Why the hell are we going to Mercury?

... Becuase the US is decadent... LOL just incase you dont' know this =P All-in-all it is good in a way that we learn how to explore the universe because if humans dont' kill themselves or etc. It's our future ^^

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Eburacum - are you from York by any chance?

But they would need a human presence to maintain them, and it is that that would need to remain relatively mobile - like a M*A*S*H unit.

It's not likely that Mercury's core would be significantly easier to mine than it is to mine the ball of molten iron at Earth's core. Incidentally 2000+ years doesn't seem very much to me - without having to go to the core we've managed to mine iron for longer than that on Earth. In any case it's the proximity of a massive sun pouring out deadly radiation in massive quantities and creating a local temperature in the 400s C that makes any kind of local asset stripping not without difficulty.

EDIT:

That's one of those "Believe it or not" statistics that you'll often see as a way of challenging people's perceptions with some actual scientific fact, which in this case regards the asteroids that we can see. Nonetheless it seems to me common sense that the orbit of the Asteroid Belt is likely to be far more thickly strewn with micrometeoroids than the general run of interstellar space, and that with no large planet to "vacuum" up a large space, that these small objects are spread over a far wider area than the space occupied by the large asteroids themselves. But I agree with you as a resource for metal which we could use to build settlements on planets and in space, the asteroids are peerless (far better than Mars).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The reason there sending a probe to mercury is because physics says a planet cannot orbit so close to the sun without be ing shreaded to bit so they are going to mercury to check the composistion of the planet.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not sure if I've ever seen a less appropriate posting handle than that, although I have a friend who goes on MSN by the name of "God".

In point of fact, physics says no such thing, otherwise physics would obviously be wrong, wouldn't it?

In Worlds in Collision (I'm quoting from where someone else quoted from it, I don't have it in front of me), Immanuel Velikowsky said something like, "According to all existing theories, a minor body can only orbit slower than the rate of rotation of that body. Yet Phobos orbits Mars in less than a Martian day." In fact no existing theory says that, and a theory did it is the reputable scientists who would say, "That theory must be wrong - just look at Phobos."

So, I'm quite certain that Physics does not state that solid bodies at the distance of Mercury would be shredded by the Sun (tidal forces, I assume), because it is physicists who would say, "That theory must be wrong - just look at Mercury."

The Roche limit is an orbit around every massive body within which an object will get pulled apart by tidal forces, but I'm not sure that in the case of the Sun that orbit isn't underneath its surface. It may not be - at any rate it's nowhere near the orbit of Mercury. There's another body which passes within the orbit of Mercury, an asteroid with a very elliptical orbit called Icarus (see Arthur C. Clarke: Summertime on Icarus from "The Best of Arthur C. Clarke", Sphere Books 1972)

EDIT: It was the Roche limit I was looking for.

 

Sorry my mistake Mercury is correct but in other solar systems they have found gas giants orbiting just as close to there sun as mercury is too ours. Now physics doesnt say this is impossible just very unlikely so there sending a probe to see the actual structure of mars to see if the elements are lighter than predicted. And give me a break im 15 years of age

 

I'd be grateful if you could post a link to back up what you are saying. As it is, it sounds like you are saying that they are investigating to see if the elements have a different mass than they do on earth, which I'm almost certain is incorrect. I feel that you have misinterpreted what you have read about the reasons for the Mercury mission.

Mercury is stable as it is, and it's a rocky/metallic planet. Sending a probe there is not going to explain how a gas giant can survive at the same mean distance from a similar sized (or even larger, perhaps?) star.

We can observe Mercury directly - it's a point light source in our sky. The planets circling other stars are only known by observations of the movements of those stars, which are necessarily at the limit of possible observation. One interpretation of some stars' movements is that they have Jupiter sized planets at Mercury distances. However, as that leads to a conflict with what we know about the Roche limit it may be that there is a different reason for the observation of said movements.

I will give you a break due to your age. I assume "Brains" is the one from Thunderbirds?

 

oopps im wrong this time sorry the real reson is found on
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3526964.stm

 

That's right; Ebor/eboracum/eburacum/eforwick/yorvik/york; the old names for York.