Green Baron

So, that'll be the late 70s then ? But by then we didn't know about Europa's icy shield and plumes ... probably rather since we speculate about Europa's/Ganimede's/Enceladus' inner structure i would say ... there are no serious papers with a date about this, so my guess is as good as yours. If you think about it: these vents are a byproduct of earth's tectonic processes. They'd need a lot of convincing published material to let me think more seriously about the presence of such things on the outer moons. Mere "tidal forces" are not enough :-)

Wow, where are you ? I always get the dry dust laiden air when the Calima blows. Many people here have respiratory problems then (Canary Islands). What i wanted to say is that even on earth water alone is no guarantee for rich lifeforms. There is no equation water = possible life in astrobiology or so. It needs more than that, that is why these proposals of subglacial geysers/vents/smokers on Europa or Ganimede came up.

A Sithsmith then ? Or a Smithsith ? :-) That reminds me of Saint-John Smythe. Off topic ....

Another reason to disable it :-))

Orbital speed at 120km is around 2200m/s, at 80km it is ~2300m/s, dV from the ground to orbit is 3.300-3400, gravity loss, a small margin and friction included.

Well, Star Trek's replicator. Makes for an easy living ("Tea, hot !") and nice scripts like first-coffee-then-cup ... something is wrong.

Oh there is much more than bacteria in a desert, no question.

:-) you mean friendship with hypothetical aliens ? Hmm, otoh a hundred ways of conquering earth for its resources/water/air/women/fun/because-the-script-said-so are averted.

Hi, you are, of course, correct. The relevance, if there is one in the context of a nice game forum, a forum of a nice game, nice people in a forum of a game and so on, is that we should be able and willing to correct ... incorrect assumptions :-) I still do not believe in life outside earth. Mainly because i am not that much into believing. But i am looking forward to what the future has in store :-)

Correct. I am not. I didn't even understand the PCR method because i refused to see why a multiplication of the same information is a gain. These guys then scoffed at me, went into a laboratory with their neanderthal bones and came back with the triumph that neanderthal and humans never interbread ! The genes had spoken. Every classic archaeologist was baffled because it was against anything we had worked out before. It took 5 years and the same people (lets call them svantesians), now a little wiser, turned to the opposite side, the light side if i may so so, claiming that we all have 20% (or so, don't cite me) neanderthal genome in us. The world was as it should be :-) Still, it is general knowledge that the ratio of males and females is roughly one to one, in almost all sexual species, and humans aren't special. Mormons and religious Islams do not accept this. That gives you enough room for opposition i guess :-) As to climate, unnecessary to tell me, i have all the data here ;-) Your statements were: - sexual ration 0,5 to 1 (see above) - matriarchy in palaeolithic - war and herding in palaelothic - men missing in mass murder in palaeolithic - villages and housing in the palaeolithic I have criticised that heftily, partly backed with actual research in the field. If we can focus on these initial points, maybe moving the discussion to email, i'll be happy go on with the dispute. If not, then i will back up because pointless. Says the good(*cough*) old Green Baron

No, sir. The ratio of male to female births is around 0.51 to 0.49. http://www.pnas.org/content/112/16/E2102 Or, in simpler words, there are 101 males to 100 females born in general all over the world. We have no reason that this was fundamentally different in prehistoric times. If you have different data then bring it on ! Not in the palaeolithic. That's modern stuff. And sounds, to be honest, a little lurid. Not in the palaeolithic. Matriarchy for example in wary culture. It is not oberved in "many" cultures. This has nothing to do with the palaeolithic. What do you want to say ? I miss a point ? I know well about the climate in Europe during the past 250,000 years with local variations. Leads to far here. ??? There.are.no.settlements. Why is it so difficult to understand that ? There are seasonal yurts (Gönnersdorf) in the Magdalenian. There.are.no.villages. Give me one source, only one, sir ! A peer reviewed paper ! ??? What exact cultural appearance are you referring to ? Sounds mixed up to me ... In the late Mesolithic, maybe. In the beginning not. You confuse and lump different things together here ... Climate was exceptionally well then, warm and moist. Early holocene climate optimum ;-) No harsh conditions nowhere at that time. I get the feeling you just type something out of the wrist without actually reflecting. Is that so ? I know well, i have studied that ;-) No, sir, which palaeolithic were you talking about when writing down your statements ?

The role of the grandparents in human evolution :-) Actually worth studying ! Absolutely.

I did so here in reaction to @PB666's statements about the palaeolithic (p). Eurasian p ended with end of the Pleistocene age and the beginning of the Holocene. It was a complete change of lifestyle. The p is followed by the mesolithic period. Africa and the Americas is different, i know too little about the far east like China to give a definitive statement. No. Only analogies. Anthropologists in the 19th and 20th century worked with late hunter/gatherer groups, especially the circumpolar people and African groups. Nope. North American Indian lifestyle was different of how we archaeologists think that p. lifestyle in the Pleistocene was. I limit myself here to modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens) in the late Pleistocene, like ~45000 to ~12000bp. That picture is quite clear, though it spans different cultural and technological appearances in a changing environment. Nope. Herds are as old as animals. A herd does not need a shepherd, a shepherd simply uses the naturally built in ability of animals to life and strive in large numbers. Only if the animals are able to multiply under human control can we speak of "herding" or better domestication. Antelopes for example, though living naturally in herds, cannot be domesticated because they multiply while running around. Wild herds are a natural appearance, the large number and uniform appearance secures survival in the food pyramid.

This is not how palaeolithic groups functioned. Birth control was unnecessary. This view reflects modern day living. Palaeolithic women did not always have children, that is impossible for groups that move with the herds. Many groups actually might have had a number problem. Women did hunt at least in the upper palaeolithic. In a Hollywood movie or a video game they do :-) Fact is, we do not know if there were "rulers". You can study the work of last century's anthropologists to discover that these concepts are not applicable. No group member shall rise over the others, there are even rituals to secure that an exceptionally successful hunter did not carry his nose too high. Dependency on individuals would have a bad influence on the group's cohesion, the "team spirit". It is, and that is a political statement, a fact that collaboration makes us strong, not animosities. I still don't believe in Aliens :-)

That is the proposal. But there is no such rocket and no concrete mission plans, and the rover will return nothing. Maybe in a few decades with follow up missions ... first of all the rover has to get there !

It is not, it is, of course, 1:1. Palaeolithic spans 2.6 million years and different species, the concept "typical" is not applicable at all. Where is that from ? Modern day polygamic subcultures spread such nonsense. Eh ? Source please ! We can discuss an example in the Asian solutrean where women's bones are stronger than men's, but there is no "tendency" and no "matriarchy" ! No houses in the palaeolithic, no rulers in assumed equal societies ! The whole statement makes no sense at all. And no villages ! You are confusing some very basic things here ! That is a somewhat chauvinistic view with comical elements. We do not know who hunts and there clearly is no war in the palaeolithic. Magdalenian depictions show women hunting as well. "Man, the hunter" is an outdated view strongly influenced by modern culture of the 60s, where in the public view men went to work and women stayed at home. That is modern times ! And the whole thing was of course overthrown quickly. Again: no villages in palaeolithic, no murder. Big pile of confusion here ! If there is a consistent feature over the (Eurasian upper) palaeolithic then that of very slowly developing (10.000s of years) mobile groups and occupation of landscapes. But i can show you neolithic (not palaeolithic) places where things are exactly opposite to what you say, women are missing ! Source please ! Because there is an ongoing discussion in archaeology about the time when humans reached the Americas ! Human presence may be older than that and voyages across the Bering straight may have taken place several times. The concept of single groups erring around is surely not the correct view. Really, sir, you should overwork this ! It is far from everything science has worked out !

Yes, you are right, the article says nothing in that direction. But it is wrong with the number of rovers as @Brotoro pointed out. So, i do have to apologize for that part. No, you were missing nothing. Nothing will be sent back by any robot. The Nasa pages (linked above) state only that samples will be kept in a "cache". A possible return mission is in a state of proposal, whatever that means. A return vehicle would be needed for that to happen. It would, of course, be a giant leap in understanding Mars if we had samples here for doing all kind of cruel things to them :-)

I don't want to fight with you :-) Peace on Earth, Mars and in general beneath the stars. If the general intent was a good one then ok, but the number given was wrong and the implication that the rover will send something back incorrect. A Mars return mission, which would need a return rocket/ascent vehicle capable of achieving Mars escape and earth transfer dV is not in pipeline for now. Or am i wrong ? Edit: oh, i do hope Mars 2020 actually arrives safely. I hope we get moar data about the water-and-life thing !

As first hand information I only have the info from the jpl and nasa page: https://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mars2020/ Under mission/science they show that for now there are no more concrete plans after M2020. Maybe the site is not up to date, then i am wrong and must apologize for discrediting your source :-) And: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars/missions/beyond-index.html where the return mission is mentioned as a proposal without a date but not built into the rover. *shrug*

Defending @Brotoro. Pointing out when something is not correct is a good deed. We have more than enough incorrectly cited or described data. Also, according to the Nasa 2020 site, no sample or probe will return to earth but a cache with selected samples set aside on the Marsian surface. Future missions can return these samples then. So, Brotoro was imo absolutely right when he said that they obviously do not know what they are talking about. Is the opinion of the Green Baron

Correction mine. And now we have a faintly glowing connection to (medieval) science

Though it has a higher melting point than Si ? Silica: if there is water in the mineral structure then the melting point is much lower, though not as low as 1000°F. That enables anatexis and thus some forms of volcanism, for example over subduction zones or in back arcs. Or else the temperatures had to be much higher.

Not naturally. Needs transformation. Like in a CD-player e.g.

Well, the pool has no continental shelves where nutrients are brought in and open ocean areas are exposed mainly to dust from space, besides eventual currents. Though i can imagine a quick technique to put some nutrients into the pool but that would evoke the wrath of the owner :-) Btw., when you check this, check the number of pollen in a spoonful of desert sand. You may take a table spoon :-)

"Well over" results to 2600°F for dry silicon (if you mean the element Si with atomic number 14) ....