Life on Mars - Probably NOT. Wasting $MM dollars to give us a repeat of Viking.

Lunar and Planetary Institute ^ | Since 1996 | Multiple

[CaptIsaacDavis]

Recent Scientific Papers on ALH 84001 Explained, with Insightful and Totally Objective Commentaries Ended December 12, 2000 Allan Treiman Lunar and Planetary Institute

SEE LINK! THere is too much to post here.

[CaptIsaacDavis]

There is WAY too much One Universe propaganda about life on Mars hitting the airwaves as a result of the Mars rovers. Time for a reality check.

Some of the early proponents of the microbial life on Mars thesis have been critical of the two landers operating on the surface for not including a test for microbial life like the Viking lander had! I wish they had, because it would put an end to all the "holistic" pseudo-science in this area. This decision was curious, because one of the key justifications for this mission in the first place was to look for signs of liquid water, which would support the theory. It is time to revist just how controversial and "holistic" (read subjective) the argument for microbial life on Mars really is. Don't read my blog -- read the URL site! Since the brouhaha that started with one analyst's interpretations of a Viking experiment, and which exploded with claims aired in 1996 resulting from slices of a Martian rock found on Earth, the team that brought the world the latter (and got a nice photo-op and movie appearance for Clinton [Contact]), has backtracked rapidly on a host of photos!, while hard "science" has demonstrated that the images are likely artifacts of the imaging process and far below the size possible for bacterium as we know them, even in the most inhospitable regions and conditions on Earth. So defenders of the faith now advance the thesis that somehow a unique form of "dwarf" bacteria may have existed some billions of years ago on Mars. Others are now arguing the last line of subjective science fiction -- the "worms" in the rock are only parts of bacteria. Of course, whatever might have existed probably came from a more hospitable Earth anyway, but that never stopped bureaucrats eager to pump up budgets.

Of all the research projects that this money could have been used for! For those who think the quest for signs of life "out there" is so important, let's get to Jupiter's moons and stop wasting time on redundant data from Mars! If I hear one more cry of excitement from guys who were in diapers when Viking landed...

[CaptIsaacDavis]

VIKING 1 and 2 Data and Images -- some are BETTER than what we are getting from the rovers...
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/viking.html

[Always Right]

I agree, a manned mission is a waste of taxpayers dollars. I think too many people romanisize space travel, probably from watching too many star-trek episodes. Space travel will never be like that.

[Wonder Warthog]

Fortunately for the future of the country (and science), you and "CaptIsaacDavis" are in the minority.

[Always Right]

What fantasy to you dream of that a man-space flight would full-fill?

[MrsEmmaPeel]

I agree, a manned mission is a waste of taxpayers dollars.

Most people don't realize that most of the "space" money actually stays on the ground in the form of jobs.

For me a waste of taxpayer's dollars includes paying farmers not to grow crops.

[from occupied ga]

For me a waste of taxpayer's dollars includes paying farmers not to grow crops.

Good one. How about using tax dollars to subsidize food burning (ethanol as a motor fuel)?

[MeneMeneTekelUpharsin]

Most people don't realize that most of the "space" money actually stays on the ground in the form of jobs.

For me a waste of taxpayer's dollars includes paying farmers not to grow crops.

You stated that correctly. I am so thoroughly discouraged these days...have severely limited posting news, etc.

[Always Right]

Most people don't realize that most of the "space" money actually stays on the ground in the form of jobs.

Paying for manned space missions is not that much different than paying for farmers not to produce crops. Paying smart people to work on these types of mission is squandering a valueable resource. There is nothing on Mars that is that important.

[MrsEmmaPeel]

Paying smart people to work on these types of mission is squandering a valuable resource.

Not if they want to do it. I'd rather pay smart people to work on a mission to Mars than pay to create a blasphemous work of "art".

There is nothing on Mars that is that important.
That's what a lot of the nay-sayers said to Columbus. You never know till you try.

Adventure/Exploration captures the imagination of most people.

[11B3]

FYI: The subsidies you hate to see going out there aren't given to the farmers anymore. The subsidies go almost entirely to corporations like Caterpillar, John Deere, Goodyear, large corporate farms, and individual state's departments of agriculture. Family farmers don't get a penny.

Secondly, the program you are referring to went away decades ago, which was in order to preserve the topsoil. The goal was to not overproduce on any given acreage, and allow fallow time in the fields. That's not a problem anymore. Soil science has come a long way since then.

Lastly, you obviously don't farm. You're merely a parrot who repeats what someone else whined about years ago, without forethought or knowledge of the subject. Fine liberal traits, IMO. I'm a farmer, who works his acreage alone, busting my ass to make ends meet - barely. To hear someone like you badmouthing the people who put food in your worthless piehole like we're some sort of welfare cases makes me wish I could reach through the screen and adjust your attitude manually. Or if nothing else, I'd make you grow all of your own damn food. (It doesn't just come from the grocery store - and it doesn't get there by itself.) If you want to keep eating, then educate yourself, or just STFU.

BTW: Farming is also the #1 rated most dangerous profession nationwide, by a long margin.

[johnb838]

How about taxpyers dollars to support burning fossil fuels to create hydrogen for fuel cells?

[11B3]

The main focus of the landers is to look for water and do some better soil analysis in order to understand the geological history of Mars. Your hidden agenda theory dosen't stand up by itself without a huge roll of tinfoil.

As for the moons of Jupiter, it is probably a lot more reasonable to learn how to crawl before you run. Each planet outward offers different challenges, different costs, and different scientific goals. To say that these two landers are there to infer a microbial search for ET life is a cynical stretch, and complaining of the costs involved is silly compared to what you are advocating. How many probes would we lose on those moons due to Jupiter's radiation, gravitational forces, and unknowns on the surface? We barely have orbital images of them so far, much less enough to dispatch a probe to land on them. First things first.

[sonofatpatcher2]

Still waiting for the names of those three guys you said Apollo 11 'landed' on the Moon...

[RogueIsland]

Life on Mars - Probably NOT. Wasting $MM dollars to give us a repeat of Viking.

Spice routes through the New World? Probaby NOT. Wasting $MM dollars to give us a repeat of Leif Erikson.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

What fantasy to you dream of that a man-space flight would full-fill?

7 of 9?

[BushCountry]

There are reasons people shouldn't argue with an idiot, so I won't. I am not saying you are stupid, just igorant of the facts relating to space travel.

Do yourself a favor, take a honest and objective look and use your intellegence reason the benefits of the space program both to humanity and advancement of technologies. As it stands now, your igorance is painful.

Don't respond that the technologies that were spured by space exploration would have been invented anyways, because then you would not only be igorant but foolish. The funny thing is, the spinoffs are everyday household.

Cliff Notes:

First, if NASA didn't prefect rocket technology and make its launch pads available there would not have been private industry satellites.

No satellites means very little private sector communication improvements, and no GPS. More people dead due to sevre weather! How many of you non-believers use satellite tv? Cell phones? GPSs?

Without NASA there would have been a much smaller advancements in electronics (e.g. three-dimensional semiconductor package and microlasers). CCD chips! Geez, you guys ever heard of digital cameras? Medical equipment advancement! How many companies would have developed the highly profitable air quality monitors? NONE!

The funny thing is, the spinoffs are everyday household items, the clowns that protest these advancements and shrug that someone else would have done it, haven't a clue! They just take advantage of these technologies b^%tch and moan about them! Irony?

Private industry is not forward looking. They do not lead the advancement of technology without a cost/benefit anaylsts. They will not willy, nilly, risks billions of dollars or even a few million unless they know that there will be a return. When these technologies were invented there was no return or even a possiblity of return.

These developments were done to achieve a result not profit! There is a very good chance several of them would never have been invented or even thought of in left in short-sighted, technology incompetent CEOs. Don't kid yourself.

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

I hear you, but I am tired of certain segments of our society who claim to do so much for the rest of us. If you want to be a farmer and you enjoy it, great! If you don't like being a farmer, go do something else, but don't tell me to appreciate your putting food in my mouth. You don't put food in my mouth, God does.

[cynicom]

Fortunately for us, Columbus and Isabella did not share your view on the future of mankind thru exploration. In those days, people that were nay-sayers warned about sailing off the edge of the earth. Those dire warnings seem to have been disproved but the constant harping against man looking outward still abound in people without a questioning mind.

[Brilliant]

I don't mind going to Mars, but I do think it is a waste of money to spend the entire wad trying to find life or fossils. Who cares? At most it would be microbial, and we have plenty of microbes here. If you are going to go to Mars, you should go with the idea that you are going to accomplish something, such as construct infrastructure. Although there is no pressing need for us to be on Mars now, it is conceivable that we will at some point have a real practical reason to be there.