Posted on 05/27/2002 8:58:45 AM PDT by vannrox
"What conditions need to be met to create a state of earth-like oceans on Mars?"# 8 by BradyLS
Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
"...a few bunker busters could speed things up by opening up the planets crust, perhaps triggering volcanic eruptions of ash and magma that would raise the temperature a degree or two a year... acts of "terraforming" so to speak..."********************
# 27 by Robert_Paulson2
That brings up a thought.
How about exporting successful terrorists?
They already have experience changing their environment.
We could call it "terroristforming."
To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla********************
Now that we know there's water up there,
Mars makes an even BETTER prospective home for the Palestinians.
# 46 by Rottweiler
That would be a waste of resources.
We would have to supply them from now on.
Instead, let's sent the Israelis.
They will be self-sufficient within 10 years.
To: demlosers********************
"...Third, aside from demonstrating that NASA can send men to Mars, what would be the point? Apollo went nowhere, Mars could also go nowhere; at this time there is no indication that a Mars colony would ever repay the initial investment. A landing on Mars is far from establishing a settlement, but it's all they will do.
Fourth, where are we going overall, and what will we do when we get there?
# 51 by RightWhale
It's plain that you're not a "trekkie," RightWhale. You're probably right, we won't see a monetary return directly from Mars in our lifetime.
However, we would see immediate return in the practical application of technologies discovered in recent years, plus a bonus in the form of new technologies that will be developed as a consequence of finding uses for our present, un-used knowledge.
Political, I think. Is it worth the money for the government to do this?
Oh joy.
"If we don't do it, somebody else will, and we will be playing catch up."
That's right Mr. President. We can't have a red planet colony gap can we?
Please can we call it Colt Stadium?
Well I'm a Trekkie. And I certainly agree with what you said above, and of course NASA obviously believes it too. Here is an excerpt from NASA Faster-Better-Cheaper (FBC) final report from the Dan Golden's (glad he's gone)era: NASA's goals capable of profound impact, NASA will become an even greater factor in maintaining the nation as a world leader economically, spiritually
I think there is a study that shows what space technology/research returns back to our economy at least 3 times its cost?
No, and not an L-5er either. I have an engineering management degree, complete with pocket protector. If they want a moon base or a Mars base for scientific purposes like Antarctica, fine, we can build it and estimate both the costs and returns, either present worth analysis or cost/benefit. If they want to make money, then it is asteroid mining; we can do that. As usual the big money is not in the glamorous projects, but in things we need.
By Dr David Whitehouse
BBC News Online science editor
Although the discovery of vast ice reserves brings forward the prospect of a manned landing on Mars, the American space agency (Nasa) is in no hurry to embark on a formal effort.
The agency will certainly not make any such commitment this week when the latest study results from the Mars Odyssey probe are officially published in Science magazine.
If the crew is relying on technology to manufacture its rocket fuel to get home from the hydrogen and oxygen locked up in the Martian ice then it had better work - first time
But the idea of a manned mission to the Red Planet is always there as the unstated climax to a series of ever more sophisticated robotic missions - probes that will roam across the Martian surface and bring back rocks to Earth for analysis.
For many, the promise of the Red Planet, and our generation's place in history, is only partially fulfilled if we do not eventually send people to Mars.
When and how are secondary issues. Somehow, there is something deep within our nature that will be unsatisfied if we just let the robots do it all.
Political will
Be assured, a manned mission will take time to devise and execute - something like 20 years in the current climate. That means the first person to walk on Mars is probably currently in his or her teens.
It would be a mission that lasted several years
The US went to the Moon for politics and then abandoned the satellite because the case for staying did not sway the politicians. There is no Mars race between superpowers in the offing, so going to the Red Planet will be for other reasons, and will take longer.
But then, hopefully, the commitment will also last longer than for the moonshots.
Getting to Mars will certainly be much more difficult. The Moon is only three days away; Mars is 300.
A round trip will take two and a half to three years and require a substantial stay on the Martian surface.
Return ticket
Recycling will be a major issue. A spacecraft cannot possibly carry all the food and water it needs for a crew of several. Our current recycling technology is good - but not good enough.
Mars facts
Equatorial diameter - 6,791km
Martian day - 24 hours, 37 minutes, 23 seconds
Martian year - 687 days
Mars-Sun distance - 227.7m km
Moons - Phobos and Deimos
No humans will have ever been so far away from Earth as the first Mars crew. How will that affect them psychologically? How will they get along with each other cooped up in such a small space for a year?
The crew will have to be specially selected to be able to cope. Should it be a mixed crew or all men, or all women?
And what of the technologies these emissaries will need to use when they land on Mars?
Knowing that vast swathes of water-ice just below the surface are there is one thing - being able to dig it up and turn it into fit drinking water or rocket fuel is another matter altogether.
All people
And remember, there will be no second chances on Mars. If the crew is relying on technology to manufacture its rocket fuel to get home from the hydrogen and oxygen locked up in the Martian ice then it had better work - first time.
One question intrigues me: who should put the first human footprint on Mars?
Should it be an American - as surely only the US will be in a position to mount such a mission for a long time to come?
[BARF]
One appealing suggestion I heard a few years ago is that included in any crew should be a representative of the poorest nation on Earth and that this individual should make the first footfall on another world as a pledge to the poor of planet Earth.
And if this person did become the first human to stand on the red soil of Mars, what would they say? Discuss.
See what happens when people start to believe garbled, conflicting, and exaggerated news on the all of these British websites? The Drudge Report and Slashdot were waving the first BBC story around for most of Sunday with the original title "Ice Oceans found on Mars". Now CTV et al have jumped on this bandwagon exaggerating hints about human missions to Mars in UK reports into rumors of an impending, full-blown announcement.
I was the only reporter in the room when Jim Garvin actually made his comments last week. No mention whatsoever was made of an impending announcement to send humans to Mars. He simply spoke of an upcoming announcement (sans a specific date) regarding subsurface water on Mars.
For what it is worth, NASA has never stopped looking at how to send humans to Mars - they just haven't done a lot of it in recent years. The human Mars mission announcement claims made in the CTV, Sunday Times, and Independent articles just don't pass the sanity test either. Were NASA to make such an important (and potentially expensive) announcement - you'd expect the NASA Administrator - likely in the presence of the President - to make such an announcement - not by Jim Garvin at an AGU conference or by anyone else at NASA.
lazy reporters; it figures
These reporters need to stop talking to each other - and expanding on each other's articles - and start talking to someone at NASA.
One final note: the irony is certainly not lost on me that the editor of NASA Watch (of all people) is chastising someone else for printing unsubstantiated and exaggerated rumors - or news that says one thing one day - and then something else the next.
Also, I would most certainly love to be dead wrong about all of this since I think such a commitment to a human mission to Mars would be a good idea.
oops, forgot the title for the article above.
Let me see if I understand your "thought" process here. A majority of Kongressional thieves and liars, only one of whom even purports to "represent" me agrees to squander a few tens of billions in tax loot to enrich their corporate contributors. My elected "representative" (whom I didn't vote for, but won anyway) agrees to this. In your mind this somehow translates into my consent. Dream on space cadet. Just because the government decides to do something does not mean that I consent to it. Get it yet?
Columbus was a goverrnment contractor, and his early settlements were government settlements. Soon Spain made the profit motive part of their colonial arrangements, and colonization took off.
Comets could have seeded life on Earth To date, more than seventy varieties of amino acids have been found in meteorites and some in interstellar dust and gas clouds.It was observed that not only did a good fraction of the amino acids survive the collision, many had been polymerised into chains of two, three and four amino acids, so-called peptides, the first stage of building proteins.
What is more, freezing the target to mimic an icy comet actually increased the survival rate of the amino acids.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.