Jump to content

My Favorite Martian....look in the mirror


Recommended Posts

OK, hang with me here. I will try to condense this as much as possible.

I just finished reading a book called The Case for Mars - The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why we Must, by Robert Zubrin. It was originally published in 1996, but was updated in 2011.

Dr. Zubrin is a well known "really smart guy" in space exploration circles. He is very credentialed, and has access to NASA leadership, the White House, Congress, etc. Some, near term practical, non visionary types might think he is "out there" a bit.

As I said, I read the book, and got mostly what I expected...a kindred confirmation of the thoughts I have about the importance of aggressive manned space exploration, as well as a thorough discussion of the practical challenges (technology, politics, economics) of establishing colonies on Mars, the Moon, asteroids, etc, etc.

What I did not expect was the "Special Addendum - The Mars Meteorite Discoveries of 1996."

Now, for those out there who are shamefully unaware of this, there was a meteorite from Mars discovered in Antarctica in 1984. This in itself is not unusual. Others have been found. Fragments of Mars are thought to have been regularly blasted of the surface of the red planet due to meteor collisions that were very common during the early formation of the solar system, when rocks were flying around all over the place.

Despite being identified as anomalous when collected, the meteorite, which is known as ALH84001, was not examined properly until 1996. When they finally got around to taking a closer look, it was determined, through various accepted scientific methodologies, that:

1. It was formed underground on Mars about 4.5 billion years ago, as the solar system was cooling down from its formation.

2. It was fractured about 3.6 billion years ago...probably from a meteor impact near its location.

3. It was ejected from the surface of Mars about 26 million years ago, probably from the effects of another nearby meteor impact.

4. It arrived on Earth about 13,000 years ago.

5. It contained carbonates, which are the result of water interaction with CO2, generally indicative of an environment that could harbor life.

6. It contained "fossil like" structures which looked like bacteria.

7. It contained a number of crystalized mineral structures which are typically (but not exclusively) produced by biological processes.

8. It contained organic molecules, which again, although typically indicative of life, are not exclusive, and can be created by non biological processes.

The above 8 facts are not in dispute within the scientific community. However, the really important ones, #'s 5 through 8, are indicative, but not conclusive proof of life. Viable, alternative processes have been offered to explain each. However, the presence of all of these things in one sample, taken as cumulative piece of evidence, is strongly indicative of life. But as I said, not conclusive proof.

Now, in all fairness, the news media did report this at the time (in the most simplified way, of course... "Scientists have discovered what appear to be fossilized microbes on a Martian meteorite, but they are not sure. It could be the result of natural geological processes." End of report.). If you were paying attention at the time, you probably saw it on the news and went "Hmmm, Interesting" before you put it in your wake and got on with life.

Now, what you have not seen in the news is what I am about to tell you...

Refer to #7 above...

In the Fall of 2000, closer examination by a team of scientists led by a well respected astrobiologist named Imre Friedmann, discovered that there exists within the meteorite "chains" of magnetically aligned crystals. These so called "magnetite chains," are normal in biology, are in fact a result of it, and have never been observed to exist without it. A forceful, conclusive argument of biological origin was presented. Specifically, the crystals:

1. Were uniform is size and shape.

2. Consistent in gaps between the crystals in the chain.

3. Consistent in axis orientation of elongated crystals in the chain.

4. Had halo traces of membrane around the chain.

5. Featured flexible (bending) in the chain.

Friedman's team stated: "We conclude that the electron-opaque particles are magneto-fossils, as no other consistent explanation would account for these findings."

Additionally, these "Magnetotactic Microbes" are a specific type of bacteria, and need a decent oxygen atmosphere in order to survive. The date of this meteorite puts it at a billion years or so prior to the existence of sufficient levels of oxygen on Earth to support the biochemistry of this sort of microbe.

So there you have it. There was, and probably still is, life on Mars.

Now, some of you reading this may say, "Bacteria on Mars. So what? What is the big deal?" Well as it turns out, it is a very big deal. Read on....

Some of you know that I teach Aerospace Technology at a local high school here in Jacksonville. I used to teach Earth-Space Science. When the Curiosity mission took off and headed for Mars, I told my students it might turn out to be be the most important mission NASA had ever launched, because it had the potential to answer the greatest answerable, unanswered question..."Are we alone?" They also did not understand the importance of discovering bacteria on Mars. When I explained to them that if life were discovered on Mars, it meant that either, #1. Life has evolved independently on two separate worlds, or #2. Life evolved on Mars, or perhaps somewhere else, and seeded the Earth. Either of these conclusions is extraordinary, because of the logical extension of the facts.

If #1, then life must exist throughout the galaxy, and for that matter the universe, as there appears to be nothing unique about the solar system or its formation. There are about 400 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy alone. The evidence to date is that planetary systems are likely the norm. In fact, hundreds of "extrasolar" planets have already been discovered. Our ability to detect small, terrestrial, so called "Goldilocks" planets, will increase over time.

If #2, then we might be Martian colonists, which is cool enough to think about, but perhaps we can also reach the same conclusions as with #1. Mars may have been "nice" for awhile, but compared to Earth, didn't stay that way for long. If life evolved there in a relatively short period, then life probably have evolved here as well given the much larger time span Earth has enjoyed a temperate climate.

But, yes Virginia, there is still more...

As it turns out, even though we think of bacteria as simple life forms, they are not. From a biological perspective, they are complex and specialized. with DNA, etc. Microbiologists think that there is simply no way that bacteria could have arisen from organic chemistry as the very first life forms on Earth. Simpler, Prebacteria, evolving in an low oxygen environment, had to come first. The world is full of evidence of fossilized bacteria. But yet there is NO evidence of prebacteria anywhere in the fossil record. If prebacteria existed on Earth at any time, the evidence would be easy to find. But it simply isn't there. But as I said, bacteria are far too evolved to have been first. That leads us to conclude that life on Earth was likely seeded by bacteria of extraterrestrial origin, either from Mars or elsewhere.

Now, if a thorough examination of Mars turns up NO prebacteria, then Mars was not the origin of life either. The bacteria would have had to come across space from somewhere else, perhaps within the solar system, perhaps not. Now given the enormous distances to other star systems, extrasolar origin seems unlikely. The answer might lie within our solar system somewhere. So if not Mars or Earth, then where? Perhaps Europa, or one of the outer gas giant moons. Then again, their environments are typically more unsuitable to life than Earth or Mars, so that might be a stretch, but not impossible.

There is one other possibility that has not been discussed, that I will suggest to you now. Most of you reading are probably not aware that the sun is what is known as a "second generation" star. This means that there was a star here before what we know as the sun. The evidence of this is the presence on Earth of the heavier elements..basically anything more massive than Atomic #26 on the periodic table, which is iron. The only force in nature that can account for the presence of elements more massive than iron is a Supernova. So that gold wedding band on your finger was forged in a supernova., the same goes for silver, cobalt, nickel, copper, zinc, platinum, uranium, etc. Anyway, our first generation "sun" likely had planets, possibly with life. This star went through its entire life cycle and died in a supernova explosion billions of years ago. After the Supernova, the remnants of the explosion gradually accreated and formed a new, second generation star with new planets. Some of that bacteria could have survived and seeded the new solar system. It is one speculation.

But in any case, regardless of the historical mechanics of it, you and I are ET.

Edited by DutyCat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, as astrophysicists seem to be toying with:

We're just a really advanced and complex computer simulation.

It's interesting your statements regarding "prebacteria". What would you be looking for in terms of site conditions and fossilized structures, and could such structures even survive in a recognizable and detectable form? Fossilized protein spheres? Could you even detect fossilized RNA strands? Would the areas where life possibly first evolved still even exist, as opposed to being recycled in a subduction zone?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That leads us to conclude that life on Earth was likely seeded by bacteria of extraterrestrial origin, either from Mars or elsewhere.

I never get into that "extraterrestrial" crap. Frankly there is no such thing. Life is still seeded "if one wants to call it that" By things out side of this planet to this day. None of us "people" could become what we are today with out things like the Sun, Technically Humans need an outside source from Earth to live there for that source is part of us. Nothing on earth is technically earth specific, the earth did not nor cannot create anything, there for nothing on earth can be earth specific. Really how is the word extraterrestrial relevant when writing or speaking of life? I do not see it/ think it.

I guess in ways, this thread has to do with the origin of life, which I do not see/think that part really has anything to do with Mars or the Earth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would the areas where life possibly first evolved still even exist, as opposed to being recycled in a subduction zone?

If it is or was part of the Universe then it must still exist.

If one called a rock a rock, then took a hammer and crushed the rock into dust. Does the rock still exist or does one just call its existence an observational state in time or some crap like that.

Edited by Wayne S
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, let's just say continues to exist in a recognizable form as a prebacterial fossil. Tens of thousands of pounds of tectonic pressure at several thousand degrees in temperature over several billion years has a nasty habit of drastically distorting things from their previous form. :P/>

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wayne S,

We are just dealing with science terminology and methodology, as we have defined them, to help us figure out what we observe around us. We want to make sense of natural processes as we can best understand them. How did we get here? Are we alone? These are very important questions to many people.

Existentialism isn't really applicable to this discussion, nor are supernatural inferences (God), which I suspect is what you are hinting at if I correctly read between the lines of what you have written.

You are free to say what you want, of course. It is an open forum, but I am not trying to open a philosophy/religion vs science debate. I just thought the information was good to share and would be appreciated, at least by those who understand the critical importance of science as a candle in the dark in trying to unravel the secrets of the universe around us.

Sincerely, Gil Gregg

Edited by DutyCat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Horrido,

I understand geology well, but not enough vs the history of life/availability of fossils to really comment with authority. My impression from reading the book is that bacteria/fossilized bacteria are so numerous that if prebacteria ever existed on Earth, they would be enormously represented in the fossil record.

I am educated and well read in the sciences, but I am not a multi-discipilinary PHD. I am just reporting here what I have read and offering my own observations. Forum readers can determine the legitimacy/credibility of what I have reported/written, as they see fit.

Sincerely, Gil Gregg

Edited by DutyCat
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just a subject that has fascinated me since I was about six-years-old, and how the information, evidence, and theories have developed over the past 30 years. Unfortunately, I've lost track of the latest research and discoveries, and about my only sources these day are the limited and distorted blurbs that show up in the mainstream media every now and then (I miss my university journals and what I could stumble across and learn.).

Personally, I have some doubts regarding interplanetary seeding, unless they can prove a microbe can survive within a meteorite the temperature extremes and radiation involved over the time frame of the shortest expected travel duration, which would take at least several months, and more likely tens of millions of years, as well as the temperatures and impact involved in reentry. That being said, you can get some pretty complex nucleotides arriving on comet debris, so while "life" itself is unlikely to survive, some pretty substantial building blocks are readily available and rarin' to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just a subject that has fascinated me since I was about six-years-old, and how the information, evidence, and theories have developed over the past 30 years. Unfortunately, I've lost track of the latest research and discoveries, and about my only sources these day are the limited and distorted blurbs that show up in the mainstream media every now and then (I miss my university journals and what I could stumble across and learn.).

Personally, I have some doubts regarding interplanetary seeding, unless they can prove a microbe can survive within a meteorite the temperature extremes and radiation involved over the time frame of the shortest expected travel duration, which would take at least several months, and more likely tens of millions of years, as well as the temperatures and impact involved in reentry. That being said, you can get some pretty complex nucleotides arriving on comet debris, so while "life" itself is unlikely to survive, some pretty substantial building blocks are readily available and rarin' to go.

You are correct to be skeptical. All scientists are, and the most difficult of leading edge questions are often the most difficult to prove.

However, I believe all of the stuff you mentioned is addressed in sufficiently in current and past scientific literature. You will just need to read up some. I can't answer all of your questions, but you are educated enough to ask the some of right ones.

I would only caution on the importance of keeping an open mind. When it comes to scientific theory, the layman (I am not saying you are one) often throws out the baby with the bathwater because they are not trained in the discipline of scientific thought. A good example is evolution, which is an accepted principle among biologists, in fact, a pillar of modern biology. Evolution is largely rejected by the common man because: #1. They are often not educated enough to understand it, even at a basic level and, #2. It can be interpreted as conflicting with religious social paradigm. Either of these reasons is sufficient for rejection in the minds of many. If you don't want to believe it, any excuse will do. In fact, scientists still do not understand it 100%. It is based in the genome, which is itself the subject of leading edge research today. Still some work to do there. Yet the effect of evolution is clearly evident, even if the actual mechanics of it aren't. In my opinion, to not recognize evolution is without intellectual merit. Yet because science does not have it nailed to the wall gnat's *** 100%, it is foolishly rejected by many.

Science is like a jigsaw puzzle. You discover pieces. You put them together. It creates a picture. The more pieces you find, the clearer the picture becomes. However, you are not always sure when you have all of the pieces, or even what percentage of the pieces you have. Worse yet, sometimes you discover one critical piece that changes the picture entirely.

With leading edge science, rarely are you going to get complete clarity. That has to come from the people who follow up on your work, which can take decades, or even centuries. We just have to stop where the evidence stops and let it tell us what it tells us. Essentially, "This our best theory (be it strong or weak), based on the available facts. When and if new information becomes available, it will be incorporated into the theoretical model and the model re-examined."

Edited by DutyCat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gil, thanks for the summary. The origins of life is certainly a big question and I support all this research. I was aware of this meteorite, but not to the depth you described. Interplanetary seeding to me is very possible, given that all the elements travel rather freely across different planets and transfer from stars to planets. It only takes to have the time and environment conducive to evolution to form life. But the thing that surprises me the most is some people's expectation that 'life' has got to be chemically and physically similar to the one we observe here on earth for us to call it life. What we observe is one thin branch of a huge tree. Different pre-conditions and environmental factors can result in life forms completely unrecognizable to us (at least at the moment). Ie, there is no reason to expect an oxygen consuming, carbon based creature or plant to have a positive id that we may not be alone. Anyway, I understand part of this quest is to find places where today's humans can inhabit fairly easily without much adaptation, but it is not surprising to me at all that we are not unique. Each one of us contains matter in our bodies originating from the Sun, and that from other earlier stars. The matter is simply changing form and we are all 'ET's. I believe it is a matter of time before we will find ecosystems akin to ours. What I want to know is whether this discovery will happen in our conventional 4-dimensional universe, or will it take the discovery and engineering of other dimensions of the universe before we know where to look. Note that we can account for only 4% of the universe's mass-energy as of today. The rest, while we have a name for (dark matter + dark energy), we have no idea what to make of it or its workings.

Btw, while definitions such as ET, outer space, etc. are now weird considering what we know about the universe, I think it is ok if they are used in discussions pertaining to such questions. After all, they are remnants of humans' ego centric view of the universe, where everything 'used to' revolve around the earth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gil, thanks for the summary.

The summary is dated and much of the info presented is open to interpretation. Points 5 through 8 are controversial, and there are all sorts of really smart scientists out there who say there are alternative explanations. BTW, Zubrin does not have a background in biology - his background is in engineering and mathematics.

This question of possible Mars biology is separate from but intertwined with the various forces which want a manned trip to Mars for various reasons. Whether we have the need, the technology, and the money are all open questions.

The case for life on Mars is far from proven. I personally would be thrilled if microbial (or any other) life on Mars was proven, but just because many, many people wish it (some based on very, very flimsy evidence) does not make it so.

John Hairell (tpn18@yahoo.com)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The summary is dated and much of the info presented is open to interpretation. Points 5 through 8 are controversial, and there are all sorts of really smart scientists out there who say there are alternative explanations. BTW, Zubrin does not have a background in biology - his background is in engineering and mathematics.

The case for life on Mars is far from proven. I personally would be thrilled if microbial (or any other) life on Mars was proven, but just because many, many people wish it (some based on very, very flimsy evidence) does not make it so.

John Hairell (tpn18@yahoo.com)

John,

Acknowledged on your first point, which I stated. Also acknowledged on your second point. Zubrin's masters is in Aeronautics/Astronautics. His Ph. D is in nuclear engineering.

However, you did not comment on Friedmann's findings, which was the essence of my post. Everything prior to that was pretty much an educational set up for Friedmann. He is an Astrobiologist and worked with a team of other qualified scientists. His evidence seems far from flimsy to me. Zubrin even describes it as a slam dunk, "closing the lid on the question." He even goes on to quote Sagan's "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" in citing the results of his work. What do you think?

Edited by DutyCat
Link to post
Share on other sites

The case for life on Mars is far from proven. I personally would be thrilled if microbial (or any other) life on Mars was proven, but just because many, many people wish it (some based on very, very flimsy evidence) does not make it so.

..Hence the research. No one claims life on Mars is proven. But there is tremendous effort to gather evidence that support or dismiss this curiosity. If one wants to answer the question: 'Is there or was there once life on Mars?', and you see no obvious evidence of it at the present time, you will start looking at things that could have supported life as we understand it. The fact that people are doing this: collecting data, scientifically interpreting it, and publishing it, does not mean that they wish there was life on Mars. Even if they did, that would not invalidate the research being conducted and knowledge that slowly accumulates over the decades.

I understand that populist interpretation of research often causes people to jump to unwarranted conclusions (Gil's wittily titled subject line, nice teaser) and those conclusions often become the subject of debate, but clearly science is moving ahead to answer questions we all are curious about. I hope when you say "many people wish it (some based on very, very flimsy evidence) does not make it so" you are referring to the population at large, and not the scientific community.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought NASA was going to release a "history making discovery" by the Mars Curiosity rover, but they needed to confirm the data. This was roughly six (?) weeks ago, and they said they'd make their statement two weeks after the pending announcement. Any follow-up on that? I presume it may have just been related to amino acids discovered on Mars?

While I feel even the current evidence lends credence to fossilized microbes on Mars, they really need an undeniable slam-dunk to close the debate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In 2009 another examination was conducted of Allan Hills 84001, with the conclusion being: "None of the original features supporting our hypothesis for ALH84001 has either been discredited or has been positively ascribed to non-biologic explanations".

however lack of disccreditation is not a case for validity; I suspect 84001 will be one of those clues on the trail that we only figure out after we get more definitive answers from other sources.

I'ts is great dutycat that you encourage your students to consider the implications of what finding extraterrestrial bacteria would mean for the questions regarding our existence; Proposed missions to Titian or Europa really excite me! if they occur during my lifetime - humanity been far too introspective for too long!

In regards to "are we alone?" - the amount of planets in habitable zones seems to be only limited by our technology to detect them. However, one of the most frustrating components we have to factor into finding intelligent life which often gets overlooked in popular publications is time.

If you were on, say Gliese 581c and were monitoring earths radio signals 115 years ago; even though you were listening in at 99.9% right place and time, you would still hear nothing and probably figure earth had no intelligent life on the planet.

planets that could of held thriving technological civilizations for thousands of years may no longer exist, or (at the luckiest) still exist and been inhospitable to life for hundreds/thousands/millions of years and we would be none the wiser to their existence.

hence why I have such low belief In Ufo sightings - we are fare more likely to enounter an automated probe from a civilization that died of eons ago, than to run into active lil green/grey men :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

In 2009 another examination was conducted of Allan Hills 84001, with the conclusion being: "None of the original features supporting our hypothesis for ALH84001 has either been discredited or has been positively ascribed to non-biologic explanations".

however lack of disccreditation is not a case for validity; I suspect 84001 will be one of those clues on the trail that we only figure out after we get more definitive answers from other sources.

I'ts is great dutycat that you encourage your students to consider the implications of what finding extraterrestrial bacteria would mean for the questions regarding our existence; Proposed missions to Titian or Europa really excite me! if they occur during my lifetime - humanity been far too introspective for too long!

In regards to "are we alone?" - the amount of planets in habitable zones seems to be only limited by our technology to detect them. However, one of the most frustrating components we have to factor into finding intelligent life which often gets overlooked in popular publications is time.

If you were on, say Gliese 581c and were monitoring earths radio signals 115 years ago; even though you were listening in at 99.9% right place and time, you would still hear nothing and probably figure earth had no intelligent life on the planet.

planets that could of held thriving technological civilizations for thousands of years may no longer exist, or (at the luckiest) still exist and been inhospitable to life for hundreds/thousands/millions of years and we would be none the wiser to their existence.

hence why I have such low belief In Ufo sightings - we are fare more likely to enounter an automated probe from a civilization that died of eons ago, than to run into active lil green/grey men biggrin.gif

Raymond,

Do you have a source for that 2009 study? I'd like to read it. Does it discuss Friedmann's evidence and conclusions? I ask because Zubrin's book was updates in 2011. It is possible, but seems unlikely, he would have overlooked a 2009 study. He may have read it and dismissed it for cause.

On the subject of radio transmissions...

A lot of folks seem to think that radio transmissions radiate outward from planets like potent beacons. They think that anyone out there will detect ours eventually, and more importantly, if there are "little green men" out there, why have we not detected their radio transmissions by now?

First of all, depending on the assumed value of variables in the Drake Equation, even though the galaxy might be teaming with life, there may only be a handful of intelligent, communicative civilizations capable of radio astronomy currently in existence. Even if we are more generous with the values and assume several million exist, the distances between them are likely very large. Powerful radio transmissions aimed in a specific direction can travel great distances, but radio and TV signals escaping the Earth are low powered. Some are trapped within the atmosphere. Others are lobed or only go in certain directions (like up to that satellite in geosynchronous orbit). Much is "broadcast" and as a result is essentially local because of propagation loss.

Let's assume for a minute that "The Today Show" was broadcast from the surface of the Earth in all directions at a typically low power level. It would spread out in all directions and be subject to spherical spreading loss, that is, for each distance doubled, the remaining amplitude is 1/4 of what it was before, and so on. This is known as the Inverse Square Law. It would not take long for such a signal to disappear below the ambient noise level of the galaxy. After all, it is competing against every star out there. Speaking of stars, they are classic examples of spherical spreading. They radiate in all directions, losing amplitude IAW the Inverse Square Law. But because they are so powerful, we still detect them easily and precisely, even far far away. But imagine a planet orbiting that star. How detectable would its radiation be? You would have to aim a radio telescope right on its orbit in order to detect omni-directional radio transmissions coming from it.

A transmission directed at us would be an entirely different matter, but what are the odds of that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya!

most accessible version is the Nasa publication:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/403099main_GCA_2009_final_corrected.pdf

and its corresponding Press release:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/news/releases/2009/J09-030.html

yea that's kinda my point; in order for some form of contact you would need two technologically advanced cultures both existing infinitesimally close to each other in space, time and technological development listening/sending in on a common medium that is practicle for communication in a cosmic sence.

flipping it around to the future; say Gliese 581c is magically a clone of earth full of humans who are only 100 years more advanced than us, manically sending us signals on a medium we haven't discovered yet. We would be none the wiser!

It takes us 100 years to discover the technology to receive such signals, but say during that 100 years Gliese experienced a catastrophe of some sort and the civilization was wiped out or stopped transmitting, again we would never know - despite being so close on every factor.

* This was one of the reasons I was really hoping the CERN neutrino faster-than-light results would be confirmed - the speed of light barrier is such a pain in the @@rse!! it it had of been true it could of ushered in a new era of telescopes communication and exploration. Though just as Newtonian physics gets adjusted more and more, I have no dobt the theory of relativity will receive caveats in the future :)

while the drake equation is fun, I do tend to agree with Crichton's fun observation: the [Drake equation] can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero due to every variable being filled with guesstimates. An expression that can mean anything means nothing, making the Drake equation meaningless... hehe :D/>

Edited by Raymond
Link to post
Share on other sites

back to mars;

while Zubrin's ideas for a mars mission are innovative and thought provoking; I think the amazing success of spirit and opportunity (and hopefully Curiosity) will be the death knell for such a mission; currently robots really are delivering the best bang for the buck.

While it is true having people on mars would allow for far more in depth work, robots ave proven their advantage in the longevity department; I expect future robotic missions of ever increasing capability and sophistication to be the primary means of exploring our solar system.

* always enjoyed this scene from the movie Pandorum:

Edited by Raymond
Link to post
Share on other sites

You can only do so much with robots Raymond.

Space is the next big frontier, the next big unknown. This is really no different from Genoese and Spanish explorers of the 13th - 15th centuries wondering what was on the other side of the Atlantic and if their frail craft could be able to safely voyage there and back.

In my opinion NASA is doing what it does best, innovation and exploration. It will eventually be up to world wide organisations or corporations to create the breakthroughs, construct the spacecraft and execute the missions to "that other side"

I doubt I will see much of this in my lifetime. Perhaps the first manned mission to Mars. I do know it will NOT be in a chemically powered slow plodding space craft of recent years, rather a faster fission or fusion powered spaceship complete with fast plasma type drive (VASIMR perhaps) revolving hab-sections and magnetic radiation shields. These are all technologies being funded and tested now.

Our future as a species is out there. Humanity has an innate curiosity, and with that, an innate desire to explore and discover.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, Robots have limitations; though currently we seem to be making faster strides in robotics than propulsion; which is what really needs to change if we intend to get 'out there'; as such I see robotic exploration dominating based on current trends.

Chemical propulsion really needs to be laid to rest, I just don't feel so advanced when i consider all we are essentially doing is setting fire to dead things to push us about :D :D

I am fascinated by the concept of having to alter our bodies to better suit space travel If we intend to travel to the stars ( stopping bone loss, radiation absorption etc) it leads to all those fun questions like "IF we eliminated all the negitive traits of spaceflight on humans, could the occupants still be considered truely human?" :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot to post earlier that while Zubrin deserves a lot of credit for his forward thinking, vision and persistence; His writings often paint a rather rosy picture of a Mars mission, making it appear on the side of easier rather than harder.

For example; we have no experience in landing anything close to the 40 ton payload described in Mars Direct. (For comparison Curiosity weighs a teeny 1980 lbs) closest being the lunar module@ 22,375 lb, and that was manned!

I remember reading somewhere that fellow NASA scientist's, (who are fans of the idea) found massive underestimations in zubrins predictions for crew consumables based on their space flights/ISS data , predicted launch weights were too low, and radiation risks glossed over.

unfortunately for these things, success really is in the details; and while Zubrin is obviously an ideas man; it will take meticulous and through planning for any theoretical mission to be given serious consideration. While I'm not exactly buzzing at the plans to go back to the moon; such a mission will help provide invaluable knowledge and experiences, essentially updating the field manual of what we do well, and what still needs work for a future mars mission in the 21st centuary

Edited by Raymond
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...