NASA Scientist (Creationist) on life on Mars

getting bacteria started on mars may require domes at first also... they could later be used by settlers.
it wouldn't require humans on mars to get bacteria started, but it would help.
I think terraforming would be a worthy mars mission, and would make sense for the long term survival of our species.. if such a thing even matters.

There was one heck of a really great discussion on the radio last night discussing this. First hour guest, aerospace engineer Dr. Robert Zubrin reacted to NASA's announcement to send a new rover to Mars in 2020. "We should have a much richer robotic program than just the next rover 8 years from now...and we should be sending humans to Mars in roughly 8-10 years from now," he declared. Zubrin was also critical of NASA's planned L2 space station which could control Mars sample missions and some lunar robotics. "The station at L2...is a way to have something for the human spaceflight program to do without it actually embracing the challenge of going to Mars," he remarked.

Of course, as always, the discussion expanded to a broad scope of relevant outliers. It's probably on youtube some place.

Here's a good video featuring Zubrin if you don't know who he is. It's quite popular with the younger crowd and really reflects what they are learning in terms of science, technology, engineering and math in the classroom. Which is really the only reason I share it here.

It's about 4 minutes.

'The Case for Mars' (ft. Zubrin, Sagan, Cox & Boston)
 
Last edited:
fan of zubrin. if government wasn't stealing all our wealth, we could have a science foundation dedicated to colony on mars now.
zubrin would be the inspired leading the charge. chip in would fund... or kickstarter.com
 
Without government would we have gone to the moon? Certainly not as soon as we did.

Now with enough money a private citizen may be able to go.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...me9xYQ?docId=4744238305954b2797c70ca6b576317f

To the moon? Firm hopes to sell $1.5 billion trips

By By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer – 25 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — A team of former NASA executives is launching a private venture to send people to the moon for a price that is definitely out of this world.

For $1.5 billion, the newly formed business is offering countries a two-person trip to the moon, either for research or national prestige. The venture was announced Wednesday.

NASA's last trip to the moon was 40 years ago. The United States was the only country that landed people there, beating the Soviet Union in a space race to the moon that transfixed the world. But once the race ended, there has been only sporadic interest in the moon. President Barack Obama cancelled NASA's planned return to the moon, saying America had already been there.

But the firm has talked to other countries, which are showing interest in going, said former NASA associate administrator Alan Stern, who is president of the new Golden Spike Company. Stern said he's looking at countries like South Africa, South Korea, and Japan.

"It's not about being first. It's about joining the club," Stern said. "We're kind of cleaning up what NASA did in the 1960s. We're going to make a commodity of it in the 2020s."

Stern said he's aiming for a first launch before the end of the decade and then up 15 or 20 launches total.

Dozens of private space companies have started up recently, but few if any will make it — just like in other fields — said Harvard astronomer Jonathan McDowell, who tracks launches worldwide.

Many of those companies hope to follow the success of Space X, which has ferried cargo to the International Space Station for NASA. But more than 90 percent of new ventures will fail before anything is built, he said.

"This is unlikely to be the one that will pan out," McDowell said.

Even though many countries ponied up millions of dollars to fly their astronauts about the Russian space station Mir and the American space shuttles in the 1990s, a billion dollar price tag seems a bit steep, he said.

The latest company is full of space veterans; American University space policy professor Howard McCurdy called them "heavy hitters" in the field. The board chairman is Apollo era flight director Gerry Griffin, who once headed the Johnson Space Center. Advisors include space shuttle veterans, Hollywood directors, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson and engineer-author Homer Hickam.

Stern says the company will buy existing rockets and capsules, only needing to develop new spacesuits and a lunar lander
 
Last edited:
Without government would we have gone to the moon? Certainly not as soon as we did.

Well. You have to look at it in correct terms, zippy. NASA was formed as a national defense agency. Also, we need to scrutinize some of the news we'll continue to read from our private sector in a more practical manner conforming to that model. Especially when they reference NASA in civilian agency feel good terms relevant to their own prospective endeavors. Folks have such a shallow concept of what defines spending relevant to several aspects of infrastructure and we're at a fork in the road where if we're not careful in understanding those definitions relevant to who is who then we will begin to accept the same shenanigans in the Apollo that actually paved the way for a lot of what we are seeing now with private companies playing the larger role in active warfare...except in space this time.
 
Last edited:
waste. send the rover elsewhere are sending it to a museum.

Depends upon whose future is relevant to the discussion. The one on the way out or the one coming in.The one heading out don't really care too much about the ones coming in. Heck, they tried their darndes to keep them from ever seeing the errors of the old guard's ways. Now, it's the other way around, thankfully. Waste depends upon who is saying it relative to their own prescribed way of thinking.
 
Last edited:
Depends upon whose future is relevant to the discussion. The one on the way out or the one coming in.

rovers do give us a bunch of info about a planet, but 5 rovers to mars- zero elsewhere is not a good scouting pattern.
aren't we looking for something relative to us as humans, like life? or habitats and resources outside of our planet?
 
rovers do give us a bunch of info about a planet, but 5 rovers to mars- zero elsewhere is not a good scouting pattern.
aren't we looking for something relative to us as humans, like life? or habitats and resources outside of our planet?

We need a new way of thinking. 5 rovers mean we are thinking differently. I don't care how much it costs. A new narrative and social engineering in a direction that moves away from iron age fairy tales is a priceless commodity.
 
Last edited:
lFc3Xcopy_zps73f9d45d.jpg
 
We need a new way of thinking. 5 rovers mean we are thinking differently. I don't care how much it costs. A new narrative and social engineering in a direction that moves away from iron age fairy tales is a priceless commodity.
you really need higher expectations.
lobbing 5 rovers at a red dirt neighbor seems like a waste of money, unless they are really prospecting for something other than more rocks that will tell us about the sedimentary history of a dead planet. like a bunch of geologist are controlling the strings on project direction at nasa.
we definitely need more competition.
 
you really need higher expectations.
lobbing 5 rovers at a red dirt neighbor seems like a waste of money, unless they are really prospecting for something other than more rocks that will tell us about the sedimentary history of a dead planet. like a bunch of geologist are controlling the strings on project direction at nasa.
we definitely need more competition.

It's not even red, you know. It looks just like Earth. But, yes. Several fields are involved with these projects and they are broad in scope. Many of which carry over to classrooms almost in live form. That's important. These projects are not in any way like what many believe them to be. People simply aren't informed. It's a choice they make. As I said, out with the old and in with the new. It's how change passes right by in a manner in which nobody will even notice as they scutter about with all of the things they view as important in their daily lives.

Students are the winners here. They get to build their own change. Not inherit more of the same patterns of thinking and approaching things.

There is a tremendous wealth of information on what is being done...how...why..for whom. Just have to hve genuine interest rather than look for a generic reason from the mind of the old guard on why not to go looking.
 
Last edited:
europa is probably our last best chance of finding life in our backyard. dave knows.
 
ALL THESE WORLDS
ARE YOURS EXCEPT
EUROPA
ATTEMPT NO
LANDING THERE
:rolleyes:

there have only been a couple of scientist i've known advocate for europa. but i know its on the board. it just keeps getting knocked off for stupid shit like sending another freaking rover back to the same planet. over and over.
the freakin' jellyfish people are waiting for us to say hi.
 
Seriously though. Big things are going on. None of the traditional sheeple type arguments you hear from those who are faithful trustees of the information gathered by them from cable news and other political pundits against these processes are based upon anything that actually relates to those processes. Is a generational gap that I for one am very thankful that exists. One that is becoming gradually closed. Slowly...surely.
 
there have only been a couple of scientist i've known advocate for europa. but i know its on the board. it just keeps getting knocked off for stupid shit like sending another freaking rover back to the same planet. over and over.
the freakin' jellyfish people are waiting for us to say hi.

Yep. Europa is a gold mine of data. I'd like to take a peek at the oceans under that thin layer of ice. But the other moons are also interesting and relative to maybe even getting under it. It really is a shame the people who do the thinking around here don't comprehend the value in a scientific thread for such discussion. It really is very important and relative to the change that is passing everyone right by.

Whenever I stop contributing here I'll probably scribble up an op-ed that includes the phenomenon in a manner of sorts and maybe give it a good once over. There is such an opportunity for the liberty community to become relevant to the process as well as benefit should they so choose. Why they do not make that choice is rather questionable to me. It's baffling, really. I'm beginning to get the notion that science in these parts is viewed as Google and digital marketing. Of course, we all know that's not relative to change at all. More of the same, actually. Political science to be clear. Certainly not at all the real thing. A way of programming as opposed to thinking that comes from the latter.
 
Last edited:
Would be neat to maybe guide ths comet right into Mars.

http://news.discovery.com/space/astronomy/could-a-comet-hit-mars-in-2014-130225.htm

If it did hit, the impact could be a huge, global event. But the comet’s likely location in 2014 is also highly uncertain, so this is by no means a “sure thing” for Mars impact. It’s believed Earth’s oceans were created, in part, by water delivered by comets — cometary impacts are an inevitable part of living in this cosmic ecosystem.
 
Back
Top