If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

Canth · 2002-05-22 19:34:06

I also do not beleive in the necesity of a sample return mission. The space exploration act of 2002 may well put men on mars, all it needs to do is get passed relativly unadulterated. It will put men on mars within 20 years, while I would like that to be sooner the bill stipulates a REUSABLE spacecraft which means it won't be a crash program, we will go and return at least once, otherwise the craft isn't reusable.

Phobos · 2002-05-23 17:08:21

That space bill is ambitious in what it asks for. I wonder if it might be best to pare it down some and take out things like the stations on the Martian moons and some of the ship reusability requirements. But of course, if the bill must remain intact in its present form or die I'll happily wait the extra decade without complaining.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-05-25 07:50:25

Hi lars !!
I don't think the back-contamination thing will be a show-stopper .... or at least it shouldn't be .... unless the "powers-that-be", and/or the press, manage to exaggerate its importance. There does seem to be a move under way at present to turn back-contamination into a convenient means of slowing human Mars exploration to a crawl, for what purpose I have no idea. (Maybe it's to do with money. Maybe the present US administration has even bigger plans for military spending than we currently know of, and is therefore avoiding committing funds to a potentially expensive Mars mission. All supposition on my part, of course! )
I remember when the first lunar landing was imminent. Nobody knew for sure that there weren't lunar organisms which might be deadly to Earth life. Biological isolation suits and an airtight quarantine facility were designed for, and used by, Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins. The flaw in the system occurred when they splashed down and the Command Module hatch was opened. There were no quarantine arrangements in place at that point, so any lunar bugs in the capsule would have been released into the atmosphere and the waters of the Pacific Ocean!!
Later on, and actually MUCH TOO LATE, the astronauts were shown in their isolation suits and then waving from inside the quarantine facility!
Nobody seemed perturbed by this farcical charade. It was almost as if the authorities had staged a pretence at quarantine to satisfy the doomsayers and nobody seemed to notice the glaring fault in its execution!
I know Mars is a much more likely abode for alien life than the Moon, and must therefore be seen as more of a risk from a back-contamination point of view. But the principle is identical. NOBODY KNEW FOR SURE that there were no lunar pathogens!
It seems to me that when NASA really wanted to send humans to another world (the Moon), the extremely unlikely prospect of contamination was treated lightly. Today things are different: The still extremely unlikely prospect of contamination (this time from Mars) is being built up as a major impediment to human exploration.
Interesting, isn't it, how contamination can be largely ignored, or used as an excuse to pull back from manned missions, depending on NASA's agenda at the time!
So, lars, I don't think back-contamination will be a show-stopper unless NASA wants it to be. They seem to be able to mesmerise the press, and therefore the public, into believing whatever spin they choose to put on a subject. Fascinating, isn't it?!
Uh-oh! I think I can feel a bout of "conspiracy theoritis" coming on!!

Phobos · 2002-05-25 12:41:58

If the fanatical sect of environmentalists jump on the band wagon in numbers to protest the presence of humans on Mars because they believe it will lead to back contamination, then I think all of this back-contamination paranoia could take on a show stopping form. The media loves to harp on these points, and even if such paranoid thinking remotely smacks of political correctness, we might find ourselves having to wait until 3074 for the last of the sample return missions to arrive
before deciding if we should go to Mars. Of course these same people are crying foul over the development of nuclear propulsion in space and don't seem to be making headway to halt it, so maybe I'm just being paranoid myself.

Christina · 2002-05-26 05:04:27

Given all the hype about the possibility of fossilised life in meteorites, yes, there does seem to be a paranoia about contamination. Or is this just a redirection of the planetary guilty conscience about what we have done here? Anyway...

First of all (if he hasn't already done it) get that no-nuclear-in space treaty trashed, then we can make good use of the decommissioned warheads (and ensure they can't get reused as toys that go bang again too)

Phobos · 2002-05-26 11:00:30

If our reluctance to develop space resources is because of a
guilty concience, people are expressing it in the wrong way about wanting no human presence in space. I know I've harped on this point before, but it seems to me we could go a long way toward restoring Earth's ecosystems if we were to move our mining and manufacturing operations off Earth and into space. What would we rather tear up? A dead asteroid or a pristine forest that happens to be rich in iron or something else? I'll pick the asteroid.

Josh Cryer · 2002-05-26 18:52:35

I don't think going to Mars is necessarily about developing space resources. I think the initial goal is to search for life. Given that all signs point to a very warm Mars in its past ( sorry Ann, but that's how it is! Sax was right! ), I don't see why we must start digging everything up right away.

And this isn't necessarily blind environmentalism. It's good science. Mars is the candidate for life in the solar system. Europa, and perhaps Titan, are the only other candidates. Seriously, it would be a major waste if we didn't keep things clean during our inital explorations.

I am all for terraformation and colonization, but I would like to at least know if there was any life there. That is the scientific answer that we've been looking for.

GOM · 2002-05-26 19:41:30

I am all for terraformation and colonization, but I would like to at least know if there was any life there. That is the scientific answer that we've been looking for.

Not only "was". I think there probably IS life on Mars.

The recent announcement about huge ice reserves under the surface are another step towards the announcement of life on Mars, imo.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-05-26 21:38:52

I'm with you GOM! The only difference between us when it comes to the question of life on Mars is that I put the prospect as "almost certainly" rather than "probably".
My reasons, as I've repeated elsewhere, are:-

(i) Frequent impact-driven exchanges of surface material of
Earth and Mars over the eons and up until geologically
recent times. (The K/T impact that helped to eliminate the
dinosaurs may have delivered viable microbes to Mars "only"
65 million years ago.)

(ii) Dr. Gil Levin's work since 1977 which argues very
compellingly that Viking DID in fact detect life. ( Look up
his work on any search engine. It's worth the effort! )

(iii) Unsterilised probes were sent to Mars in the 60s by the
U.S.S.R. Dr. Levin's work convinces me that those
Russian bacteria which arrived on Mars had an excellent
chance of survival, and have had 40 years to
proliferate in what is now known to be a watery regolith.

And, Phobos, you talk about tearing up an asteroid or a pristine forest on Earth. I look forward to tearing up an asteroid, leaving the Earthly forest alone, AND growing a beautiful pristine forest of towering conifers on Mars!!

Phobos · 2002-05-27 12:02:24

Oh yeah, I'd definately pack up the ice chest and head out to camp among the five hundred foot tall conifers of Mars. In a way I'm almost hoping they don't find life on Mars so there's no ethical impediments to terraforming. But then again I'm curious to know how Martian life would function and it would answer definitively that life has developed elsewhere. I just hope Mars develops into more than just a mere research station. In the future I think Mars could be a great manufacturing place for space born technology, but that's probably a hundred years off if not more.

GOM · 2002-05-27 13:52:00

But then again I'm curious to know how Martian life would function and it would answer definitively that life has developed elsewhere.

We're all curious about that. However it does not answer any questions about life developing elsewhere, the abiogenesis hypothesis that is constantly pushed by the evolutionists. If we do find life on Mars, I expect it will be DNA-based and will have been transported from Earth to Mars.

Of course, Richard Hoagland will possibly claim the reverse. He thinks humans are Martians that came to this planet a long time ago. At least I think that's his current belief.

GOM · 2002-05-27 13:57:48

The only difference between us when it comes to the question of life on Mars is that I put the prospect as "almost certainly" rather than "probably".

Okay.

Mark S · 2002-05-27 16:01:34

I'm sorry if this is a "stupid" question, but how do we know for certain that Mars's underground water deposits are ice, not liquid? Richard C. Hoaglund, as much as he may seem like a crackpot, makes a convincing argument that liquid water can exist at low altitudes on the Martian surface. If (and that's a really big "if",) liquid water oceans exist under Mars's surface, it is entirely possible that an ecosystem, similar to those around the undersea gas vents, exists on Mars.

Josh Cryer · 2002-05-28 02:19:54

We don't, but the likelyhood of liquid water being within reach of the GRS is extremely low. Phobos talks about the air pressure on Mars in the thread that claims there are ?water lakes? there. He pretty much sums it up.

Yes, there are possible places where liquid water spews out ocassionally, but they're not as vast as GRS is recording.

clark · 2002-05-28 08:13:50

A CRASH program to Mars? LOL

I wonder if the people on the Titanic had a "sinking" feeling bfore the ship went down...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2002-05-22 19:34:06

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#52 2002-05-23 17:08:21

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#53 2002-05-25 07:50:25

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#54 2002-05-25 12:41:58

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#55 2002-05-26 05:04:27

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#56 2002-05-26 11:00:30

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#57 2002-05-26 18:52:35

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#58 2002-05-26 19:41:30

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#59 2002-05-26 21:38:52

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#60 2002-05-27 12:02:24

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#61 2002-05-27 13:52:00

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#62 2002-05-27 13:57:48

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#63 2002-05-27 16:01:34

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#64 2002-05-28 02:19:54

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#65 2002-05-28 08:13:50

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

Board footer