The only especially interesting thing to me about this is how speculation about it has changed. Before any of the fly by photos I don't think anyone would have blinked at the speculation of there being flowing water. Over the years, and after numerous photos have returned to earth, public speculation has become incredibly narrow. We think we know Mars by now. Good for NASA for being open to intelligent research on atypical Martian geology. I do not know nearly enough to speculate on the possibility of life except that I assume it would be microbial. I wish NASA well though as they seem to be almost the only group pushing for rational exploration of the macro universe.
I submit that you haven't quite thought that one through? I mean, we'd be talking about a bit more than a few concrete mixers and bags of cement. Unless the cement is the main constituent of the Martian landscape. How can you state that with so much confidence please? And what is the source of your information?
I am stating nothing with confidence, as I am not qualified to do so. Instead my commentary is based upon limited understanding of conceptual designs and plans being formulated by multiple entities and organizations combined with an understanding of the logistics and planet involved that seems far superior to your own. http://marshome.org/ http://www.space.com/18596-mars-colony-spacex-elon-musk.html http://www.mars-one.com/ http://quest.nasa.gov/qna/research/marscolony.html These links may assist you somewhat..but first try to understand that Mars is in the same galaxy as Earth, as well as the same solar system. As for early life: " Evidence is building that Earth life originated on Mars and was brought to this planet aboard a meteorite, said biochemist Steven Benner of The Westheimer Institute for Science and Technology in Florida. An oxidized form of the element molybdenum, which may have been crucial to the origin of life, was likely available on the Red Planet's surface long ago, but unavailable on Earth, said Benner, who presented his findings today (Aug. 28; Aug. 29 local time) at the annual Goldschmidt geochemistry conference in Florence, Italy. [The Search for Life on Mars (Photo Timeline)] "It's only when molybdenum becomes highly oxidized that it is able to influence how early life formed," Benner said in a statement. "This form of molybdenum couldn't have been available on Earth at the time life first began, because 3 billion years ago, the surface of the Earth had very little oxygen, but Mars did. It's yet another piece of evidence which makes it more likely life came to Earth on a Martian meteorite, rather than starting on this planet." http://www.cbsnews.com/news/earth-life-likely-came-from-mars-study-suggests/ That is one of the thousands of pieces of data available at your fingertips...I would recommend you use them.
Yes but why should we colonize mars before we know if there is anything valuable there? It would be a huge waste of resources, and that is why no one in their right minds is even thinking about this seriously. First find something valuable then figure out the particulars of colonization and or mining.
Saul Alinsky taught his minions to tell a lie and keep repeating that lie over and over and eventually the stupid and gullible will believe the lie. It worked for Obama didn't it ?
It's the news media who hype up the life angle every time someone at NASA says anything at all. It's the news media who seek their profits through hype. NASA is operating scientifically, putting in the hard work to make substantive discoveries about the universe beyond Earth. While establishing the presence of water on Mars scientifically is significant for the search for extraterrestrial life, and while NASA is no doubt full of people who would absolutely love to discover extraterrestrial life, there is nothing dishonest about what NASA is doing. It's just that a lot of it is not that exciting to the laity. It's great when they can beam back images of a distant world, but most of what they do just isn't that exciting to the unwashed masses. E.T. would be an exception to that, though.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150928094114.htm Liquid water flows on today's Mars: NASA confirms evidence Summary: New findings from NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) provide the strongest evidence yet that liquid water flows intermittently on present-day Mars. Using an imaging spectrometer on MRO, researchers detected signatures of hydrated minerals on slopes where mysterious streaks are seen on the Red Planet. These darkish streaks appear to ebb and flow over time. ... Using an imaging spectrometer on MRO, researchers detected signatures of hydrated minerals on slopes where mysterious streaks are seen on the Red Planet. These darkish streaks appear to ebb and flow over time. They darken and appear to flow down steep slopes during warm seasons, and then fade in cooler seasons. They appear in several locations on Mars when temperatures are above minus 10 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 23 Celsius), and disappear at colder times. "Our quest on Mars has been to 'follow the water,' in our search for life in the universe, and now we have convincing science that validates what we've long suspected," said John Grunsfeld, astronaut and associate administrator of NASA's Science Mission Directorate in Washington. "This is a significant development, as it appears to confirm that water -- albeit briny -- is flowing today on the surface of Mars." These downhill flows, known as recurring slope lineae (RSL), often have been described as possibly related to liquid water. The new findings of hydrated salts on the slopes point to what that relationship may be to these dark features. The hydrated salts would lower the freezing point of a liquid brine, just as salt on roads here on Earth causes ice and snow to melt more rapidly. Scientists say it's likely a shallow subsurface flow, with enough water wicking to the surface to explain the darkening. "We found the hydrated salts only when the seasonal features were widest, which suggests that either the dark streaks themselves or a process that forms them is the source of the hydration. In either case, the detection of hydrated salts on these slopes means that water plays a vital role in the formation of these streaks," said Lujendra Ojha of the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech) in Atlanta, lead author of a report on these findings published Sept. 28 by Nature Geoscience. Ojha first noticed these puzzling features as a University of Arizona undergraduate student in 2010, using images from the MRO's High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE). HiRISE observations now have documented RSL at dozens of sites on Mars. The new study pairs HiRISE observations with mineral mapping by MRO's Compact Reconnaissance Imaging Spectrometer for Mars (CRISM). The spectrometer observations show signatures of hydrated salts at multiple RSL locations, but only when the dark features were relatively wide. When the researchers looked at the same locations and RSL weren't as extensive, they detected no hydrated salt. Ojha and his co-authors interpret the spectral signatures as caused by hydrated minerals called perchlorates. The hydrated salts most consistent with the chemical signatures are likely a mixture of magnesium perchlorate, magnesium chlorate and sodium perchlorate. Some perchlorates have been shown to keep liquids from freezing even when conditions are as cold as minus 94 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 70 Celsius). On Earth, naturally produced perchlorates are concentrated in deserts, and some types of perchlorates can be used as rocket propellant. Perchlorates have previously been seen on Mars. NASA's Phoenix lander and Curiosity rover both found them in the planet's soil, and some scientists believe that the Viking missions in the 1970s measured signatures of these salts. However, this study of RSL detected perchlorates, now in hydrated form, in different areas than those explored by the landers. This also is the first time perchlorates have been identified from orbit. MRO has been examining Mars since 2006 with its six science instruments. "The ability of MRO to observe for multiple Mars years with a payload able to see the fine detail of these features has enabled findings such as these: first identifying the puzzling seasonal streaks and now making a big step towards explaining what they are," said Rich Zurek, MRO project scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. For Ojha, the new findings are more proof that the mysterious lines he first saw darkening Martian slopes five years ago are, indeed, present-day water. "When most people talk about water on Mars, they're usually talking about ancient water or frozen water," he said. "Now we know there's more to the story. This is the first spectral detection that unambiguously supports our liquid water-formation hypotheses for RSL." The discovery is the latest of many breakthroughs by NASA's Mars missions. "It took multiple spacecraft over several years to solve this mystery, and now we know there is liquid water on the surface of this cold, desert planet," said Michael Meyer, lead scientist for NASA's Mars Exploration Program at the agency's headquarters in Washington. "It seems that the more we study Mars, the more we learn how life could be supported and where there are resources to support life in the future." ------------
Uh.......NASA keeps making the announcements. I have literally seem them pop up like clock work every few months on Facebook say that "There might be life on Mars because of X,Y or Z" and they keep rehashing the same things over and over. They are attempting to make themselves relevant when that hasn't been the case for decades. Scrap NASA and give it all to the Air Force, they are superior in every conceivable way.
You don't understand or appreciate the work that NASA is doing. The Air Farce would be a farce at doing NASA's job, which again is scientific, not militaristic, in nature.
No I don't understand what NASA is doing nor do I appreciate it because it is a complete and utter joke. The real NASA was back in the 1960s and 1970s when they actually pushed the envelope of exploration. Now they just pump out theoretical warp drives and continually recycle "LIFE ON MARS!" "LIFE ON MARS!" over and over.
I always get a kick out of people who refuse to let a little ignorance get in the way of loudly expressing an opinion.
They've been up to quite a lot more than that. Have you paid attention to New Horizons and the great data it's been sending back from Pluto? It may even get to visit other objects out beyond Pluto. Again, just one of the many cool things NASA has been up to on their shoestring budget.
And yet the Air Force has had more launches into space than NASA, the Air Force is the primary developer of the next generation of orbital craft (they are actually doing most of the legwork that NASA is attempting to take credit for) so the Air Force should be the ones to take over extra planetary exploration. The reason NASA has a shoestring budget is because both Republicans AND Democrats realize that it is a shadow of its former self. When the spokesperson for NASA says that one of their primary goals is Muslim outreach you lose ALL credibility. Also, all those probes were launched decades ago when NASA still had some self respect. Now they obsess over recycled stories about Mars and global warming which is something they have no business dealing with whatsoever. Maybe if they were so concerned about spending they would quit wasting millions of dollars on stuff that NOAA is supposed to be doing. NASA is supposed to be about space, NOAA is supposed to deal with our atmosphere.
Really hoping we can send another probe that is properly sterilized, so we can get some soil samples. I think there is a strong chance to find microbial life on or in Mars. And when that happens, the game will begin to change.
Like what and how would you afford to transport them back? Look how much it cost just to sent a little robot vehicle to Mars. The billions just to get the few hundred tons of equipment to try to colonize. You gotta get the equipment there to build the mine and the refining factories, supply life support for all the people to run it, then the ships to fly there and bring it back. What valuable materials could you find there in such an abundance and in such shortage here that it would justify the cost? Just imagine what your labor cost alone would be.
Yes, I'm perfectly aware there's a lot of tendentious propaganda being churned out by the industry, it's only a question of who believes it and who doesn't.
This is generally referred to as information or data, though you are certainly free to call it propaganda if you wish. I seriously do not much care that you choose to ignore what I provided to you as a means of helping your understanding, and as it has become pretty clear any further attempt would be in vain I believe we are done here. Have a nice day.
Something that would be very valuable in small quantities, like some sort of super energy resource, or some metal that would revolutionize tech and industry. Something like that.
You're not thinking creatively, like mission planners have to. For instance, an electric-solar sail would provide extremely low-cost transport. You'd have to build the ship, but it would be endlessly reusable: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150427082545.htm Further, the more presence we develop in orbit, the more feasible it becomes to build things in orbit, eliminating the need to boost stuff out of Earth's gravity well. Here the concept of Von Neumann machines comes in handy: building machines that can build other machines. So we develop a factory in orbit. That's expensive if we have to use rockets to send up the building materials, but it's a one-time thing. We feed it with raw material from the moon, where gravity is 1/3 that of Earth, so the payload cost is lower. Indeed, if all we're grabbing is raw materials, we could use a particle accelerator to fire the materials off the moon -- no need for rockets or other manned equipment. Use those raw materials to feed the orbital factory. Use the orbital factory to build solar-sail ships, as well as more orbital factories. Use those solar-sail ships to send an orbital factory to Mars. Use that orbital factory to build all the things you'll need on Mars. First up: A particle accelerator, which you drop on Mars and use as the source of raw materials for the factory. Use solar-sail ships to send finished goods (or just raw material) back to Earth. Since transport is cheap, your biggest cost has been eliminated. If we ever are able to build a space elevator, we would also have a cheap way to get raw materials back and forth from orbit to the Earth's surface, further enhancing the economic prospects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator Ion engines were science fiction in the 1950s. Now we power probes with them. We have only begun exploring ways to cheaply travel around the solar system.
Colonizing Mars is a wonderful idea at a times we all are worried about our future here. In fact there is always hope in science. Today our leap forward has been possible because of science. Of course with science we have many nuclear arms but hope of some kind is always there in science.
They do great work with robots and satellites. But manned space flight and lower earth orbitting is appearing to be a waste of time and money. What have been the great discoveries and findings from the Space Lab the last 12 months? 24 months? What is it doing that robotic satellites couldn't do? Sending people to Mars? Why? To the Moon? Why? And believe me as a kid I watched EVERY launch knew all the astronauts, build models of the spacecraft and jumped up and down hollering when Armstrong walked on the Moon. But then came the question, now what and for what reason. We can explore the planets with satellites and robots FAR cheaper than sending humans there that require enormous resources just to survive let alone do anything worthwhile.
And mission planners would love to spend TONS of money for little return. You STILL have to get things into orbit. Even the very conceptual solar sails and to be boosted into space. And I don't know of any studies that show vast amounts of the metals and materials need on the moon. And ever been to a refining mill, a steel mill, a plastics plant. They are HUGE. The fuel needed to refine raw metals into advanced compounds is enourmous and takes a lot of people to run them and keep them running. For what return that we can't get here on Earth? What vital resources can we get cheaper on Mars than on Earth? From the Moon? - - - Updated - - - So you can't name anything but let's go anyway?
As I said, the first factory would be expensive. But after that, you make stuff in space with raw materials from the moon or Mars. Not sure what you mean here. The moon is made of the same basic building blocks as Earth, absent the sort of materials created by water and biological action. All the major elements are there. http://www.permanent.com/lunar-geology-minerals.html For example, here on earth we mine bauxite to produce aluminum. On the moon, we would mine anorthite. And the moon also contains unusually high amounts of Helium 3, a very useful fuel for fusion reactors: http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a235/1283056/ An entire planetoid worth of resources -- on a body with much lower gravity than Earth -- is a huge attraction. Energy simply won't be a problem. Need electricity? Solar panels will provide as much as you need. Need heat? A fusion reactor run on Helium-3, mined locally. Further, you don't need to drop a fully complete steel mill on to the moon. You just need to drop a machine that can BUILD a steel mill, using abundant local materials. Might need some humans; might not. Or forget the steel mill entirely. You just want the raw materials, which you put in your particle accelerator and fire back to the orbiting factories. Even cheaper: Dig it up, load it up, fire it off. No processing required. #1, you have an entire planet's worth of resources, without anyone living on it to object. Environmental laws? Pffft. Plus, you're working in much lower gravity. Meaning it's cheaper to obtain huge amounts of ore. That same lower gravity means its cheaper to boost those materials out of the Mars or Moon gravity well. If we're going to be in space long term, places like Mars and the Moon and the asteroid belt is where we will get our raw materials; there's no point in shooting anything out of Earth's gravity well that you don't absolutely have to. And those materials will be effectively limitless, as each mining operation is able to produce its own fuel and send it around the solar system using cheap, non-rocket forms of transportation. Finally, you asked why do manned missions, instead of using robots for everything. For any given mission, you do it the best way to achieve that objective. Sometimes that means robots. Quite often, in fact. But part of EVERY mission is testing/learning about how to send humans to other planets. If we're ever going to get off our planet, we need to keep doing that. Which sometimes means doing something with people that could theoretically be done better and cheaper with robots. Because it will allow us to learn more about what is needed to sustain human life off Earth, long-term.
