It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by fooks
lets figure out the rocks first, mind-set. well rocks maybe the key to all life, ok, lol.
let's get out there and study rocks coz there is no sense to look for life while we are at it.
Originally posted by OrionHunterX
Yep! That means the Solar System is teeming with life! Heck, those Venusians must be pretty to look at!
Originally posted by ArMaP
And why do you want audio? To ear the wind?
The success rate is getting better with the latest missions.
The resolution is good, the colour is superfluous, the monochromatic cameras are more versatile.
Rocks may give us the clues to what happened, looking for life that we do not know what it looks like would be more difficult, but I think it was already done.
Originally posted by zorgon
To assume that the only sound on Mars might be wind is not very scientific.
And yes those are radio signals converted to audio... but then isn't that how we transmit sounds, by converting them to radio waves transmitting them then reconverting them to sound?
Really? Like the success of the latest "Bomb the Moon" mission LaCross? The Temple1 hit where they had no idea what happened and are sending a second mission to go see? uh huh
Superfluous? Really?
NASA will soon send a probe to Europa the water moon...
Originally posted by ArMaP
That's true, but I don't see anything that I would expect to produce any sound, so I don't see a reason to have a microphone and more electronics.
Also, with a much lower atmospheric pressure, the sounds are (probably) much fainter.
Yes, that's one of the ways of transmitting audio, but we convert them back to the original format to ear them, while in this case we have to convert them to a format that is not the original because they were not sounds when they were captured.
Do you see something that looks like it would make a sound?
Originally posted by zorgon
So because you don't 'see' something... we shouldn't look for it?
30 kPa is much more than 0.87 kPa, they would need a good amplifier.
Ah so perhaps a more sensitive mike? Seems the crews on top of Mount Everest can hear each other talk
I don't have antennas instead of ears.
Of course... you could just try listening to them
Originally posted by ArMaP
Do you see something that looks like it would make a sound?
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
It needs to be looked into.
Have you ever seen any sign of soil and/or rock displacement that could not be attributed to non-biologic reasons?
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Any life form large enough to displace soil/rocks?
I don't think of sound as second only to sight, I think smell is more important in the amount of data it can give us.
The point is, there are only 5 senses that we humans are accustomed to dealing with, and each provides us with a lot of information that our brains are able to process. Sound is one of the big ones (i would think sound is second only to sight, which is another complaint for us with the use of monochromatic filters). Why make multiple missions that ignore the processing capability?
Originally posted by ArMaP
I don't think of sound as second only to sight, I think smell is more important in the amount of data it can give us.
That only depends on your knowledge.
Originally posted by Exuberant1
I think that identifying an elephant or a donkey or a duck would be easier by sound than by smell.
Originally posted by ArMaP
]Have you ever seen any sign of soil and/or rock displacement that could not be attributed to non-biologic reasons?
I haven't, that's why I said that.
I just don't see a reason why sound would be a priority in a mission to Mars.
But having said that, a microphone was included in two missions to Mars, Mars Polar Lander and Phoenix. The first mission was a failure, and the microphone (part of the Mars Descent Imager) was only used during the descent, although a malfunction made it impossible to use the camera. If it had worked it would have delivered 1600x1200 pixels RGB images at five frames per second.
Funny that apparently few people know about it.
The problem is in all cases I have seen people point to just one thing the they think could have been produced by a biological entity, but there aren't any other clues of the presence of any biological entity, like marks on the ground, for example.
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I have seen some amazing hoops jumped through to find an explanation a few times, too.
As you can see, they already did that, but without any usable results.
Not saying make it a priority, just to include the capability.
I didn't said that there is no sound, I said that I have never seen anything that could produce any sound, besides wind.
Originally posted by fooks
armap! how do you know there is no sound and with some of the crap theypass for music here on earth, i bet we can get SOMETHING in the audio range.
It depends, listening to what was originally radio waves is the same as using a sound to create colour patterns like media players do, interesting but not very useful.
what's it take to hear vlf? bull to that point of view.
No, they do not make sounds.
planets in space make sound but on a planet there is nothing but a waste of time!!??
Originally posted by ArMaP
That only depends on your knowledge.
Originally posted by Exuberant1
I think that identifying an elephant or a donkey or a duck would be easier by sound than by smell.
Originally posted by ArMaP
Do you see something that looks like it would make a sound?