Wonderful Photographs from Mars

[ipearse]

'standard by twelve'

Always makes me smile to see a Blake's 7 reference...

Me too! Haven't seen that in a long time...... 

[Glom]

I didn't know about that "what-if" series on xkcd. What fun!

Naturally I had to spot-check at least one of his calculations. A regulation US baseball has an average mass of about 146 grams, so if it were moving at 0.9c - and ignoring relativistic effects - it would have a kinetic energy of about 5e15 J or about 1.2 megatons of TNT. So yeah, there'd be a large fireball and the stadium would be replaced with a large crater.

Relativistic effects would only increase this.

Heh. The relativistic mass increase would be by a factor of 2.29. So 2.9 megatons of TNT. That would make a crater about 1 km in diameter and one fourth of that deep. The 5 PSI blast radius (most buildings inside the 5 PSI blast radius are destroyed) would be 7.3 km. Exposed people would receive third degree burns out to 17 km.

Can you show your work?

[Chew]

I used these sources:
Lorentz factor for relativistic mass.
1 gram TNT = 4184 J
Nuclear Weapons Archive FAQ Effects of Nuclear Explosions Section 5.6 for blast and thermal effects.
Crater diameter from impact effects website

[ka9q]

And we've only considered the kinetic energy of the baseball. We've not considered the energy released by fusion as the ball slams into air molecules. N and O might not fuse but what about the hydrogen in the ball?
 

[cjameshuff]

And we've only considered the kinetic energy of the baseball. We've not considered the energy released by fusion as the ball slams into air molecules. N and O might not fuse but what about the hydrogen in the ball?

As I noted, the impact energy dwarfs the total binding energy of the nuclei. It in fact exceeds the energy you'd get by converting the ball directly into energy. Any fusion or fission going on is insignificant.

[bobdude11]

Reminds me of this recent article on relativistic baseball.



The rest of the what-if articles are just as fun.

I think the end is my favorite:
"A careful reading of official Major League Baseball Rule 6.08(b) suggests that in this situation, the batter would be considered "hit by pitch", and would be eligible to advance to first base."

[Jockndoris]

Hi, Jockndoris.  Welcome to the board.

Wonderful Photographs from MARS

I was very excited to see the first pictures which have just arrived from Mars directly from those wonderful people at NASA.

Yes, I was excited too.  Especially since I particpated in the design analysis of the generator currently powering MSL on Mars.  And, yes, those people at NASA, or more accurately JPL, are pretty clever.

“The images show a landscape closely resembling portions of the southwestern United States”

Resembling, not "identical to".  I grew up in the southwestern United States.  It's not the same as Mars.
That makes my point precisely   .  There is no way in several million years that the site they have apparently landed on is just like the southwestern United States, much more likely that it was actually shot in lot 171 which of course is right there in the southwestern United States

This is the headline in Astromony Magazine who are the first people to spot that NASA are pulling the same fast one on us again.

Wrong on a few different counts.  First, that's a sub-heading, not a headline.  Second, Astronomy thinks the mission is quite real.  Third, that description was issued by NASA and quoted by the magazine.

We all fell for it in 1969 when we believed what we saw on the supposed telecasts from the Moon which were in fact shot in lot 171 in the Nevada Desert.

Have you been to Nevada?   I have.  The parts I've seen don't look like the Moon.  Of course, your unsupported assertion fails on many other counts as well, but there's no point in discussing them unless you actually supply some details for your claim.   You confirmimg my point again of course it is not like the Moon.

There is no way that they would be able to get high quality photographs half way across our solar system which took the craft 7 months to cross.

Non sequitir.  It takes radio signals only minutes to make that voyage.  We have routinely received "high quality photographs" from spacecraft much farther away.   Preoblably through a NASA controlled craft !!

It took the craft 7 months to get to Mars at full speed

Meaningless.  MSL was on a trajectory designed for the launch vehicle constraints and coasted almost the entire way to Mars.  The notion of "full speed" has no particular definition in this case.  You might as well say the Moon orbits the Earth at "full speed".

and we are supposed to believe that they can just beam back at the first attempt  pictures of exquisite quality

First, it's been done before.  A lot.  Second, you are simply appealing to personal incredulity.  I don't find it hard to believe, and I work in this business.  Do you?  Third, can you supply a specific reason the systems should not work as claimed?

of a near perfectly flat landing area.

Of course.  The landing area was selected to be flat.  It's merely flat enough.

They found no new chemicals compounds on the Moon much to everybody’s surprise.

Wrong.  Again.  You have no idea at all what you're talking about.

What are they going to find this time ?

Several very interesting things, I expect.   That's the beautiful reality of these missions, quite unlike the cramped, dreary fantasy world of the ignorant conspiracy-mongers.

Y'all come back now, y'hear?

[Jockndoris]

“The images show a landscape closely resembling portions of the southwestern United States” - This is the headline in Astromony Magazine who are the first people to spot that NASA are pulling the same fast one on us again.

Evidence? 'Resembles' is not the same as 'is'. Just how different do you expect a desert plain on Mars to look from a desert plain on Earth?  Massive differences of course   There is apparently no water there, the  temperature range goes from massive highs to massive lows

We all fell for it in 1969 when we believed what we saw on the supposed telecasts from the Moon which were in fact shot in lot 171 in the Nevada Desert.

And your evidence for that is...?   You own website is full of assertions that this happened  - look all around you

There is no way that they would be able to get high quality photographs half way across our solar system which took the craft 7 months to cross.

Why not? And what does the time taken for a spacecraft to reach somewhere have to do with the time taken to send back information via radio waves?
 

It took the craft 7 months to get to Mars at full speed

What is 'full speed' when referring to space flight?

and we are supposed to believe that they can just beam back at the first attempt  pictures of exquisite quality of a near perfectly flat landing area.

What exactly is so challenging about that?

I await your answers, and some indication that you understand the first thing about space flight.

[Jockndoris]

'standard by twelve'

Always makes me smile to see a Blake's 7 reference...
Yes weren't they absolutely fabulous

Me too! Haven't seen that in a long time...... 

[Jason Thompson]

Obvious trolling already? Not even trying this time, are you?

[Andromeda]

Obvious trolling already? Not even trying this time, are you?

It certainly looks that way.

Jockndoris if you have something to say, please say it.  I do not understand why you are quoting other posts in their entirety with no other response or comment.

[Jockndoris]

This is the headline in Astromony Magazine who are the first people to spot that NASA are pulling the same fast one on us again.

Evidence?  It is obvious the contents of a crater on Mars must be different in every way possible - no water - high and low temperatures all  worn away over millions of years and we are expected to believe that it looks just like the southwestern United States is just preposterous!  - Mind you it is quite handy for the boys in Hollywood when they were doing the filming for the simulation !  cut down the travelling time

We all fell for it in 1969 when we believed what we saw on the supposed telecasts from the Moon which were in fact shot in lot 171 in the Nevada Desert.

Evidence?

There is no way that they would be able to get high quality photographs half way across our solar system which took the craft 7 months to cross.

Please explain why the fact that it took a spacecraft months to physically travel to mars has any bearing on the transmission of images by radio waves, as has been done for decades at this point?

It took the craft 7 months to get to Mars at full speed

   what I meant high speed

You have no idea how space travel works, have you? Please feel free to explain the speed at which the spacecraft travelled on its journey.

  The craft was sent in slightly roundabout way so as to approach Mars at an angle making it easier to get into orbit round MARS - a bit disappointing if they just flew close by off into the middle distance.

[Jason Thompson]

Please learn how to use the quote tags and preview your post before putting it up.

It is obvious the contents of a crater on Mars must be different in every way possible - no water - high and low temperatures all  worn away over millions of years and we are expected to believe that it looks just like the southwestern United States is just preposterous!

Who said it 'looks just like' the US? It 'resembles' the US, in that it's a large flat plain with some rocks in it. Please explain why the things you picked out would result in it actually looking vastly different from a desert plain in the US? In fact please explain why the things you picked out are in any way different from the conditions in the US deserts in the first place! They're pretty low on water and high on wind, the temperatures go up and down, and Mars and Earth are both made of similar kinds of materials.

what I meant high speed

I still await your explanation for what the speed of a spacecraft travelling through space has to do with sending information via radio waves.

The craft was sent in slightly roundabout way so as to approach Mars at an angle making it easier to get into orbit round MARS - a bit disappointing if they just flew close by off into the middle distance.

What is this supposed to mean?

[Andromeda]

*Gets popcorn*

[sts60]

...
“The images show a landscape closely resembling portions of the southwestern United States”

Resembling, not "identical to".  I grew up in the southwestern United States.  It's not the same as Mars.

That makes my point precisely   .  There is no way in several million years that the site they have apparently landed on is just like the southwestern United States, much more likely that it was actually shot in lot 171 which of course is right there in the southwestern United States

First, please learn to use the quote function correctly.  As an example, I have excerpted your single reply and placed it inside its own quote so that it is clear who is saying what.  If you need help with the quote tags, feel free to ask.

Second, you cannot have paid much attention to what I actually said.  Mars is like but not "just like" the southwestern U.S.  Yes, both are arid places with dirt and rocks.  The resemblence ends there.  Mars has no vegetation at all, for one.  It does not have clouds like Earth's.  It does not have features indicating sporadic rainfall or ample but occasional liquid surface water.

Third, your claim that "there is no way..." is simply a bald, unspported assertion, especially given the observable fact that Mars does not look "just like" the southwestern U.S. in many ways.  I have no idea what you mean by "lot 171", but if you wish to identify it and provide any actual evidence for your assertion, I will be happy to take a look.

Finally, you made a number of other claims which were rebutted, but you have ignored the rebuttals.  Please address them.