Landing on the Moon

[dannyp]

they've been researching it for a long time. i saw a thing like that where frogs hearts stop beating they freeze rock solid no circulation. whereas mammals that hybernate don't stop circulating blood, just slows drastically.

i haven't heard anything recently though.

also during hibernation muscles still atrophy. some animals automatically twitch though and it helps keep the muscles tissue marginal.

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dannyp,)
they've been researching it for a long time. i saw a thing like that where frogs hearts stop beating they freeze rock solid no circulation. whereas mammals that hybernate don't stop circulating blood, just slows drastically.

i haven't heard anything recently though.

also during hybernation muscles still atrophy. some animals automatically twitch though and it helps keep the muscles tissue marginal.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
I think there were some research done on Bears to see how they hibernate, maybe we have some dormant genes we can "activate" inorder to do the same.

[dannyp]

I was also referring to squirrels, humming birds, rodents, and other things that hybernate.

[darwinist]

Never heard anything about water on the moon. Do you have an link?

These links may interest all, who like this subject. Enjoy:

http://www.marsacademy.com/med1.htm


http://cem.colorado.edu/archives/sp2000/brie.html


http://www.marsinstitute.info/rd/faculty/d...e/rtr/lv04.html

[Pooeypants]

err, this article talks about the discovery of lunar water.

[Scribbler1]

Don't forget the other possibility when you consider Martian colonization. Remember, the further out we go the longer it takes to get there (damn, where's the warp drive when you need it?).

You are not likely to colonize Mars, even with terraforming, for a loooong time, at least not with regular humans. I'd say in just a few decades we will have the medical knowledge to breed a group of "adapted" humans suited for the trip as well as the stay, as there's not much point bringing them back.

Too bad Bush didn't save his great idea for going to Mars until AFTER the rover decided to take sick leave. He might not be so gung ho for the idea then.
Incidentally, this Bush fantasy about men on mars is just a political stunt, but he runs the show and NASA has to dance his way. However, did you know the Mars project will doom Hubble? The plans were already in the works to upgrade the thing 2 or 3 more times and make it 100 times better then the way it was when it went up, and it WORKS! If we get people to mars anytime soon, what will they do? Probably collect rocks and analyse the Martian surface with the same instruments the Rovers are equipped with.

[The_Broken_Column]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sean,)
Recycling doesn't have to "work to a point". We have decided to do live like this because we don't have any major issues yet. The space on Earth isn't finite either, so I think we should invest more time on managing our own space before we bring more resources in as you propose, but this is just my uneducated opinion on this matter, I'm no expert on this.

But hey, if it's profitable then I'm all for space travel.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I beg to differ. Sending Harrison "Jack" Schmitt to the moon returned more valuable data to the Earth than all of the other Apollo and robotic missions to the Moon combined. A machine is incapable of doing the field research necessary to learn what is needed from the Moon, and Mars and so forth.

It was not a probe but a human hand that returned anorthosite to the Earth.

I suggest that you research Apollo 17 and its triumphs. As Gene Cernan said, "It is a damn shame we stopped going to the Moon because we were just getting good at it." Or maybe that was Harrison Schmitt, one of them. Either way, the fact is that manned space exploration is the only method of exploring space when it comes down to it. Probes and telescopes are good to begin with, but in the end, they are no match for a pair of trained eyes right there at the site.

[The_Broken_Column]

Scribler1, same thing, read my above post, you are way out of your league.

Unless you are a Geologist, or know a Geologist, I suggest you refrain from thinking that "Robots" can do all the work. Also, you are mistaken about the Hubble, NASA reluctantly was going to upgrade it "again".

They are more than happy to be letting that pile of junk fall back to Earth. After all, we now are constructing more powerful telescopes on the Earth using arrays. The Hubble is only an apature of 2 meters right? Something like that. It has a resolution if pointed at the Moon of 100 meters. Not that that matters bscause the brightness of the Moon and its closeness, is too much for the Hubble.

But there is an observatory being built right now (due to be finished in 2005) in Chile, that will have a resolution of less than a meter if pointed towards the Moon. Its high elevation and constant cold temperatures also mean that the atmosphere will be of relatively minimal interference.

The Hubble, is an out dated machine, better to just let it go now.

[NotScientific]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Aequo,)
I'm also a bit of a science-fiction buff, so I may be a bit biased, but I hope I live to see a colony on Mars, but I will at least settle for one on the moon.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I'm confident that we will be able to live on Mars but I don't think that's in the near future.

Check this out http://www....com/content.php?jouid=7743

[shanartisan]

I second the recommendation of Kim Stanley Robinson's "Red Mars", as well as the sequel, "Green Mars." Absolutely read those books; it's like that research paper given characters, with all the qualities of a hellofa story rolled in. Absolutely fascinating series.