• Server Outage Announcement

    Hello, Everyone.
    We will be installing an update to XenForo (the forums software), and doing some server maintenance.
    Consequently, the forums will be unavailable from about 12 - 2 MDT / 2 - 4 EDT / 6 - 8 GMT on Sunday 9th May 2021.

Mars Conspiracies

phgnome

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Messages
109
Reaction score
2
Points
47
I forget where I heard this from -- I think someone told me about it: That the U.S. Geological Survey has been looking for (and presumably found) oil on Mars. I think the person even said that they're moving to mine oil on Mars (?).

Has anyone else heard this, too, or am I dreaming it?

Another possibility: could NASA be starting to terraform Mars already behind our backs? When they terraform a planet, I imagine that it would take a long time (at least a few decades to thousands of years) -- does anyone else know how long it takes?

I read something else before that said that there wasn't enough atmospheric pressure on Mars for water to remain in liquid state (because a rock 100 km wide hit Mars a million years ago with such force that the atmosphere was affected). But if water turns to liquid state, does that increase atmospheric pressure -- what I think I'm asking is if carbon dioxide is released as a by-product -- will the water remain in liquid state after the storm subsides? Does this storm have any chance of releasing carbon dioxide into its atmosphere?

I had thought about them shooting a bomb loaded with CO2 (since we seem to have so much of it). But if they could do it by displacing the moons of Mars, would it have a greater effect? Could the govt. be responsible for the disappearance of the moons for the purpose of terraforming?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,231
Reaction score
9,151
Points
284
I just came across this story in Breaking News.

It is bizzare. The Apollo astronauts were quarantined when they returned from the moon, and Mars is far more likely to harbour life than the moon, but to say astronauts should avoid likely areas for life is like saying... like saying... Well, I can't think of anything stupid enough! No wonder people come up with conspiracy theories.

Could it be that the idea of there being harmful organisms is just a cover to explain a refusal to investigate sites which just possibly may be evidence of ancient intelligent life? But again, why? Ancient intelligent life would be an amazing, wonderful discovery - people would throw money at NASA to investigate it further.

Unless they know something we don't, and know that some areas are forbidden us for some reason....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
i for one would like to see the whole of mars explored but if it does harbour life then there could be organisms spores etc that could be harmful to humans and it isnt worth the risk just yet.

There is plenty of time for them to explore the whole of the planet at a later date once they have got their act together up there.
Lastly, even if they did go to mars and discover a lost city and the government didnt want us to know about it, you can bet your arse we wont hear a peep.
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,231
Reaction score
9,151
Points
284
A more complete account of the report, with links to the full report online, is here.

Personally, I feel that the risk of biohazards is overstressed. Life on Earth is pretty rugged, having evolved over the aeons to deal with all sorts of threats. Stuff that's survived on Mars would likely find itself out of its league here on Earth, assuming it did somehow get here.

I very much doubt there's a killer virus lurking up there, just waiting to wipe us all out. A worst case scenario might involve some kind of plague, but the whole point about genetic diversity is that not everyone would succumb to it.

There's probably stuff on Earth still undiscovered as dangerous as anything from Mars - recent finds suggest there is a huge biomass living in rock underground.
 

mejane

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
1,367
Reaction score
44
Points
69
Stoopid question time...

How does anyone decide which are the least likely places to harbour life? It's an alien planet (well, doh!) so why do we assume that life there would evolve in any way similar to life on Earth? Also, bear in mind that life here has been found in places that only a few years ago would have been considered totally impossible (eg deep sea volcanic vents).

We could end up carefully selecting a "safe" site only to land on the poor buggers!

Jane.
 

intaglio

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Oct 14, 2001
Messages
1,589
Reaction score
35
Points
69
To be frank us landing on Mars would be more likely to damage Martian life than vice versa.

Also

Let's say that Spain had something like the US National Research Council, would Columbus have got his funding?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
History shows that it is the Visitors that bugger up the Visited.

Wonder how martian life would be hampered by the common cold, chicken pox and an infestation of Grey Squirrels.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
life on Mars

If we finally got to mars set down did the exploring, man kind would be unified in celebrations which means no more wars no more big bucks for the govenments and knowing these countries that have the big Budgets i.e. USA, UK.

USA would start an intergalactic war and Blair will bring up the rear say "Yes sir No sir three bags full George"

One day if alien life did come and visit well make there presence known don't think that they are not already here. Then you will get some idiot like an American Soldier (No offence, but they are trigger happy) shooting the visitor and causing a war.

People do no want to see this, they have closed minds people i know say that we are the only inteligent life in the galaxy, what uter B*** S**t thousands of star systems millions of planets and we are the only inteligent life, one track mind with blinkers on.

Mulder :mad:
 

harlequin2005

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
824
Reaction score
10
Points
49
One day if alien life did come and visit well make there presence known don't think that they are not already here. Then you will get some idiot like an American Soldier (No offence, but they are trigger happy) shooting the visitor and causing a war.
That was the opening of 'The Day the Earth Stood Still'... but I'm not saying you're wrong mind. Another line from a film would probably figure too (Starman) 'Since when to autopsy tables need straps?'

Ya, gotta admit... we're a great species, just look who we let get into power

8¬)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
If we finally got to mars set down did the exploring, man kind would be unified in celebrations which means no more wars no more big bucks for the govenments and knowing these countries that have the big Budgets i.e. USA, UK.
That kind of thing used to be said about the moon landing. That the world would be united in celebration. That the magnitude of the fact would make us wake up to the wonders around us and that there would be no more wars.

Today, sadly, most people just take it for granted that the moon is there - though personally I still find it amazing and fascinating.

Ah, but she ees zo beautiful. Zee moon. As lovers know. But she will break your heart.
 

harlequin2005

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
824
Reaction score
10
Points
49
Between travels to strange parts, I still get mails from Marshall...

More intersting musings from my favorite conspiracy buff

http://marshallmasters.com/Archive/July2002/nasa_mars1/nasa_mars1.htm

Is NASA Afraid to Send
a Manned Mission to Mars?

YOWUSA.COM, July 15, 2002
Janice Manning

It seems that NASA is ducking any serious questions about sending a manned mission to Mars. Rather than face direct, on-camera questioning by reporters at a press conference regarding their own leak and first major turnaround in 26 years, they scurried for cover! What major Martian discovery would cause the big boys at NASA to turn tail and run? The answer is simple: water! Mars, that so-called cold, dead, dry, dusty dune of a place, has oceans of it in an ice-rich layer just a few feet under the surface of the planet in many areas!

Robert H. Williams, former professor at Clinton Community College in New York State, has gathered mountains of data on the red planet. He expressed his deep dismay with NASA in a letter that he sent to YOWUSA on June 10, 2002. He sees NASA’s lack of the “scientific enthusiasm” that they used to express abundantly during the glory days of the Moon launches as a stumbling attempt to cover up a glaring blunder. This blunder, if corrected, could actually point to life on Mars.

Now that NASA has found water, life’s most basic requirement, on Mars, it would seem that looking for life would be the next logical step. Furthermore, it would seem that this discovery would encourage NASA to step up its plans to send astronauts to Mars, but this does not seem to be happening. Yet, Russia suddenly talking about a manned mission to Mars so what gives? And why is NASA/JPL conducting this quest with all the plodding determination of someone who has lost his car keys?

While NASA’s announcement of water on Mars permanently puts the arguments of proponents of the liquid CO^2 theory “on ice,” NASA/JPL is failing to follow its own oft-repeated mantra, “Follow the Water!” Instead of earnestly seeking out life on Earth’s nearest neighbor now or in the near future, they are repeatedly sending up unmanned missions that are landing in much the same areas as previous ones. They do not plan to send astronauts to Mars at all for the first two decades of the new millennium.

It’s Not Your Mother’s NASA Any More

Perhaps their scientists are unwilling to admit to being surprised when they saw pictures of water that seemed to flow into new gullies on the planet surface as indicated below.
Space.com, June 22, 2000
Scientists Report Water In Gullies On Mars
WASHINGTON -- Researchers using NASA's Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft announced Thursday that they found puzzling signs of water seeping into what appear to be young, freshly-cut gullies and gaps in the Martian surface.
The startling discovery of recently-formed; weeping layers of rock and sediment has planetary experts scratching their heads.
The wet spots show up in more than 120 locations on Mars and in the coldest places on the planet, said Michael Malin of Malin Space Science Systems in San Diego, California, which built the spacecraft's camera…
"We were quite surprised and confused" to find present-day evidence of water, Malin said, "because it doesn't really fit our models of what Mars is like."
Malin colleague, scientist Kenneth] Edgett, who is poring over the 65,000 images the spacecraft has returned since it arrived at Mars in 1997, could come up with no better explanation.
"I was dragged kicking and screaming to this conclusion...Mars is like nothing we thought Mars was going to be like before this camera got there. It's not your mother's Mars," Edgett said.

Evidently, it’s not your mother’s NASA either! It’s definitely not the NASA of the Apollo moon launch era. Although they had evidence from 65, 000 images, these principal investigators had to be “dragged kicking and screaming” to a conclusion vital to Martian life or to the use of Mars as a human outpost.

Yet, this vital conclusion has garnered the ecstatic enthusiasm of others, like Effrain Palermo and Jill England, who saw water seeping out all over the red planet as shown in the images on their website.

Additionally, Mr. Williams saw some of the evidence for himself and eagerly posted it to his own site.

Where’s The Enthusiasm?

When one considers NASA’s elation over the Apollo era and the recent Mars Pathfinder mission, it is difficult to understand why NASA is not jumping for joy over this life-promoting discovery! Instead, they choose to adopt a “wait and see” attitude. They continue to hold fast to their belief that the surface temperature of Mars never surpasses 0 degrees Celsius or 32 degrees Fahrenheit although Pathfinder recorded surface temperatures as high as 70 degrees Fahrenheit on some days.

JPL, who kept a running log of the Mars Pathfinder mission status reports, filed a report on July 31, 1997, which documented the 70 F surface temperature. It stated, “When ground temperatures are 16 to 21 degrees Celsius (60 to 70 degrees Fahrenheit), they can drop to minus 23 to 27 degrees Celsius (minus 10 to minus 15 degrees Fahrenheit) just five and a-half feet above the ground.”

One would think that the scientists and principal investigators for the Mars Odyssey project would have been able to think outside the box for a brief moment and ponder the exciting possibilities in store for future Mars expeditions. However, that does not seem to be the case. They don’t seem to be willing to try to connect the dots between the presence of water and the possibility of Martian life.

Consider the following statement by William Boynton, principal investigator for Odyssey's gamma ray spectrometer suite at the University of Arizona, Tucson.
Space.com, May 30, 2002
Breaking the Surface: How Scientists Could Use Mars' Water-Ice
"There's enough water there that astronauts don't have to worry about bringing water along with them," Boynton said.
"All you have to do is heat it up and the water is going to run out. You just put it through a filter…nothing any more elaborate than the kind of filter you'd use on your coffee pot," Boynton said. "My guess is that it would be clean enough to drink right like that," he said.
Boynton added, however, that astronauts would have to be on their guard not to drink contaminated water. "If you melted the ice and you found too much bacteria….well, actually that would be great news. It means you've got life on Mars," he said.
"They could always boil the water and not have to worry about bacteria. My guess is, based on everything we know at Mars is that water would be pretty pure, with no organic matter in it at all," Boynton said.
<<
Perhaps Dr. Boynton, et al., should investigate the possibility that giant life forms could call Mars “home.” In fact, these images may show tree-like life forms that would easily dwarf such immense trees as the Sequoias found in the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range in California.
We’re not talking about little, green men – at least not yet. We’re not even implying sentience, as we know it. For now, we are merely considering the ability to consume, produce and grow. This image shows what appear to be Terran trees. However, a craft orbiting Mars took this picture and many others. At that distance, those “trees” would be roughly the size of New York City skyscrapers.
If the principal investigators cannot accept the possibility that such advanced life forms can exist on Mars, then they should at least reconsider the work of Dr. Gil Levin. Dr. Levin believes that some of the results of the Viking missions show evidence of life on Mars. When Space.com interviewed Dr. Levin, he eagerly shared his point of view with them.
Space.com, May 28, 2002
Odyssey's Icy Discovery Warms Up Controversial Theories
"I am surprised that no mention was made of putting the Pathfinder data and the Odyssey data together," Levin told SPACE.com. "Pathfinder found the surface temperature of Mars to exceed freezing, and Odyssey reports near-surface ice over wide regions…including the Pathfinder landing area, and the Viking landing areas," he said…
"Any physicist would tell you that, given water ice near the surface, a surface temperature above freezing, and a total atmospheric pressure above the triple point, liquid water must exist in the soil above the ice. Maybe only as moisture for part of the day, but the liquid water is enough to sustain the microorganisms the Viking Labeled Release experiment found," Levin said…
"The King has clothes! And as their blinders are gradually removed, even the most reticent scientists will suddenly discover that they knew all along that there is life on Mars," Levin told SPACE.com…

However, while Dr. Levin is looking at this evidence with both eyes open, other scientists currently involved with the Odyssey project are still not connecting the dots and seeing the possibility of life on Mars. As Dr. Levin said, they are still wearing blinders. Indeed, astrobiologist Bruce Jakosky described Odyssey’s discovery as more of a climate “thing” than a biological “thing.”

Furthermore, he went on to state that most of the Ph.D’s involved with Odyssey believe that the water ice on Mars is in equilibrium with its atmospheric vapor. This state would make obtaining liquid water at the planet surface impossible. Any attempt to heat the ice to its liquid state would, according to their calculations, result in immediate evaporation.

Additionally, Jakosky stated, “[Odyssey’s discovery] tells us about the atmospheric water cycle and, by implication, the polar water cycle and the history of climate over the last few hundred thousand or million years.”

Don’t Hold Your Breath Waiting
For a Future Mars Colony

When will the NASA scientists finally remove those blinders that Dr. Levin saw long enough to acknowledge the possibility of life on Mars, or at least to consider sending astronauts to the red planet? If NASA continues to operate as currently planned, that won’t happen until at least 2020!

What will Mars missions look like in the foreseeable future? NASA is conducting the next Mars mission in concert with the French and Italian space agencies. It launches in June 2003. Then, before the Cape Canaveral launch pads cool down, no later than July 2003, NASA will send a spacecraft bearing a lander and two rovers to our nearest neighbor.

The range of each of the rovers will far exceed that of Sojourner, Pathfinder’s rover. NASA believes that their useable lifespan will also greatly exceed Sojourner’s.

Beginning in 2005, NASA will launch more unmanned missions: a reconnaissance orbiter and a smart lander with long range rover. Additionally, they are considering small, unmanned scout missions. Finally, NASA is scheduling a sample return mission for no earlier than 2014. That means we won’t even see one Mars rock until this mission returns to Earth.

NASA’s Zeal (Or Lack of It)

NASA was not always so fearful of the unknown. There was a time when NASA was eager to begin exploring Mars with manned missions. In a report published in 1969, NASA’s then newly formed Space Task Force outlined a plan for NASA’s post-Apollo years. Mars exploration was a prominent issue in that plan. In fact, the task force recommended a manned Mars landing to take place sometime between 1981 and 1984.
NASA, September 1969
Report of the Space Task Group, 1969
We have found questions about national priorities, about the expense of manned flight operations, about new goals in space, which could be interpreted as a "crash program.” Principal concern in this area relates to decisions about a manned mission to Mars. We conclude that NASA has the demonstrated organizational competence and technology base, by virtue of the Apollo success and other achievements, to carry out a successful program to land man on Mars within 15 years. There are a number of precursor activities necessary before such a mission can be attempted. These activities can proceed without developments specific to a Manned Mars Mission-but for optimum benefit should be carried out with the Mars mission in mind. We conclude that a manned Mars mission should be accepted as a long-range goal for the space program.

This Space Task Group called their plan for Mars exploration a “crash program.” While we may see that as an unfortunate misnomer after the Challenger incident, it shows that at one time they were excited, eager to go “where no one has gone before.” The Challenger crewmembers died while pushing the envelope. Since that time, no one has been willing to take up the mantle and courageously continue to push the envelope to Mars and beyond. Yet, if the Challenger crew were alive today, they would, without a doubt, be among the first to submit an application. Although the Viking missions began to pave the way to Mars, it is now summer, 2002 and our Mars astronauts have not yet stepped forward. Why the silence?

To quote the movie, Black Hawk Down, we have “lost the initiative.” Now, we must determine if we have lost it permanently along with our guts. We may never be able to relive the elation of the Apollo era or the Pathfinder mission, but we must not let manned mission to Mars slip through our fingers out of fear of the unknown. We must look inside ourselves to find the courage, the initiative, to reach for this brass ring. Now, we need to “boldly go” to our next frontier and nearest neighbor, Mars!

Right, next stop Netherlands... wish me luck guys

8¬0
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
This is all designed to hide the fact that there is already a "Manned" base on Mars. It is where 'they' will launch their attack from.......

Well it is a conspiracy forum

Oh and Good Luck.....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I think that NASA *is* scared. They have this huge monster (otherwise known as the ISS) gobbling up huge amounts of funding, even though it is continually being down-sized. (Look at the impact of abandoning the CRV. :( ) This has led to a number of v. good science missions being cancelled/threatened, including a Pluto mission, where the time scale is critical. (Pluto is moving further away from the sun, the atmosphere is about to condense/freeze out, and if we don't get there pronto we'll have to wait a looooonnnnggg time before we have another opportunity. :( )

The other problem is that there just isn't the political will to do it. (Particularly given the risk involved. NASA hasn't exactly endeared itself to the bean counters with the cost over-runs on the ISS.) Going to the moon was a no-brainer. It was just part of the one-up-manship contest between the two dominant ideologies of the time. Unfortunately (or possibly fortunately :) ) those days are over, and I suspect that the "War on Terrorism" is likely to taking up what slack remains in the national budget.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
uh oh harliquin, better delete the thread before the mods see it. :D
 

harlequin2005

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
824
Reaction score
10
Points
49
Methinks this 'thrad' is sufficient different :)

I looked over the other one Ryn, and I think this fits just fine in 'conspiracy'... Discrete, but related... please feel free to link this one thru to yonder one.

Otherwise, a pox on 'em all and all their works!

8¬)
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,231
Reaction score
9,151
Points
284
Most conspiracies are to do something - this seems to be a conspiracy to do nothing...

And who exactly are the conspirators, and what is their motive?

Has NASA been warned off by the aliens, that is the question! Or maybe the lizards have forbidden a manned mission...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It is to do something. It's too make sure the earth people dont know too much. ;)
 

oll_lewis

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Feb 14, 2002
Messages
1,876
Reaction score
24
Points
69
Why don't nasa just fire off an unmanned shuttle and fil the "mars landing" against a blue screen in a studio like they allegedly:rolleyes: did with the moon landings in order to pasify the people asking questions with no real risk to the safty of earth.

seriously though if you find water and fossil bacteria and co2 then there is a great liklyhood you may also find living microbes which you wouldn't want comming to earth and causing a pandemic. remember what happened to a lot of the natives of south america when the spanish unwillingly carried over deseses to the new continent (or even the martians in war of the worlds:D ). then ask would it be worth all that risk for a few chants of "USA! USA!" a good old sing song about purple mountined majisty etc and a 5 minitue fealing of accomplishment before changing the channal. Lets face it the moon landing was ground breaking (weather they landed or not but thats a different thead) a mars landing would not be as dramatic because it has in essence been done before and it's not a race.
 

mejane

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
1,367
Reaction score
44
Points
69
Ignoring the socio-political questions for a moment, can something please explain this quote:

Furthermore, he went on to state that most of the Ph.D’s involved with Odyssey believe that the water ice on Mars is in equilibrium with its atmospheric vapor. This state would make obtaining liquid water at the planet surface impossible. Any attempt to heat the ice to its liquid state would, according to their calculations, result in immediate evaporation.
Maybe I'm just being thick here, but wouldn't heating the Martian ice in a semi-enclosed container solve this possible non-existant problem? :confused:

Jane.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
If there are trees on Mars, wouldn't the oxygen level be higher than what it is? Furthermore, could trees even survive in that type of environment for any substantial length of time? Maybe they're only on the more temperate area where the desert meets the poles, not that it's truly temperate or anything. I find it amusing the trees are larger than our biggest skyscraper, just as that huge Martian gorge is deeper than the Grand Canyon. Mars must be the Texas of the solar system: everything's bigger there. Except the inhabitants (LGM).
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I think it's more to do with funding cuts than conspiracies.
 

Mike_Pratt33

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Sep 20, 2001
Messages
624
Reaction score
3
Points
49
Is there any good reason to send men to Mars?

It seems to me that there is nothing that can't be done more safely and more cheaply by robots.

The moon mission was a political stunt. The reason noone has been back is that there is no good reason to go.

If NASA is afraid, it is probably afraid of failing, and with good reason. After the recent failure caused by confusion between American and metric measurements I would be very cautious about sending men to Mars.

The article in the first post mentions a claim that there is water on Mars and so it is not necessary to take any. Wouldn't it be great if NASA believed this was true but when they got there they found it wasn't.

I think the Russian plan for a manned mars mission is just an attempt to prove that they are still a world power. They would do better to fix their own infrastructure before they try to go to Mars.

Personally I would love to see a manned mission to Mars, but whoever does it should take their time and do it right. Furthermore they should go there for a better reason than planting a flag.
 

Anome

Bibliomancer
Joined
May 23, 2002
Messages
5,560
Reaction score
652
Points
194
Location
Left, and to the Back
mejane said:
Ignoring the socio-political questions for a moment, can something please explain this quote:

[/B] quote:
Furthermore, he went on to state that most of the Ph.D’s involved with Odyssey believe that the water ice on Mars is in equilibrium with its atmospheric vapor. This state would make obtaining liquid water at the planet surface impossible. Any attempt to heat the ice to its liquid state would, according to their calculations, result in immediate evaporation.

Maybe I'm just being thick here, but wouldn't heating the Martian ice in a semi-enclosed container solve this possible non-existant problem? :confused:

Jane.

No, you're not being thick, I think they are. The ice in Antarctica is in equilibrium with the atmospheric vapour. (At least it is most of the time.) This just means that it isn't presently in the act of boiling away. (Or, more accurately, the amounts of water present as ice, liquid, and vapour do not change.) As long as the temperature and atmospheric pressure stay relatively constant, this will continue to be the case.

In other words, they might as well be saying that it is impossible to obtain liquid water on the equator. There may be obstacles to getting at the water on Mars, one theory is that it is bonded to the rocks in a really weird way. Most of these problems should be overcome by erecting a habitat with Earth-like temperature and atmosphere.

Erecting a habitat with Earth-like conditions is the tricky part.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I think the real problem with NASA is that they don't do big missions anymore - they lost their bottle after the Apollo landings and now they are more concerned about playing beureauratic games to get their cash then any blue-sky thinking.
There is a lack of imagination matched with a lack of political will, both inside and outside the agency.
Even the Space Shuttle was a step backwards - in terms of cost and usefulness, NASA would have been better off in researching nuclear powered boosters rather than in an orbital craft, that in terms of reliablity and cost, are no better than Soviet era technology, or e the ESA.
And its a shame because while the US Government is happy to fund multi-billion dollar defence contracts as some kind of Keyensian economic project (Keynes was a British economist, who proposed that governments could spend their way out of recession through commissioning massive public work programmes) they won't extend the philosophy to space science.
We in Europe are no better. We continue to throw billions at the Eurofighter project, a plane that was designed to fight the Soviets over Germany, even though the plane has been rendered obsolete by the death of the Cold War.
I think the best hope lies with the Chinese and private companies - the mineral riches of a single asteroid would be enough to transform the planet's economy out of all recognition. Somebody must be seing the potential.
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,231
Reaction score
9,151
Points
284
Mike P, the Russian proposal is for an international Mars project. This would spread the cost, and wouldn't be purely a flag-planting exercise. (Well, they'd need a lot of flags!) The value in terms of one world thinking would be enormous, and any scientific discoveries made might well be momentous.

With known water reserves on Mars the chances of some form of life must be high, but even if there is none we might learn lessons that will help us prevent Earth becoming a dead planet.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The sublime nature of water on Mars is close, but not quite.;)

Looking at some data from the Viking lander, we find that the atmospheric pressure at the surface of Mars is ~7-10 mBars. The temperature and pressure of the triple point of water, on the other hand, are 0.0098 °C and 6 mBar respectively. This means that it should be possible to have liquid water on the surface of Mars. (Though you might have to warm it up a little bit first ;) )

I should qualify this answer, though, by saying that because the pressure is so close to the triple point, liquid water may be a bit "blink and you'll miss it" as the range of temperatures over which it can exist is pretty narrow. :)
 
Top