Drilling For Life On Mars 7
Jayman2 writes: "New Scientist has a story on how NASA wants to drill holes in the Martian surface to examine the possibility of traces of life in the deeper layers of the planet. Due to the composition of the ground on Mars a conventional hole is likely to collapse, so the tip of the drill NASA intends to use will be heated up to 1500 degrees Celsius, cooling the shaft with the cold atmosphere of Mars itself. However, the high temperature of the drill bit is likely to destroy all carbon based life it would encounter...."
Re:Finding Bacteria on Mars is a Bad Thing (Score:2)
I know, everybody says it's such a remote possibility that anything could ever happen to destroy the Earth before we destroy ourselves, blah, blah, blah, but seriously. Why is it so difficult to just think in realistic terms what would happen if there were a natural disaster of some sort that wiped out the Earth? I would hate to think that all of our thousands/millions of years of development as a planet/species had led to one moment of death and that there was no lasting effect. Humans are the most intelligent creatures we currently are aware of, and I for one am extremely curious to know what is out there. And frankly, it isn't going to happen if people keep saying we need to just stay here, stick our collective heads in the sand and pretend that the rest of the Universe doesn't exist.
Don't get me wrong, I tend to be cautious when it comes to new discovery. But if we were capable of a moon landing as long ago as it happened, I say that we should have made it somewhere else by now. Mars is the next logical step to me and many others. Why haven't we at least got a nice permanent residence on the moon if we can't get our asses to Mars? Why don't we do something, anything, to increase our experience in space? Instead, we just sit here twiddling our thumbs asking why we should bother. It's maddening to those of us that would like to see some sort of progress from space exploration.
Personally, I am well aware that the Earth isn't going to run out of resources, and those that try to scare people into space using that tactic are doing a great disservice to themselves and humanity. And perhaps my idea that we need to get out of here before something big happens to the Earth seems similar. But, to me at least, it seems far more realistic to prepare for something that is very possible at any given moment than to prepare for something that isn't likely in the immediate future.
And honestly, getting a few people somewhere other than the Earth seems like a really good idea to me. Instead of everyone trying to come up with reasons why we shouldn't go into space, why not a few people saying, "Why the hell shouldn't we?" There's a lot to be gained. We would gain a lot of knowledge from travels and explorations in space and on other planets and space bodies. We would have some sort of backup in the case of an "Earth Emergency". We would gain experience in travel to other worlds and learn how to adapt ourselves to other environments (or adapt other environments to ourselves, either way). There just seems like so much could be gained. What's to lose? A few dollars? Who cares. More money is spent on new weapons development each year than what it would cost to put together a solid Mars mission including humans. Why squabble over something that could potentially give us back a lot more than what we currently spend money on?
Maybe the government isn't interested. In which case, let the private sector go to town. Make it profitable. Trips for billionares or whatever you have to do. God, just somebody, please, please, for the love of all that matters, please get some people off of this rock!
Humanity progressed in so many directions for so long. Now we seem to be in a steady slow-down. Corporate interests and big-government is far more important that science, discovery, advancement, and other developmental ideas. I'm not saying to create advancement without reason. Question it all you want. But don't question it so long that you never do anything about it (as we have for the past few decades). Question it, make sure you can pull it off without hurting/destroying anything, make sure it doesn't cross any moral/ethical boundaries (while still ignoring the "god doesn't want us to" idiots), and then do it!
The question shouldn't be "why bother?" The question should be "Why the hell not?" What is everyone so afraid of?
As to the "We have messed up this planet bad enough" babblers, if you seriously believe that we are going to make a signifigant impact on the Universe in the next few centuries or even millineum, then you need to realize just how small we are. Make sure you stay clean, but don't be so obsessed with it that you lock yourself in a dark closet to avoid creating clutter in the Universe. And that's what humanity has done for the past couple of decades. It's time to change that.
However, the high temperature of the drill bit (Score:1)
Anyway, don't we need this technology for when an asteroid comes hurtling towards the Earth?
Finding Bacteria on Mars is a Bad Thing (Score:2)
The tree-huggers will insist that the lifeforms must not to be distrubed, and the Science Johnnys will insist that Mars not be despoiled with Earth DNA until they can 'thoroughly research' the Mars-life.
The answer of course, is for some private space development hot-head to mount a Mars mission that sprays an aerosol of Earth-life to contaminate Mars with Earth-life, ASAP.
A project like that will moot the underfunded Science Johnnys, avoid the moratorium, and allow early development of that planet, to the benefit of mankind.
The most fit species survive and overtake any ecological niche. Mankind is the seed-carrier of Earth-life, Marslife must die when we terraform Mars anyway.
To the Moon! (and Mars)
http://www.beefjerky.com
Re:Finding Bacteria on Mars is a Bad Thing (Score:1)
When Mr. Hothead finally lands on the surface in person, he meets up with some new bacterium which his immune system was never designed to counter. He dies a slow, painful death, and all those Science Johnnys and tree-huggers laugh their asses off.
Aersol (Score:1)
A contaminated Mars make the Science Johnnys job in recording what is Martian so difficult they just can't do it, because their fundung won't appear.
Meanwhile, the Mars Development Corporation hires Hardwater Transport, Inc. to move icebergs from Saturn's rings to slam into Mars, before there are too many humans there. The extra water vapor increases the greenhouse effect, and Mars warms up to a balmy 5-10C.
To the Moon! (and Mars)
http://www.beefjerky.com
Re:Finding Bacteria on Mars is a Bad Thing (Score:1)
The other thing -- if life on Mars arose independently of Earth life then as I see it, at best, chances are the two will be incompatible. At worst the Martian equivalent of spores could be deadly simply due to their chemistry, above and beyond any other actions inimic to the organism (wiggly bits, chompy bits, diamond-tipped reproductive organs ...)
Earth life would likely have an equal effect on Martian life.
It always made me shudder to think of Sarek and Amanda (or Worf and Deanna) together on Star Trek. If such a hypothetical meeting were even possible, when it comes to conjugal activities Amanda is biologically more closely related to an earthworm than she is to Sarek. Who wants to knowingly smooch an earthworm?
At least keep it in your phylum.
Re:Finding Bacteria on Mars is a Bad Thing (Score:2)
Besides, Earth isn't going to be running out of resources [theatlantic.com] any time quick so there isn't a need for this. We've found new and clever ways to push the boundry of our population further and further as time goes on. (Just look at history: We supported more people by centralized farming. We supported even more people when we industrialized. etc.) The myth [ncpa.org] that we need to relocate because we're running out of resources is just paranoia.
Ecologist Paul R. Ehrlich says population growth is outstripping the earth's resources. Economist Julian L. Simon says that human ingenuity keeps the planet's resources from being depleted in the context of property rights and market prices. In 1980, they put their money where their mouths were and made a bet. Simon offered to let anyone pick any natural resource and any future date, and he bet that the price would decline by that date. If the resource really became scarcer as the world's population grew, he reasoned, then its price should rise over time.
Ehrlich and two associates picked quantities of five metals - chrome, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten - then worth a total of $1,000, and chose a ten-year period. If combined prices of the metals were higher in 1990 than in 1980, Simon agreed to pay the Ehrlich group the difference in cash; if the combined prices were lower, they would pay him the difference. Without ceremony last fall, Ehrlich sent Simon a sheet of calculations and a check for $576.07.
Over the ten-year period, each of the five metals had declined in price when adjusted for inflation.
The drop was so sharp that Simon would have come out slightly ahead even without the adjustment for inflation. Prices of food and most natural resources have been falling for decades because of entrepreneurship, changing consumption patterns and continuing technological improvements. Despite that fact, Ehrlich, who had predicted that "before 1985 mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity" including food shortages, now says it will happen sometime in the next century.
So it really isn't a good idea to complain about waiting to colonize Mars when it isn't going to happen any time soon anyways.