!Re: OT: Kevorkian who?

[Richard Brekne]

Sarah Fox wrote:

>Now, sending men and women to Mars???  I'm 500% on board with that one!  I
>would be very surprised if Mars didn't once support life,
>
Oh it did... problem was people lived there.

> and in fact I
>think there's a slim chance it may still have microbial life. 
>
Well.. people are clever... but not so clever as to absolutely wiping 
out life... the humans on earth havent even gotten to the stage where 
they can eliminate cockroaches. But given about 150 more of your earth 
years... you will be getting close.

>(Remember,
>the Viking's assays for organic materials were ambiguous, but not negative.)
>I fully expect we will find fossil records on Mars some day -- perhaps
>nothing very advanced, but perhaps every bit as impressive and diverse as
>what we have here on Earth.  We may even find genetic material and learn
>some very important things about the essential biochemical underpinnings of
>life .  I suspect our setting foot on Martian soil will mark the onset of an
>era of biological and evolutionary discovery such as we have not known.
>What a brilliant age to be a scientist!  Just imagine!
>
>In all this, I wonder what the *real* reason is that we are returning to the
>moon.  It's surely not to stage a mission to Mars.  It would be nonsense to
>launch equipment, materials and fuel from the Earth, land them on the moon
>(difficult/risky, without an atmosphere), at a cost of 1000 lb of fuel for
>every lb of payload, reassemble them in a rather hostile environment, with
>gravity (requiring lots of really big machinery -- even at 1/6g), and then
>blast them off again, en route to Mars.  Instead, why not do it all in
>microgravity, in orbit around the Earth, as originally planned?  Makes a
>whole lot more sense.  Less fuel, better support, greater ease of assembly,
>less wear and tear on the equipment, easier to exchange out personnel.  Duh!
>  
>
Because you can build bigger tourist hotels on the moon, which will 
bring diverse sorts of industry and lots of taxpayers who will pay for 
the whole Mars thingy ?? And besides... If you loose your grip on your 
tie down on the moon... you are not likely to spin off into oblivion... 
just hop a bit further then you'd origionally planned.

>But alas, there must be military importance to the moon.  That's what drives
>the folks in the Whitehouse.  Right?
>  
>
By your own argument.... it would make more sense to dominate orbital 
space.... but then back to mine... barracks on the moon sound pretty cool :)

><yawn> Time for bed....  'Nite...
>
>Peace,
>Sarah
>
>Sorry for the political rant, folks, but this little moon folly has me kinda
>steamed -- and my personal, per-citizen share of the bill will be something
>like $300 or $400, which makes it hurt all the more.  I'm also steamed that
>we didn't stick by our original plans to land on Mars by '95.  But hey, the
>iron curtain fell, and so why bother?  Right?
>
>-
>
Personally.. I'd be far more  << steamed >> about the much larger sums 
of << wasted >> monies on << vendetta like activities >>  here on good 
ol terra forma.

Why cant they all build pianos and make beautiful music instead ??

RicB