New Mars Forums

Well, only because I happened to write eco system, I didn't mean to initiate associations to rainforests and whales. No, you are right, my opinion was that quantity wouldn't matter, at least not in principle. If Martian life, even in the form of lowly microbes (with or without millenial metabolism), were indeed indigenous, they would be as closely knit to the conditions of the planet as life on Earth. To study it properly, one could assume this ought best to be done with its surrounding intact.

Which is another reason to study these eventual archeae without Earthly interference, because how else would we ever know?
Origin (at least since the last round of meteor exchange) is an important issue, maybe the most fundamental question - is there one life in the Universe or is life in each case unique to an original biosphere? You know, related to the entire panspermia pandoogle.

I am at least superficially aware of this troublesome issue. Which brings to mind the early Russian landers. Those were obviously not very keenly sterilized, if it occured to them at all. Maybe there's life on Mars right now? Somewhere in its late twenties.

Maybe if we find microbial life on Europa and Ganymede and around every star we visit in a distant future, or if the subject of Martian life is not so intricate that we need exploring it for very long though, we could arrive at a point where it's safe to say: to hell with it! Let's push the Martians aside or maybe even give them a chance to thrive in a Terran environment, that is, if they are so inclined!
The sooner the better if you ask me.

Which is unfair, since the US economy works way better than most rivals, including the EU, which is a mess of unclear objectives, lack of transparency, lethargy and petty minded interests. Therefore it's not sure the US will be surpassed even in the foreseeable Martian time perspective. And for an empire of world hegemonia, there are to my mind a lot of worse alternatives to the US, which at heart has an admirable tradition of civilry.

If China or anyone else do catch up however, I'm afraid the US chances of taking the turn of tides in a good humoured way, will not be all that great. So much in US society is built on being the best in everything. 

Yes, the Carthaginians and everybody else. Because of lack of cooperation and limited vision. If only one had the power to... I think the central problem for the world is one of non existing political power. To do these kind of big restructuring things, both material and social which the world badly needs, some autonomous political force is of the utmost significance. There has to be someone or something, powerful enough to maintain political primacy over financial forces, which following their own monetaristic logic, is unable to deal with perspectives out of the immediate short term.
It doesn't have to be solely one all powerful world government, there could be several, the important thing is that a shift in thinking occured.

Phobos wrote:

I have never understood how one could believe this. All bodies in the universe are essentially made up of the same matter clumping together by gravity. As it is a general observation in nature that smaller and simpler things are more common than large and complicated ones, it goes without saying there ought to be far more planets than suns, far more smaller stars than bigger stars (which is empirically proven) and so forth.
Hence stars without any planets ought to have been considered the exception, not the other way around (especially when one considers how stars are form in the first place).

Maybe NASA would feel that living planet would interfer too much with various settlement plans? Nah, just joking.

A rather overzealous and stretched commitment to the principle that 'extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof', I would be prepared to accept as a quite plausible explanation.

Let's hope the Beagle 2 probe, to be launched on ESA's Mars Express Mission in June this year, will give us the definitive answers.

Why nuclear reactor rockets?

The way a true amateur sees it.

Outside the magnetic field, the interplanetary medium is riddled with radiation. Massive Coronal Ejections take place several times a week. Not all are equally powerful by far, but the big ones will fry an astronaut standing on the Moon.

Evidently, interplanetary spacecraft require heavy shielding and other protective measures. Which adds to mass significantly. Which in turn calls for extremely powerful lift viechles.

You can't load a manned, several month mission spaceship into a shuttle (or equivalent), unless you plan to assembly it on top on the gravity well. How we do that in the foreseeable future? I doubt we possibly can. If we need some sort of 'shipyard' it will take orbital intrastructure which we probably will not possess for at least 50 years, the way our political system works.

In other words, a manned Mars spacecraft will have to be able to make it out of the gravity well on its own power. Thrust to weight ratio therefore is paramount, specific impulse less so.
From my, perhaps restricted viewpoint, if we want hardware readily available near-term, I really see no alternative to thermonuclear rockets. Advanced Ion drives are all very nice, but you cannot launch them from Terra Firma, because the T/W ratio is insignificant.

Maybe the VASIMR is an exception from this, or so I've heard, because of the ability to modify thrust, but I still doubt it would be enough to actually propel it off Earth. Essentially, it's a nuclear powered Ion drive. Perhaps someone in the Forum knows?

I think NASA has done a wise decision to reopen the file on nuclear propulsion. I suggest that ESA should do the same.

See you on Mars! 

In fact it didn't stop wars between American powers either. Warfare on Mars? 

Heaven forbid!