.[3][4]
@Drbogdan: Thanks. It is always better to hear it from NASA, without hype and wild click-bait interpretations. The burning question is: Will ExoMars TGO finally detect this "high" concentration (21 ppb)??? It is supposed to be a lot more sensitive (~ 0.05 ppv) than Curiosity's sensors, but it may be so only in the middle and upper atmosphere, because the TGO always comes back negative. Maybe there is a very efficient sink in the middle and upper atmosphere that prevents its detection by the TGO? My suspicion is that this sink (chemical or radiation) acts within hours not ~300 years, because the TGO has never seen it in real time. Another possible but scary possibility is that the TGO methane detection is also flawed, as the Indian MOM orbiter is. Rowan Forest (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@Rowan Forest: Thank you for your excellent comments - you may be right about your noted TGO concerns - either a methane sink in the Martian atmosphere of some sort, or a flawed detector in some way - nonetheless - seems time may be needed to process more data - including that from the TGO - in which case, all may be found to be ok after all - guess we'll have to wait-and-see what develops - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Drbogdan: Published just minutes ago:[5] "The measurement deepens the mystery of why a European Space Agency probe sent to Mars to nail down the origins of the planet's methane has so far found no traces of the gas. One possible explanation is that any methane released on the planet is broken down before it reaches the altitude of the ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO)." Well, the gas does not have to literally reach the TGO, but certain altitude above ground. I believe its spectrometers use solar occultation to read the atmospheric spectra, and it may not work well close to the ground/horizon. Interesting to see that someone else also thinks the methane sink acts significantly faster than ~400 years. Although it is early to hear a detailed report, the silence by the TGO science team is not comforting. They would be ecstatic to have their first detection and note that their studies are underway. But complete silence is not reassuring.Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Rowan Forest: - Thanks for the followup[5] - yes - a word or two from the TGO team may help of course - but seems we'll just have to wait-and-see atm - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
A bit more on the latest methane detection on Mars[6] - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC) - very latest NYT followup news report[7] - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
@Drbogdan: I read somewhere that the Europeans (Mars Express and TGO) have not yet downloaded their data from the orbiters, so that explains their current silence. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
@Drbogdan: Noticed that it is almost 2 months since the last reported methane release, and no news from the ExoMars TGO team. My guess is that if the results came back negative they would have said so, and therefore, they are processing the data and resulting paper. Whatchathink? Rowan Forest (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@Rowan Forest: Thanks for your comments - and reminder - yes - I agree with your thinking about this - there may be some data processing and a research paper in preparation I would think as well - hopefully we'll see something soon about this - iac - Thanks for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I never read anything about wind erosion "releasing methane", on the contrary, there is a hypothesis on the wind facilitating a powerful sink by the silica in the regolith. Thanks. Rowan Forest (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, they already knew of the polar ice cap. I believe the new understanding is that it was deposited in layers along with sand, giving interesting clues to climate change on Mars. Very interesting. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, word has been out,[1] so I did a quick update on some pages. JAXA's ISAS division made their pick of the next Large-class mission, and it's the space physics mission, LiteBIRD. Also chosen was a Medium-class mission called JASMINE, an IR astrometry mission[2] (similar in function to ESA's Gaia spacecraft). Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Apologies for my recent absence, there were some matters at hand (hint: a Japanese fiscal year starts every April). In the past few months several major developments have happened in space exploration, so although I may not be able to make big edits, will try to update things bit by bit. As always, Hms1103 (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
You are awesome! How is it possible that a single person knows so much? I am in awe of your contributions to wikipedia. Thank you for making it useful to all of us. Wikina4321 (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
@Wikina4321: I just read science news and some selected journals that are interesting to me. So I don't really "know" all this stuff, I just quote the sources. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
@Drbogdan: That is well put. The basic building blocks of DNA/RNA are ubiquitous in interstellar space, in comets and in asteroids. It is possible that once mixed with and incubated for millennia in liquid water, the same prebiotic chemistry, nucleic acid polymers, and protocells will assemble spontaneously on that planet or moon. However, being conservative and considering other types of biochemistry when building life-detection methods is the best way to go, especially for exotic environments like Titan; not so much for Europa and Enceladus. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
@Rowan Forest: Yes - I *entirely* agree as well - very well put - as was your own comments above - for my part, seems well in line with my own thinking about this some years ago (NYT, 2012),[3] which you may be familiar with from one of my earlier notes on Wikipedia - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
@Drbogdan: I think this is well-grounded hypothesis (for biosignatures), and the technology (telescopes) are actually being developed for the expected wavelengths. So I think it is appropriate to add this one in Wikipedia. Thanks, Rowan Forest (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Drbogdan: The existence of the atmospheric "unknown absorber" in Venus atmosphere prompted Sagan's hypothesis in 1963: "The idea of life in the Venusian atmosphere dates back to a 1963 paper co-authored by Carl Sagan.: [3].
@Drbogdan: The patches of the famous "unknown absorber" are not evenly distributed in the atmosphere, despite the very strong winds and vertical air displacement. That adds to the mystery. My money is in active volcanism from multiple sources that could maintain concentrated patches before the wind dilutes. The Akatsuki orbiter was meant to figure it out, but no luck. I think this will bug the hell out of the planetary scientists and will decide to escalate and send high-definition radar mappers, balloon-probes and landers (if the new heat-resistant chips are ready). We'll see. The Discovery program may take that challenge late this year, with at least 3 Venus proposals submitted this summer. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@Drbogdan: That is an interesting article from the historical point of view. Although he was not a scientist, he apparently had a solid grasp of its principles and methodology. The key point is that, as a politician and leader, he used science advisors and he created and supported important science projects. A radical contrast with the Angry Cheeto's systematic sabotage of the facts, vision, and policies concerning science and technology. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes - *entirely* agree - Churchill seemed ahead of his time in 1939 with some of his thinking on aliens[12] and evolution[13] - thought his essays were interesting - and well considered imo - iac - Thanks for your replies - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again for your *Excellent* help with the "Apidima Cave" article - it's *greatly* appreciated - somewhat related is a possible interestng (at least imo atm) read entitled, "Would humans evolve again if we rewound time?"[1] - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Drbogdan: Although evolution is the product of random mutations, it happens in its environmental context and at the level of species; so yes, humans would evolve again given the same (African) environment. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
On 14 July 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Apidima Cave, which you substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.
https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/india-moon-chandrayaan-2/
"Vikram carries a seismometer, thermal probe, and an instrument to measure variation and density of lunar surface plasma, along with a laser retro-reflector supplied by NASA's Goddard Spaceflight Center."
Being passive means that it requires no electricity (it is a mirror). It is a payload on the Vikram lander and it is documented as such by ISRO, NASA and the press. I just don't know what your grievance is. Just because it uses no electricity.... Rowan Forest (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@Rowan Forest: Wheather it uses electricity or not is no problem. My only query is why ISRO, on their official page, cited no of payloads for VIKRAM as 3, and Categotized LRA as a passive element(without counting it as a payload) without considering it as a payload. Why didn't they provide the no. of payloads as 4. I hope my query is clear to you. Thank you AbhiMukh97 (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@AbhiMukh97: I see. You were relying on a specific official reference. In the end, NASA and ISRO managed a very last minute deal to mount a little LRA on top of the lander (it looks like a little disco ball). Maybe that is why it does not figure in the official ISRO manifest, as it has not been updated. I noticed that in the past, the accomplishments of Chandrayaan-1 in confirming water ice traps were largely attributed by the mass press to one of NASA's instruments on that orbiter. So I understand ISRO's position to make all hardware 100% domestic this time and not undergo the same situation again. But in the end, cooperation with other space agencies is the best way to go and they accepted to carry the LRA. (PS: Take a look at Moon Village, an initiative born out of common sense and economics.) Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
For third time: people have dreamed, wondered, and hypothesized of exoplanets for a long time, and the confirmation of the first exoplanet is the keystone. Rowan Forest (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I've always agreed with that. There was no need to say it three times. But 1992 is not the year of the earliest confirmed detection. It is the year of the earliest confirmation of a detection. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Not so. Conjunction in classical logic requires that if something is a detection and is confirmed, then it is a confirmed detection. That is why the first (now) confirmed detection was in 1988. In this case, the now confirmed detection took place in 1988, while its confirmation took place later. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Sent in desiccated state (cryptobiotic state) inside tiny capsule. They may remain viable for many years. Worth finding its impact site and sending a crew in 30-50 years when there is a series of bases to retrieve it for analyses. Rowan Forest (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
@Rowan Forest: Thanks for adding the phrase - it's *greatly* appreciated - a revisit in 30-50 years may be very interesting I would think - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. #3 is fascinating. It is known that liposomes can form spontaneously, but becoming stable is a huge chemical evolutionary step. It may -or not- suggest that aminoacids (proteins) may have preceded nucleic acids. Maybe it suggests they were co-located in membranes simultaneously. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey @Rowan Forest:, I just saw your recent edit onChandrayaan-2 about date of rover deployment. As official statement by ISRO says the roll out will occur between 5:30 to 6:30 am IST on 7th September which means it will after 00:00 7th September UTC [1]. Therefore I am changing date Again to 7th September, If you feel I am wrong please, let me know. Cheers. Brown Chocolate (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@Rowan Forest:, Just a general question, maybe I am wrong. Should we really called Vikram landing as crash landing? Though it may had crash landed but as there is no official statement about it from ISRO and at such conditions only ISRO can state anything rather than any media sources. It is just like we are 100% sure that communication lost but 99% sure that it crash landed. Please refer [4] for more updates on article. Thanks Brown Chocolate (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@Brown Chocolate: Hello. I am not sure what your question is. Crash-landing vs full crash? In the ISRO update link above ISRO acknowledges they received the landing telemetry, and for their engineering purposes, the landing system achieved "90 to 95% success". The remaining 5% is the crash itself. This means a failure to start the landed science phase. The orbiter is operational, so Chandrayaan-2 mission continues. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, we can as ISRO only says 'loss of communication'. In any of statement from ISRO does't mention 'crash land'. Maybe they will release any statement after few days confirming crash landing but as this stage we should not call crash landing. Brown Chocolate (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@Brown Chocolate: There are 2 key factors in this: physics and national pride. (1) ISRO will NEVER release a statement using the "crash" word, even after images of the impact crater are released (just watch). (2) Regarding the physics, once a lander's orbit speed is reduced, gravity takes over (fact) and a crash will happen (fact)....unless the onboard propulsion performs a very precise sequence of events so it can change all that and soft-land. The sequence was interrupted as evidenced by the trajectory and speed seen live, so a crash must have happened. For Wikipedia purposes, I think we can quote the reputable publications dedicated to space missions, such as Space, where they state "apparent lander crash"[5]. I think that is a good compromise and in touch with reality. What do you think? Rowan Forest (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I too know that it is impossible that Vikam could have made it. I was thinking in a way as I learned on wikipedia yet. I know the truth that it crashed landed, no doubt for me. But ISRO still claim that they are trying to establish contact and they didn't even said it as failure. I know no use, nothing will gonna happen. But things like confirm source comes to mind. That's why I was thinking instead of crash land we could say loss of communication. Still I think you are right cuz you been here so long. I have been following you since start. Infact I consider you as my guardian on Wikipedia. I am learning, thanks for teaching me. Brown Chocolate (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@Brown Chocolate: Thank you, you are very kind. But as a scientist, I do have a very low threshold to BS, which is sometimes difficult to restrain as an editor. Regarding the CY-2 lander failure, the Prime minister has Tweeted alternative wordings to "crash", such as "set back", and "proud of a programme that had come so near to putting a probe on the Moon". Being objective, in the Cy-2 and Pragyan rover articles I have sourced "loss of communication" followed by "apparent crashing". I think this wording and supporting references comply with both the reality and the requirement of reliable sources. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@Brown Chocolate: It is I that am thankful, to you and Oshkin. It is hard to maintain an article undergoing a high-profile event and such high traffic. In Wikipedia, it is going better than I expected though. Space missions are very hard, and as a fan of ISRO, I remain very proud of them. Watch them take a deep breath and impress the world over and over again in the near future, with the Chandrayaan-2 orbiter science phase, with MOM-2 to Mars (which will have a significant science payload), Shukrayaan to Venus, and a bunch of Earth orbiters and space observatories to come. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey @Rowan Forest:, sorry for disturbing you again. Whole over Indian Media houses are saying ISRO lost communication at about altitude of 2.1km. But as far I understand from live stream, Isro didn't lost communication but lost its telemetry on about 2.1km. Communication was lost about 1km. Can you please clarify my doubt? Cheers. Brown Chocolate (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Brown Chocolate: You are correct in that there is confusion out there, but that is because ISRO has issued discrepant statements. To begin, the generic word "communication" is being used by the ISRO (and therefore in the press) in an imprecise way. After the command from Earth to deorbit the lander, there was no more two-way communication. The landing sequence was automatic and the only communication was the telemetry (one-way status) from the lander. The telemetry evidently ended on impact. The trajectory anomaly started at 2.1 km, that's when the lander lost control, not the telemetry. There is a small delay of seconds in the lander's telemetry because its sensors have to translate the signals into electronic information, packaged as data packs, and sent to the antenna for transmission to Earth. The last telemetry received, (as shown on live TV) and remarked by the MIT Technical Review shows the lander was falling at 209 km/h with 5.6 seconds to impact. The signal transmission from the Moon takes 1.25 seconds, plus the time its takes to code the telemetry data into data packages and transmit it. So it is evident the telemetry did end at the time of impact. What I have been trying to find since yesterday, is an official statement that binds this information together, otherwise it is synthesis on my part. The best I found is that the trajectory deviation started at 2.1 km (not the telemetry interruption), but then ISRO changed its story and said that communications ended at 2.1 km (which is false because we saw the telemetry continued as it happened live down to 330 m), so I can't deal with such discrepancy in Wikipedia by using their own opposing official statements. I will find a couple of references and get back to you. I think there is a point to be made in the discrepancy, and on the fact that the landing sequence was automated and the telemetry was received and shown till 5 sec to impact. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for amazingly clearing my doubts. Actually I misunderstood telemetry and trajectory. I know the difference between them. But I don't know why the hell I wrote telemetry. Cheers. Brown Chocolate (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello and thank you for talking. There are 2 key factors in this: physics and national pride. (1) ISRO will NEVER release a statement using the "crash" word, even after images of the impact crater are released (just watch). The Prime Minister has Tweeted alternative wordings to "crash", such as "set back", and "proud of a programme that had come so near to putting a probe on the Moon". (2) Regarding the physics, once a lander's orbit speed is reduced, gravity takes over (fact) and a crash will happen (fact)....unless the onboard propulsion performs a very precise sequence of events so it can change all that and soft-land. The sequence was interrupted as evidenced by the trajectory and speed seen live, so a crash must have happened. For Wikipedia purposes, I think we can quote the reputable publications dedicated to space missions, such as Space, where they state "apparent lander crash"[6]. Also, this MIT report states that the telemetry shown live on TV showed that the lander was not just off course, but falling too fast in its final seconds: [7]. If you hope that the lander landed safely but it is silent, it is false hope, and there are no references to support that scenario. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I know you remain hopeful, and I am sorry too. But the telemetry in the last seconds (whether the signal was lost or not) confirms it was heading at 209 km/h straight to the surface, with 5.6 seconds to impact. Whether its radio failed or not, ISRO KNOWS by this telemetry that the spacecraft was out of control and falling fast just before the planned "touchdown". You do the math, because gravitational physics doesn't care about our expectations and desires. Rowan Forest (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanq for reply....one more importent thing ....
The landing under control of lander itself ,artificial inteligence....Its not influenced by isro from earth....
So communication is no need to land ...Communication need only for to get position of lander...
So the result is
" Dont know what exactly happend...simply gives landing fail or crash
That is correct. The lander had a computer that performed all landing sequences automatically. Once it is commanded to start, there is no way to stop it. During descent, the "communications" involved are called telemetry, and they are used to "spy" on the lander. Loss of telemetry could still have involved a safe landing, as it happened to the Beagle 2 lander on Mars. But the telemetry received from Vikram indicated the lander was off course, falling fast and it did not perform certain burns it should have. The telemetry should help find out the exact failure of the landing sequence. Rowan Forest (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
,Thanq for perfect reply...
Your wards:
"It did not perform certain burns"
Failure of soft landing (due tovFailure of burns).Burns usefull for soft land...failure burns means failure of soft land....
Or
We dont know the exact reason.
So my openion after all discussion
"Failure of soft land due to communication failure at 2 km above moon surface"
According to what I read so far, the loss of communication (telemetry) was a secondary effect of a much bigger failure. The loss of telemetry did not cause the final burns failure, because the lander did not actually need to transmit its status during landing. Telemetry is done to understand how the system performed, and to improve on future landing systems. According to ISRO, they achieved 95% of the engineering goals for the lander. That is very good! This accident is very similar to the crash of Europe's Schiaparelli EDM Mars lander under almost identical timing. Since the European lander transmitted most of its telemetry before impact, the engineers understood what went wrong, so declared the lander an official success, and so, the ExoMars mission is on time to be launched in 2020. From the engineering point of view, Vikram's 95% success is very good. Too bad the remaining 5% prevented the rover from being deployed. Rowan Forest (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
The problem arrieved just sec before landing
Chances: After landing...due to large mountains or unexpected environment...the signal may be failed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.63.138.20 (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Can you help me convert that “Known activities and operations” table in the article MARCOS into a normal paragraph based format? It becomes too clumsy to read on the mobile site. For example, a subsection-based format similar to the one in this article will be easier to read. My editing skills are not that good; I may mess up if I tried on my own. I couldn’t zoom in on anyone else for this; don’t worry, I won’t bother you again. Please help!! Regards, Vaibhavafro (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Gravitational constant of mars 3.711 m/s²
Gravitational constant of Earth 9.807 m/s²
So Mars is approx 0.3 G of Earth or 0.3784031814010401
Inside the ISS, there's a downward gravitational pull of about 0.89g,
There is little to no oxygen, nitrogen or other light gases above 40,000 ft because there is insufficient atmospheric pressure. Altimeters measure atmospheric pressure, the higher one goes the less the atmospheric pressure.. Atmospheric pressure is caused by gravitational pull on the molecules of gas, as they pile up the pressure increases.
If there is insufficient gravitational pull above say the stratosphere, much less the altitude of the space station. how could Mars ever have had an atmosphere with sufficient oxygen and hyrdrogen to hold water in liquid form, not to mention oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen in gaseous form. When on earth these gases start to diminish at 10,000 feet, not to mention the peak of Mt Everest.
Which incidentally has less gravity than the surface and more than the surface of Mars.
By the way if gravity is a property of mass, the more mass the more gravity. Therefore the gravitational pull on the top of Everestt should be greater than in the Mariannas trench, but the opposite is true. Do you have an explanation? Discuss please, I can't reconcile facts with your statement here Mars did have a thick atmosphere under the exact same gravity force it has today. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)that Mars can retain atmosphere and water,. How could Mars have a "thick"atmosphere with a gravitational pull which is less than that of Spacelab? It is gravity that creates atmospheric pressure, and it is gravity that keeps water in liquid form and pushes gaseous molecules towards the source of the gravity which is the center of the earth. i can accomodate a Martian atmosphere if, and only if, gravity is a current force produced by a current process and diminishes, IAW the 2nd law of thermodynamics as the source cools downOldperson (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
"how could Mars ever have had an atmosphere with sufficient oxygen and hyrdrogen to hold water in liquid form, not to mention oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen in gaseous form." --Oldperson
@Oldperson: Gravity, atmospheric pressure and a global magnetic field all contributed to the existence of liquid water on the surface. Gravity is a parameter that has not changed on Mars. And, now you contest the scientific consensus on the rovers' confirmation that Mars had a thicker atmosphere in the past and liquid water on the surface. I am sorry but I do not wish to explain, entertain, or debate what is now openly a conspiracy theory and POV on different aspects of the geological history of Mars. I have a low threshold for forum-like debates in Wikipedia and BS in general. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I am not contesting Rovers report. Back in 1996 on the Skunkworks forum I predicted that the ice at the Mars polar region was water. There was at least one JPL employee on the forum that ridiculed me and claimed that it was frozen methane, but voila I was proved correct. This global magnetic field is a unique explanation AFAIK. Facts are, from Earth experience is that we have water and an atmosphere of light gases, is because of the earths gravitational pull. Now given that and given that Mars once had water and an atmosphere (I totally agree withthat) then the logical conclusion,and this one is hard to deal with for those of us educated in Newtonian Physics is that gravity is not a property of mass, but a current forceprduced by a current process. This is not a forum level debate,but this is relevant to having accurate information in an article. If Martian gravity has always been the same then there would be no water on Mars, either subsurface or at the poles, but there is subsurface and polar water, therefore gravity is not a property of mass but a current force and at one time the gravity of Mars was > .37 earth G. Pretty simple.Please don' insult me with this conspiracy theory nonsense. The questions I ask and what I posit do not fit the criteria of a conspiracy theory. and talk pages are just the place to thrash stuff like this out, not to promote censorshipOldperson (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
1) You are not proposing any specific changes to the article and cite no supporting references for whatever you think needs to be edited.
2) I am not interested in discussing the general subject and your biases on Mars, even if it is in my Talk page.
3) Perhaps you want to join some kind of online forum to express your opposition to the current scientific consensus.
A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.
Thanks Batt/Rowan for helping to edit that today! I'm running out of time, and haven't got the more simple/older information cited... but I wanted to get the new-this-afternoon info into the article asap, and did get that all cited.
Feel free to add cites (probably reuse of other cites already in the article) for the other major characteristics of the Mk1 / Mk2 prototypes.
This article I just saw has some, but not all, of the info Musk tweeted today/recently, and is a secondary source. I'm headed out the door for the evening so can't do anything with it, so thought I'd pop it your way: Teslarati]. N2e (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Rowan for the great help adding sources.
I wonder if you could check the Geekwire source I left in the article, and see how it shows for you??? Are you also not seeing the embedded tweets I'm not seeing in the Alan Boyle article? If so, then maybe both Geekwire and Yahoo are not such good sources for the average global wikipedia reader. But if you can see it, then maybe it is just some problem in my browser. (I tagged it as better source needed; but again, maybe it's just me.) N2e (talk) 12:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
THANKS for all the great work you are doing on that article. Will be a busy next several weeks.
FYI, with Musk saying no transpiration cooling today, I updated the Starship article, and also made a major copyedit to the transpiration cooling article, so that the history of the serious engineering and testing that went into it this past year is not lost to Wikipedia. If you get a chance, please review it and catch errors, omissions, lack of clarity, etc. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@N2e: I read somewhere (or in YouTube) that Musk quit the transpiration cooling concept in favor of a new type of thin thermic tiles, but I think he may still use transpiration for the leading edges and nose cone for increased safety. As I said before, physics is not my strength, but -cooling aside- I don't see how transpiration cooling alone could stop the ablasion of the naked steel during re-entry. I don't think the MK1 and MK2 will use thermal protection until they actually do orbital flights. You know, step-wise approach. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you on this: "I don't think the MK1 and MK2 will use thermal protection until they actually do orbital flights." On this part "I think he may still use transpiration for the leading edges and nose cone for increased safety" Fair enough. Could be, but there is no evidence of that yet, and he certainly doesn't need it (yet) for the 20km skydiver-like belly-flop "next" test flight.
Personally, what I think is more likely, is that (IF they don't crash the Mk 1 / Mk 2 vehicles too early in the testing), I suspect we will see changes to the design of the mfins during the next few months and test flights. I won't be surprised if entirely new/different ones are put on/installed on Mk 1 after they get a bunch of temp/pressure (in flight) and post-flight inspection data from each flight. IF they have ANY problems, abrasion or otherwise, we can expect the SpaceX engineers to cop up new solutions for them to test on subsequent flights, including transpiration cooling.
I'm not an aeronautical engineer, but am an engineer, and am taking two more physics courses this fall (one is Planetary Physics), so I can play one on Tuesdays. ;) I don't think "abrasion" is the problem on the high speed reentry. Very few air molecules "hit" the craft at Mach 25 and 40 km altitude where the serious reentry heating begins. It is counterintuitive, but drag is (oddly) not the main problem. Rather, it is the heating, from the compressive shock wave ahead of the vehicle, and that (super highly compressed air) radiating tremendous heat back to the vehicle that is doing the atmospheric descent. So it is not abrasion per se, but the material heating red hot or more and getting on the wrong side of it yield strength curve. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I am a molecular biologist by profession so I don't dabble much in physics, but the heat is not caused in vacuum or by velocity alone, it is caused by the friction of the gaseous atmosphere on the spacecraft. This high-pressure air friction causes ablation and the resulting heat. Actually, any erosive process is ablation. That is why a common synonym for a spacecraft heat shield is ablation shield: [https%3A%2F%2Fhowthingsfly.si.edu%2Fmedia%2Fablation-shields&usg=AOvVaw08bTbBdJ-ORKg8pYCpoWH1], [https%3A%2F%2Fwww.oxfordreference.com%2Fview%2F10.1093%2Foi%2Fauthority.20110803095344219&usg=AOvVaw3L9oTRvr7HUUHGmeQuV-Km]. I took planetary science classes in University, in addition of geology as electives. It was that combination that eventually took me to a brief collaboration with NASA on astrobiology. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Rowan Forest. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
