You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
I know this is probably a stupid question. Sorry for my naivete, but can someone tell me why both current probes (Spirit and Opportunity) shot for more or less equatorial Mars landing sites instead of polar ice cap regions? I know that scientists have said that the Spirit landing was right on the money in terms of location. I would just like to know why we didn't aim for the Mars polar ice cap regions which should have some very interesting "things" frozen there. I think it's largely frozen CO2(?), but isn't there the potential for frozen H2O as well??? Someone please enlighten me...
Thanks,
Steve Hacker
stevejhacker@yahoo.com
I have to agree with Byron. It looks to me like it's just a way to politically kill any hope of manned missions. Jack up the price and just forget about it, or as Byron put it, through up their hands. Yes, of course, I agree that we need to "sweep our own back porch"...yes, we have domestic mouths to feed. Yes, we have other programs right here at home to look after. But is everybody who's flapping their jaws about how irresponsible manned Mars missions (NOW) would be because we're not spending enough on domestic issue completely BLIND? It is so PAINFULLY OBVIOUS to me that we are not just talking about the "spirit of human exploration" here (isn't that cute)...we VERY WELL MAY BE TALKING ABOUT THE EVENTUAL SURVIVAL OR EXTINCTION OF THE HUMAN RACE!!! INDEED ALL LIFE ON EARTH. Are we Manned-Mars-Proponents (NOW) the only people who believe that an asteroid really COULD wipe us all out some day...that eventually the Sun will expand and engulf the inner planets killing all life as we know it? Are we proponents the only ones who realize that if we don't become a space-faring race now we will not have sufficient time to develop the technology to escape and thus outlive such a catastropy?
Obviously, regardless of the price tag, getting humans on Mars is going to STIMULATE economies, education, science, technology, medical breakthroughs, etc.
How can we get this point across in mass? Oh well, maybe we should just keep putting all our money into local mis-spendings and duck our heads between our legs when the big fireball from space comes our way.
Sorry to sound so ticked off, but...well, I guess I am. I know you like-minded folks probably are thinking the same way.
I also agree with the comment that I saw that maybe privates could take a Mars Direct approach on. Maybe Bill Gates could stop crashing our computers and donate some of his personal wealth (he certainly has enough) to Mars Direct.
Steve Hacker
Hey folks...I'm new here. I'm a Mars/Space enthusiast, and I've just started reading Zubrin's book, "The Case For Mars", and I must say that I'm GLUED to it. Interestingly, I've started reading it at right about the time that Bush is supposed to make an announcement about future Mars/Moon missions. According to CNN's headlines today(1/7/04), it looks like we may be headed for another "Battlestar Galactica" type plan resembling the disaster-creating 90-Day report of half a trillion dollars. And now, according to CNN, it looks like that number may we closer to a TRILLION this go-round if something resembling "Mars Direct" doesn't get used. This has me VERY worried about the potential for getting costed right OUT of the Mars arena alltogether.
Please discuss this with me and share your thoughts!
Thanks!
Steve
Pages: 1