Hello this relates to news article on the BBC site go here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7349610.stm
Lord Rees says -
"Europe should try and get a world lead in unmanned exploration"
Can someone explain to me why we don't just use a microwave signal that is Ground Penetrating Radar. (traveling at the speed of light as it is in the electromagnetic spectrum)
and beam it at mars to see if there is water.
As science has proved where there is water there is life.
If we did this now I estimate it would take 2.3 seconds to get to Mars and then 2.3 seconds to come back.
me thinks this has been done already.
Again can please anybody explain why this has not been done?
Just how powerful do you expect the signal to be? 
QUOTE (N O M+Apr 20 2008, 08:32 PM)
Just how powerful do you expect the signal to be?
Hey, we'll just use that cold fusion and water-fueled engines that the government's been keeping a lid on to power it.
Hey, we'll just use that cold fusion and water-fueled engines that the government's been keeping a lid on to power it.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Apr 21 2008, 02:07 AM)
Hey, we'll just use that cold fusion and water-fueled engines that the government's been keeping a lid on to power it.
If all else fails we can always ask Neil Fartstein to invent something on the fly.
If all else fails we can always ask Neil Fartstein to invent something on the fly.
and since 0.9r = 1 all we need to do is accelerate our rockets to 0.9r( c ) and BOOM we hit 1( c ), the magic of math 
I expect the signal to be just a little stronger than your mobile phone signal could be achieved from a satellite in orbit around earth.
since space is a vacuum then what would get in the way of the signal??
if you think this is not science watch "holes in heaven"
is there anyone on this forum with a brain?
since space is a vacuum then what would get in the way of the signal??
if you think this is not science watch "holes in heaven"
is there anyone on this forum with a brain?
QUOTE
beuis Posted: Yesterday at 7:26 PM is there anyone on this forum with a brain?
i got a postcard from my brain late last week ... seems to be enjoying itself
QUOTE (beuis+Apr 21 2008, 09:26 AM)
I expect the signal to be just a little stronger than your mobile phone signal could be achieved from a satellite in orbit around earth.
since space is a vacuum then what would get in the way of the signal??
The 1/r˛ law gets in the way of the signal, both on its way there and on its way back so that the returned signal essentially will have decreased by a factor of 1/r^4. There's also the not-insubstantial matter of Mars absorbing much of the energy. Furthermore the angular resolution would be such that you'd be able to tell that you had pinged Mars but you wouldn't be able to see much if any detail.
When actual scientists considered the problem they realized the best way to use radar to analyze Mars would be from a Mars orbit. There are 2 radar-equipped spacecraft orbiting it right now. They've also used neutron spectrometers to look for hydrogen, a key component of water.
Certainly not you.
since space is a vacuum then what would get in the way of the signal??
The 1/r˛ law gets in the way of the signal, both on its way there and on its way back so that the returned signal essentially will have decreased by a factor of 1/r^4. There's also the not-insubstantial matter of Mars absorbing much of the energy. Furthermore the angular resolution would be such that you'd be able to tell that you had pinged Mars but you wouldn't be able to see much if any detail.
When actual scientists considered the problem they realized the best way to use radar to analyze Mars would be from a Mars orbit. There are 2 radar-equipped spacecraft orbiting it right now. They've also used neutron spectrometers to look for hydrogen, a key component of water.
QUOTE
is there anyone on this forum with a brain?
Certainly not you.
And just to prove myself wrong I looked up Arecibo radar images of Mars. Arecibo is producing some amazing high resolution stuff after its upgrade. They claim 3 km resolution, although the images in the paper don't seem to be nearly that resolution - check out this paper: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/7thmars2007/pdf/3136.pdf
They've even imaged south pole carbon dioxide deposits, so it's possible they could image water ice.
Note that this was done with the world's largest dish during the 2005 opposition, a point when Mars and Earth are closest to each other in their orbits.
They've even imaged south pole carbon dioxide deposits, so it's possible they could image water ice.
Note that this was done with the world's largest dish during the 2005 opposition, a point when Mars and Earth are closest to each other in their orbits.
to barakn
thank you this is the answer i wanted since i found it strange as GPR has been around since the 80s.
you have a brain well done i have one to just running windoz 95 on my cerebral cortex, i need to upgrade to xp or buy a mac.
thank you this is the answer i wanted since i found it strange as GPR has been around since the 80s.
you have a brain well done i have one to just running windoz 95 on my cerebral cortex, i need to upgrade to xp or buy a mac.
You still haven't demonstrated existence of a brain yet beuis.
This hardly justifies not sending spacecraft to Mars.
Oh, and:
This hardly justifies not sending spacecraft to Mars.
Oh, and:
QUOTE (beuis+)
As science has proved where there is water there is life.
"Science" has not proved that.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.