posted on June 2, 2002 08:11:32 PM new
Is or was there life on Mars?
Mars Ice Report Does Not Mean Human Mission Near
By DEBORAH ZABARENKO
Reuters
WASHINGTON (May 30) - This week's report of buried oceans of ice on Mars may spur dreams of human missions to the Red Planet, but nobody is likely to go for 20 years or more, and one expert thinks it would be a bad idea even then.
However, such opposition -- and the lack of any U.S. commitment to conduct a human mission to Mars -- has not stopped NASA from developing a detailed scenario.
The scenario, available online at http:/nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/mars/marslaun.html, is based on the most optimistic guesses about how such a mission could take place and foresees the launch of the first crew in November 2009.
The astronomer who oversees the site, David Williams, said the scenario is based on a 1997 report that presumed work toward a Mars mission would start that year. It did not, so any estimates would have to be pushed back by five years at least.
''Even at the time, that was really crazy optimistic,'' Williams said by telephone from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center outside Washington. ''Even 12 years from now would be incredibly optimistic. ... I would personally be surprised if we have an astronaut standing on Mars any time before 20 years from now.''
Still, Williams and others at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration acknowledge that articles in Friday's edition of the journal Science have fanned interest in human exploration of Mars.
UNDERGROUND ICE ON MARS
Scientists reported in the journal that vast reservoirs of water ice have been detected just under the planet's rocky, dry, cold surface. Astronomers have long presumed that Mars was once warm, wet and hospitable to Earth-type life, but never could agree on where the water went.
If this research is confirmed, and water ice is available only one yard (metre) or so beneath the surface, this could add fuel to arguments for a human mission.
Water is considered a requirement for life and could ease the way for any visitors, who could -- theoretically -- melt it to drink and use its constituent hydrogen for fuel.
Human exploration of space is one of NASA's goals, with the ultimate aim of enabling people to live and work permanently there. Mars has always been a prime candidate for the first planetary visit, even though some scientists argue that sending humans is the worst way to learn about it.
U.S. spacecraft have been looking at Mars since 1965, when the Mariner 4 probe snapped pictures from a relatively close-up 6,000 miles (10,000 km). The Soviet Union started launching probes toward Mars in 1960, with the first flyby of the planet in 1962, according to NASA.
This week's findings were produced by NASA's orbiting Mars Odyssey craft, which started mapping the Martian surface in March. Next year, NASA plans to launch a pair of Mars rovers and the European Space Agency plans to launch a Mars orbiter and lander.
Jim Garvin, NASA's lead scientist for Mars exploration, said data from such probes could help lay the groundwork for any human visit to Earth's next-door planetary neighbor.
A DECADE OF HOMEWORK
''We have a decade of homework to do,'' Garvin said in a telephone interview, adding that research was needed in such basics as how to get people safely from Earth to Mars. Humans have not gone into deep space since the last Moon landing in 1972, and no new ''human-rated'' craft have been developed since the space shuttle, Garvin said.
''We couldn't fly a human being 100 yards (metres) beyond the shuttle right now,'' he said.
At its closest pass, Mars is about 34 million miles (55 million km) from Earth, but a spaceship's journey, using Earth's orbital velocity to give it a boost, would be closer to 300 million miles (483 million km). A round-trip tactical human mission to Mars, allowing for 30 days on the surface, would take a year, Garvin said.
Before any humans go, robotic missions are expected to bring supplies and establish a beachhead. Still, Garvin said he believes it could be done in 20 to 40 years, given the requisite authorization and funding.
''If it doesn't happen in next 40 years, I would be disappointed,'' Garvin said.
Not everyone would be disappointed. Robert Park, a University of Maryland professor, favors Mars exploration but not by humans.
''The greatest scientific quest right now is to find life to which we are not related,'' Park said. ''The big chance to do this is Mars, but the last thing you want to do is send a human there to do it.''
The problem is the cargo of bacteria human beings carry, Park said by phone. One human has ''more bacteria in his gut than the entire human population of Earth,'' Park said. ''You run the risk of contaminating the very thing that you want to study.''
posted on June 2, 2002 09:46:18 PM newThe greatest scientific quest right now is to find life to which we are not related
In my opinion this is not a big enough reason to go to Mars. On the other hand if it was a combination of reasons, say this reason and several others then it might be worth the trip and all the expenditures of such an undertaking. Other possible reasons being, to explore the possibility of setting up some sort of a colony on Mars, mineral exploration, terra-forming, etc.
posted on June 2, 2002 10:02:33 PM new
hepburn101
I understand that and I agree with it. It just seems that with as far away that Mars is it just seems to launch a mission with just one thing in mind would be a waste of time and money.
Actually, I am relitively sure that other reasons for going to Mars have been discussed among the scientific community and those reasons will be considered in a Mars mission.
Edited to add; I looked at your post again and NOW I get your pun, very funny.
posted on June 2, 2002 10:07:35 PM new
Personally, I think they wanna go to establish a colony. If there is water, and it can be used to make things grow, or to do some sort of "total recall" thingy where they can make it like earth, thats the plan, sam. Not being knowledgable of mars and such, I have NO idea what the samhell Im talking about. Or, they want to find another source of oil, or whatchamacallit for engery. Or, they wanna leave the dregs of society here and go there..or they wanna send the dregs there and take the earth for themselves...or Im just whistling dixie because Im bored and am blathering for funzies. Whatever the case may be, I think its interesting, and if they DO find life that is not like us, I hope they dont kill it off with stupidity or greed.
posted on June 2, 2002 10:17:23 PM new
And you posted all that here in this thread rather in a more appropriate thread for indistinguishable writing like JACKS thread.
I agree that whatever they find, lifewise, they need to find a way to not kill it.
A favorite bumper sticker; Earth First, We'll Strip Mine The Other Planets Later.
posted on June 2, 2002 10:28:27 PM new
Jacks thread makes sense if you are on the same wavelength, lol. And what I posted makes sense too...sorta kinda. Water...mars...life....total recall...you know?
I think its a sign. I need to go to bed. Night night.
posted on June 3, 2002 03:39:24 AM new
the first step should be a space station 1/2 way between earth and the moon the another 1/2 way between earth and mars.
next a series of supply and study missions launched from the stations. an under ground base on the moon would be useful too.
a possible alternative would be a deep space base that was self sustaining completely. say 90 percent of the way to mars and then the final jumps from there.
we have to do things this way until we discover faster more practical ways of getting from one planet to another.
and now i'll tick park off by saying that 10 years of intensive study is ok then sit or get off the pot.
posted on June 3, 2002 01:56:55 PM new
I'm sure I'll get bashed for this, but I'm totally against this type of expenditure. ALL the money should go into cleaning up our own planet before we start thinking about another one.
posted on June 3, 2002 02:15:38 PM new
kraftdinner
In a way I agree with you, we do need to get our house in order first before we completely obliterate all life on Earth or there would be no hope of colonizing other parts of the gallaxy. However, our species is an inquisitive one and we have this need to know what is out there. I believe that the exploration of space is our destiny.
posted on June 4, 2002 07:56:23 PM new
The concept that spending the money would be "better spent" doing this or that is a flawed one. The money spent on the space program has many times paid for itself. The entire science of cryrogenics stems from the space program. Medical science saving hundreds of thousands of lives yearly uses systems, alloys, techniques, etc developed directly from space research. I'll bet the teflon industy alone is larger than many of the space program budgets put together. Fuel cells, solar power, atomic generators, the list is endless. The average person can't do anything without running into something developed with that money.
posted on June 4, 2002 08:17:59 PM new
DeSquirrel is right !, Yes It was like going to the dentist. However teflon overheated kils birds like a bullet, wonder what it does to us ?
That's a significant but small. Weightless research mainly involves the formation of crystalline structures unhampered by gravity. Ultra high purity silicon crystals are perfectly grown allowing high yields of very hard to make integrated circuits. Experiment are constantly conducted in areas were gravity or magnetic fields cause interference. Most of the benefits I was talking about involve stuff like, "we need an alloy that maintains it's strength from -200 to plus 200 degrees" for example. Work done to find viable space suits is heavily used to treat burn victims, not to mention the "bubble" children who are born w/o working immune systems. Now days they are kept in essentially space suits until their immune systems can be rebuilt via transplants. Heart valves, even artificial hearts, improved media for osmosis that makes artificial kidneys more efficient and smaller than a room, the list is endless.
posted on June 4, 2002 08:58:15 PM new
Thanks DeSquirrel! I had no idea. You know, I've never really ever understood the space program. I've always felt it was a waste of money, especially when you see starving people, you think of how far a few billion dollars would go...
How about another in that regard. Techniques to preserve food and/or concentrate it.
People who knock the $ spent on the space program always say something like, "xxxx would have been developed anyway...". Do you think, for example, bux would have been spent on this particular thing if there wasn't a military or space program need? People, no matter what they claim, are not that altruistic.
posted on June 5, 2002 04:04:29 AM new
Used to be when you went in the hospital if they wanted to know what your blood oxygen was they took about a half pint - ran it to the lab and they could get a "quick" result in about 3 to 4 hours.
Now they clip a little laser reader in your finger nail and get a running real time readout. All because they wanted to be able to monitor the astronauts. Just one of the medical advances.
posted on June 5, 2002 10:01:24 AM new
Kraftdinner - I wanted to share with you an email I received from a friend. Thought it goes with your questions of money spent on our space programs.
Want to say also that while I've always loved the space program, I too feel the monies could be better spent at home. Kind of like a family budget...first you pay for the necessities...then the fun things. Anyway....
When NASA first started sending up astronauts, they quickly discovered that ball-point pens would not work in 0 gravity. To combat this problem, NASA scientists spent a decade and $12 billion developing a pen that writes in zero gravity, upside down, underwater, on almost any surface including glass and at temperatures ranging from below freezing to over 300 C.
posted on June 5, 2002 10:42:52 AM new
>>>When NASA first started sending up astronauts, they quickly discovered that ball-point pens would not work in 0 gravity. To combat this problem, NASA scientists spent a decade and $12 billion developing a pen that writes in zero gravity, upside down, underwater, on almost any surface including glass and at temperatures ranging from below freezing to over 300 C.
The Russians used a pencil.<<<
Please tell me this is a joke. Don't tell me. Tell me.
posted on June 5, 2002 11:30:47 AM new
[Did AW just burp? Couldn't get on to post.]
nycyn - Not to worry...I took it as a joke...to make a point of how the same problem could have been dealt with differently.
Whenever I have a doubt to the truth of any email subject I check it out on http://www.snopes2.com/ I did and the story is false. They referred to it as an antidote.
posted on June 5, 2002 11:35:13 AM new
LOL! Thanks Linda! That's the type of spending I tend to hear about...the pork barrel kind! I wonder how many space-related "advancements" have gone to help feed the poor, help with pollution...those kinds of things.
posted on June 5, 2002 02:37:02 PM new
Isabela should have told Columbus that they could not spend money for exploration while there were unsolved problems and poor people in Spain.
posted on June 5, 2002 03:05:25 PM new
Has anyone even thought we DID get Tang out of the whole space thing
Seriously, finding water on Mars is a good thing, something to look into, someone mentioned 'alternative housing' .. well sorta, like where we (we=future generation(s)) could colonize because of global warming (natural and man caused) war and all the rest.
