Slashdot Mirror
Europe Joins Race To Send Humans To Mars
hereisnowhy writes "CBC reports that the ESA hopes to send humans to Mars within three decades. They first hope to return a Martian soil sample by 2014. They stress the importance of determining whether Mars ever supported life before humans touch down on the surface, because "You can sterilize a robot. But you cannot do the same to an astronaut. Inevitably a human will introduce microbes to the planet ... and contaminate it."" Kame-sennin links to a Reuters article on the plans.
The planet would be fully terraformed within a week.
Cheers.
They are still on a decades-long timeline. Here's hoping that The Mars Society can speed that up.
The Spoon
Updated 6/28/2011
Suits that are sterlized? Then hit with some sterlizing solution before they leave the ship and before they enter?
1888 Franklin St.
"You can sterilize a robot. But you cannot do the same to an astronaut."
With a chopping block and a knife....
Sure you can, just take the shielding out of his microwave oven.
Unknown host pong.
...is it just me, or does the price tag seem kind of low? I mean, if that's 1.13 billion Canadian, it's well under a billion US over the next 5 years.
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
I would like to see us collaberate with the Europeans.
Not only for good relations, but because it is such an expensive venture
for us to go it on our own.
... the ESA and the Russian space agency will be co-operating now they both want to go to the red planet? Kind of doesn't make sense for Europe to have two separate space programs.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...they probably won't use nuclear craft either. Nevermind that nuclear engines are the most efficient and workable solution. Nevermind that we were building nuclear ramjets in the 50's and production ready nuclear rockets in the 60's.
Oh wait. That stuff was done by the US. Has the EU ever even fired a nuclear engine? Nevermind.
*sigh*
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I'm sure like most people I read that they were shooting for getting a person on Mars within three decades and thought that seemed a little unambitious.
But then again, the need to return and examine samples prior to human invasion is necessary.
Of course this made me wonder A) can't they still speed up the entire process, even taking into account this need and B) what's the chance that anything we've sent so far has been less than 100% sterile.
Besides, even if we sent a person up and contaminated the place... how long would it take for that to confuse the matter of whether or not Mars previously had life? Can microbes really spread over an entire planet that quickly?
Given the massive amount of resources it takes to put a man in space, I think we as a community should really focus on encouraging cooperation between these different organizations. Not only would it allow us to make the problem more tractible, it would also be more efficient and safer. We all share one world, and if one party should introduce a biological danger it would affect ALL of us. Let's hope the beurocrats will use their heads--or at least listen to the reason of scientists!
Well you CAN sterilize humans, but it's really not very polite.
I'm sorry if this sounds trollish, but I think we really need to focus on stuff down here on the earth (like those WMD's) before we send anyone out into space.
The other day I was listening to some public radio when I heard this song being played called "Whitey on the moon" I think it was written during the 60s, who knows though. The lyrics went something like this.
Here I am standing in a welfare line
and whitey's on the moon
My kids are starving, that's why they're crying
Cause whitey's on the moon
The goverment takes taxes from my check
To send whitey to the moon
If I can't work from a broken neck
Whitey will still be on the moon
I'm still living in a ghetto project slum
And whitey's on the moon.
Should I rob a liquor store with a gun?
While whitey's on the moon.
Basically, it was a song from an angry black man. It was funny and entertaining to listen too, but it brings up a very valid point.
USA right now is still suffering from a financial downfall. The last thing we should be thinking about doing is sending our money up in a rocket.
I really do wish that nations would quit thinking about sending ppl there and back. For at least the first few trips, it should be one way missions. There are plenty of ppl who would be willing to go even if it meant only a 50% chance of survivial. It would also be a out best chance of starting a real colony.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Flawed analogy. The pilgrims knew where they were going, and they were going there for good.
Nobody (not NASA, not ESA, not the Chinese) is seriously considering a one-way manned mission. Glorified soil sampling is all they are considering.
Going back to your New World analogy, you forgot that before America was colonised by Europeans that it was explored by them beforehand. Exploration is always the logical first step, whether we're talking about undiscovered continents (Americas, Australasia), extremes (South Pole), or heavenly bodies (the Moon, Mars).
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Sorry to reply to my own comment, but I found the original.
Whitey on the Moon
By GIL-SCOTT HERON
A rat done bit my sister Nell with Whitey on the moon.
Her face and arms began to swell and Whitey's on the moon.
I can't pay no doctor bills but Whitey's on the moon.
Ten years from now I'll be payin' still while Whitey's on the moon.
The man just upped my rent last night cuz Whitey's on the moon.
No hot water, no toilets, no lights but Whitey's on the moon.
I wonder why he's uppin me. Cuz Whitey's on the moon?
I was already givin' him fifty a week but now Whitey's on the moon.
Taxes takin' my whole damn check,
The junkies makin' me a nervous wreck,
The price of food is goin' up,
And as if all that shit wasn't enough:
A rat done bit my sister Nell with Whitey on the moon.
Her face and arms began to swell but Whitey's on the moon.
Was all that money I made last year for Whitey on the moon?
How come there ain't no money here? Hmm! Whitey's on the moon.
Ya know, I just about had my fill of Whitey on the moon.
I think I'll send these doctor bills
airmail special....
to Whitey on the moon.
It is a rather useful catalyst for innovative technology. A rather expensive one some might say. But, it took a lot of thought and creation to get people to The Moon, and it will be the same to get them to Mars. And hopefully, this technology will find a use in other markets. Plus, if life is found on Mars, there is no telling what will come from that. It may serve as a window into evolution (or maybe help to prove it).
this will solve all of life's problems...
Is this timeline really optimistic? Bear in mind that Europe has never had a manned spaceflight mission before. Can they pull off a Mars mission? Maybe they'd be better off teaming up with Russia or the US. Or both.
But the pilgrims were just a bunch of pathetic dorks that everyone hated, and... oh, right. Forget I said anything.
why are people concerned about contaminating mars?
should there actually be life there, it would obviously be of the microbial sort
should this microbe actually exist, it's genetics would be utterly fascinating: is there shared code between earth and mars? or did life evolve on mars by itself? so is the comet-as-interplanetary gene carrier hypothesis viable? could there therefore be life on jupiter's/ saturn's moons, on venus, or even on some extra-solar system planet? is there some sort of inter-solar system comet gene carrier system at work in our galaxy/ universe even?
these are all fascinating questions, but i posit this: the value of all that information is outweighed by the need to start terraforming mars now: put on mars, on purpose, microbes that are known to be able to survive there, such as microbes that live in antarctic/ arctic deserts
liekwise, seed venus with microbes from hot springs/ deep sea vents
why?
we need these microbes to start making venus/ mars habitable by earth life, human life, asap, and while the crytozoological/ exobiological questions are fascinating, the terraforming needs of getting these microbes on these planets asap, so they can start putting oxygen/ water there, is far more important than any interesting things we can learn from exotic, non earth microbes
seriously
i propose we send out mars and venus microbe fertilizing robotic probes now... spirit and opportunity with an on-purpose microbe payload
i'm not joking, i'm making a judgment, a choice, and i know some may disagree with me, but i am serious: the exotic information we might lose by destroying mars-native microbes is less important than the needs of human interplantary coloinzation efforts to terraform mars' atmosphere
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Seems that over half the problem with sending people to mars is getting them back.
Strikes me as this may be unnessecary. Surely there would be a large number of people out there who would gladly accept a one-way ticket to Mars?
Am I right?
Any takers?
What you're saying is only partially true. Let's first take a look at Russia: Yes, they've fallen on very hard times. What's their annual budget for spaceflight? $100M? It's something ridiculously low. But they're the country that keeps the ISS supplied. They have reliable, cheap rockets that get the job done. The US has no rocket that offers the same value as Sojuz does, nor does anyone else. So, some respect is due. Though it's plain to see that these times the Russians simply don't have the money to continue their pretty impressive work of past decades.
Europe: For one, Europe never put much effort into manned spaceflight. In the 60s, there was no European space program worth mentioning, and later on, there was no will to spend much money at it. Apart from some failures of early Ariane 5 models, Europe has shown that they can build powerful rockets. Their first Mars mission is mostly successful, and for an orbiter, Mars express can compete with anything anyone else has sent up there. The SMART-1 lunar probe is tiny and not exactly a racehorse, but its techonology is nothing to just diss either.
So, in short, nobody questions that the US is ahead. But don't discount the potential of other countries. In terms of technology, I doubt that either Europe or Russia are more than maybe a few years behind the curve...
We're seeing the new space race, and it's going to be something. Competition for the "high ground" between Europe, China, and the US is really getting started. If the US continues to become more insular, this will just be one more way that Americans feel the need to prove superiority. But it's also a way for Europe to assert its own primacy, and China's motive to be seen as the next superpower is clear, as well.
Whether any of it happens is almost immaterial: the perception will drive the funding, and scientists on all sides will take the money and attention happily. Let's hope that the end result really is "for all mankind".
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
We need another space race, CMON people, pilgrims didn't send boats to america to collect soil, they populated it!
Why do we need humans on Mars?
This means less resources for robotic missions, which frankly make a lot more sense than manned missions. From every practical standpoint. What do humans bring to the table? Propaganda value, and local decision-making ability. That is all. They need to be pampered and babied with one atmosphere of room temperature oxygen for the entire trip. And worst of all, they must be guaranteed passage back to Earth. So they have to take a huge rocket for a return trip with them when they go up- which is grossly impractical. It was bad enough when we had to do it from the moon. Mars is a much deeper gravity well to rocket out of. For some reason we are unwilling to accept the notion that we might send someone to another planet like Mars and leave them there or expect them to efficiently commit suicide. But that's because we're hypocrites. With failure rates as high as they are, committing suicide is practically what you're doing when you get on a NASA shuttle or rocket. So why don't we just admit this is a one-way trip and at least junk the requirement for a return trip? Or this is not going to happen.
"But we're running out of space for all these people on Earth!" I hear you say. May I point out that sending a man to Mars will deplete far more of the Earth's resources than merely allowing him to quietly live here in a crappy apartment. This probably implies that sending people into space will not be a practical method of relieving Earthbound congestion.
At what point do we decide that we've done our best to look for it, but that life just never existed on Mars?
Probably whenever we decide that we've done our best to look for it, but that life just never existed on Mars.
Seriously, what did you think the point of the article was? They looked at what they'd done so far, decided that they hadn't done their best yet, decided what else they needed to do to have done their best, and then made a pretty little graphic to illustrate it for us.
I mentioned this once before, but a while ago my friend and I were discussing about the feasibility of a Mars mission, and he suggested that NASA should get funding by selling the rights for a reality television series.
I don't know how well it would work, but if you put a promiscuous woman astronaut on that mission, the bidding war for the show would be insane.
You mean the USA and Russia's weapons of mass destruction, right? The ones that were made possible by the technological advancements of their respective space programs?
We (the US) had a space program in the early 40's? Wow, cool.
No sig for you!!
Serriously, Earth is the only suitable planet where we can freely exist in the natural environment, and there is nothing even close anywhere near by. Humans will not be leaving Earth in our current form. If the cosmic rays don't get you, the loss of bone mass will...or maybe the insanity imposed by the ten thousand years you would be travelling to get anywhere...if you could live that long.
Or something particularly grisly...
DROS - Open-Source Robot Software
I was at a book signing by Robert Zubrin (Earth on Mars, The Case for Mars) and he had a Q&A session - I asked him "Have you ever seen any opposition to plans to send a man to Mars due to contamination concerns?".
His response was twofold - secondarily dismissing the possibly of a "superbug" from Mars (apparently he gets a lot more paranoid people than myself asking a similar question). On the question of us contaminating evidence of life there, he said that while we would probably spread some microbes and the like around that if we did find anything it should be easy to trace the origin back to Earth instead of Mars, so that is would pose no serious problem for scientific research. Also of course he brought up that Mars had very likely had some meteorites cast off from earth "contaminating" Mars already, so to worry about bringing new things there was foolish.
Besides, it seems like if you were really worried about contamination you would seek a few million samples, not taking two or three and then starting the landrush!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
...and back here at Mission Control, Bob, they're all speechless. Noone seems to even want to try to explain why Astronaut Nolan decided to write his name on the Maritian surface with his own urine. Back to you Bob ...
RFC2119
So we're already contaminating Mars. There's nothing we can do about it.
If I may run up the old flag. .
I tend to agree, and NASA being an arm of government, I think, fits more than just somewhat.
Going to Mars is not the goal. At the moment, I think the goal is to gently warm up the public to the idea of real alien life. --A microbe fossile here. Evidence of water there. A degree at a time.
The fact that there are permenant alien base-ships in orbit around the sun and planets is not unknown to upper management. Especially now, as things are getting really near the reality-shift combustion point. --Oh, we 'Just discovered' all those dozens of 'new' moons around Jupiter and Saturn. Puh-leaze.
But, even amidst it all, you can't have the economic engine burp even as upper management prepares for a quiet slip into the safe confines of Vault 13, or whatever idiot scheme they mistakenly think will save their sorry skins when the shit hits.
For my part, I hope that I survive the culling so that I can see what form of sci-fi misery is waiting on the other side. Just for the sake of curiosity. (Think, "Variable Matter and the Illusion of Time lifted." Gee, fun. Can't wait. Why did I sign up for this again. . ?)
And of course, it should go without saying that, I for one welcome our. .
-FL
I am excited at the prospect of multi-national space competition. Now that we have a small handfull (the EU/Russia, China, India, and the US) of countries, rather than two, with endevors focusing on projects out of Earth orbit, prospects for that competition we have all been looking for are getting better and better.
My second thought is that its nice to see a government policy toward space which isn't pure politi-bullshit. Its cool that the ESA came out and said they want to make sure to get the soil samples before they send people. Their statements sounds like commitment, while Bush's space plan sounds like election year politics.
Last time I checked, babies needed to learn how to crawl before learning how to run a 6-minute mile.
How about we take some baby steps first? Or....Lets wait the thousands of years it would take to get a probe to even the closest star, let alone "the deepest reaches of space". That would be a REAL waste of time.
"This is truly a poverty vs. great advancement issue."
Yes, just so. Knowledge is the only true coin we can pass to the ages. Governments and economies come and go, money is made and lost, people live and die, and what remains but knowledge? And we gain knowledge through science.
I don't like sounding mean-spirited, but all too often the result of feeding poor people is just the creation of more poor people. I'm certainly not suggesting we sacrifice humanity on the alter of science, but we must have a higher purpose other than just putting another billion or two mouths on the planet.
Bottom line: we must find a way to do both.
Anti-gravity? That was *my* little secret! But I never patented it! Boy, was *that* dumb!
They can have feeling, they can encourage the public. We put a robot on Mars!! Who cares, A robot just needs sunlight, That's not an accomplishment.
We put a MAN on Mars, That's an accomplishment, and a man sees, feels, and can confinscate for problems instantly. A man wouldn't see so much shit his memory would fill up and have to have NASA restore him.
Sending a man to mars would be the step in putting humans in space. Humans in space are the ultimate goal, Is Star Trek full of robot human represenatives?
Garmong is right - man's accomplishments in space will be best reached when such endeavors are released from the government tether.
I used ot have simliar thoughts, but I am not so sure of that. Right now, we have lost all of our lift capacity. Worse, ppl do not see the reasons to go as much. If we go to back to the moon, or better yet, on to mars, we will probably have to use a lot of robots for building a base. In fact, we would probably wish to test several large rockets by sending robots to luna and building small underground bases. Later, we can send the new advanced version to Mars to build. this will require better robots, better lift, and hopefully better communications. These would then be used in other deep space missions as well.
And worst of all, they must be guaranteed passage back to Earth.Again, I differ on this. We should make, at least, the first several missions one way trips. These people would then carve out a new life on Mars. Not only would it be cheaper, but I think it would encourage only the pioneer type who really wish to make a new world. BTW, I would even argue the same for the moon. Send several groups of ppl there to populate it. they would be heavily motivated to get it right from the gitgo.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Why do we need humans on Mars?
This means less resources for robotic missions, which frankly make a lot more sense than manned missions. From every practical standpoint.
As evidence, I point to the 2 rovers currently on Mars. As recently as last week, we didn't even know if they'd be able to move and collect data, all due to a programming glitch (and yes, I realize I'm simplifying greatly). Now that they're working perfectly again, we have the opportunity to explore perhaps a few dozen/hundred metres in any given direction.
Humans are self-programmable, and can potentially fix their own antennas when they go out of alignment. We have amazingly dextrous manipulators and locomotion systems that are simply beyond our current technology to reproduce artificially. A rover can get stuck on a rock, the human steps over it.
And a human can cover several KILOMETRES of ground to do experiements, with little added expense.
From a practical standpoint, there is a hell of a lot that robotic missions can't do.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Where in the constitution is the levy of taxes authorized to explore other planets?
We have much greater need for financial, technological and scientific resources right here on our own planet. Half a trillion dollars to do what? If this were proposed by private enterprise, the shareholders would fire management due to the low return on investment that will be acheived from the expenditure.
Actually, the topic here was travel to Mars, not to another star. It's true that we'll probably never have a 6-hour flight to Mars. But there are no major engineering obstacles to reducing the time to a few months. This is quite comparable to the travel times from England to the New-World and Australian colonies in 1600.
It is well within our capabilities to colonize much of the solar system. Whether we'll ever reach another star is indeed a serious question, or rather a topic mostly for science-fiction writers. Unless we discover some Star Trek physics, we may never make it.
And in comparison with the Cro Magnon "invasion" of Europe 50,000 years ago, what little evidence we have of that implies that it took generations. The conquest actually took around 10,000 years. Scandinavia was only settled by modern humans about 5,000 years ago. The Solar System looks fairly easy in comparison.
We do have much better technology now. But we'll have to learn to do farming on asteroids and such to make a go of it.
And if there are living bacteria on Mars, it would be a real shame to contaminate them before we have a chance to study them thoroughly. They're probably not on the surface, of course; too much UV there. But it'll be interesting to see what's a few meters down.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
No, you cannot compare cosmic distances to travelling across the oceans. Sorry, in the real universe scale matters.
Approximate travel time to Mars: 1 year. Approximate travel time to row across the Pacific ocean: 6 months - 1 year. These are comparable figures, therefore your bald assertion above would appear to be incorrect.
The ocean analogy has been brought up before and it continues to demosntrate how ignorant most people are of basic science.
The ignorance being demonstrated here is your own. We are talking about going to Mars, not to another star system.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
The shuttle has definitely cost a lot of money (and lives), and perhaps has lived longer than it should have, but it was an important step in our ascension to space. It is not entirely clear that any other path would have been faster or even possible, given the issue of funding, and the positive feedback loop resulting in getting the USAF and government behind the program.
The shuttle was a marvel for its time, and now somewhat antiquated in a large part due to the onward march of technology. This will be the history of every major human technological achievement for the forseeable future. It is easy to look back and see all the flaws. But it is not so easy to stop a multi-billion dollar project and start from scratch when you barely have the funds to continue operating on the current path.
--
For news, status, updates, scientific info, images, video, and more, check out:
(AXCH) 2004 Mars Exploration Rovers - News, Status, Technical Info, History.
Admittaly, the conditions are harsh, but bacteria and other animals grow here under harsher conditions. At the mars equator, there is warmth. There is a small atmosphere that will support micro aerophilic bacteria if there is water. We have bacterial life here that grows literally at the south pole. It is not as barren as many would claim.Likewise, we have lots of nematodes, alge, and bacteria that grows in the total absence of sunlight (feeding on valcano's sulfer). We have lived here for quite some time on this planet and we still have new life that shows up in strange locations. It is very possible for life as we know it to be on Mars (assuming that there is water), or for a different type of life
As to a change of agenda, I seriously doubt it. The Europeans have been explorers for quite some time. They are keenly aware of the reasons for expanding explorations. Besides, it would be useful just to get mankind of this rock to help ensure the survivability of us
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
This (one way trip to Mars) has been discussed extensively in previous /. article.
I'm all for it, and there are many smart, sane, competent people who would make a good first team and die with dignity and honor. How sad it is that in modern western society we've elevated the individual human life to such an extent that we cannot see this...
--
For news, status, updates, scientific info, images, video, and more, check out:
(AXCH) 2004 Mars Exploration Rovers - News, Status, Technical Info, History.
We know that comets frequently consist of massive amounts of water. Water is typically associated with life (little closed minded, IMO) - and thus micro organisms should be able to survive in comets and other space debree....
It's logical to assume there is a great possibility that many viruses and bacteria found on Earth were deposited here from another planet. Or rather, that it's very provable.
Likewise, much as 'humans can contaminate' Mars, it's naive to think that Mars couldn't contaminate Earth. We have no means or comprehension of what life possibly existed (or still exists) on Mars - nor what threat that life could pose to life on Earth.
They may very well bring back an unstoppable plague in those soil samples. Who knows.
Damnit, stupid beer. It seems to enhance the conspiracy sector of my brain. Thank God there isn't another lame SCO press release out - I'd go crazy on one of those right now!
Shouldn't isolating sentience and building a computer around that sentient core come first? Maybe we'll even be able to upload ourselves into it. This goal dwarfs space exploration completely, but once accomplished, Mars exploration will be a lot easier without having to deal with all that evolutionary load. No need to terraform.
-I am an elective eunuch.
The Soviet Union managed to combine all their resources towards acheiving just a few goals. Military power, a world class space program, and Olympic sports superiority. And they did those things pretty darn well.
Of course, with everything else neglected, life there was hell in more ways than I care to enumerate. I have to prefer the society where everyone does what they feel is important to get done, and only unite behind goals for their own purposes.
Europeans do want to send a man to Mars, but he is no Europen himself...
The scientific answer would be that we can adapt to our surroundings. Robots may be designed to do one or many things well, but humans can do almost anything reasonably.
The philosophic answer would probably be that it's in our nature to wander off and explore, just like Columbus.
The political answer is that "no one ever threw a ticker tape parade for a robot."
There is a universal speed limit - c - but there is no lower bound on the amount of proper time it takes to get from one place to another.
.93-4 interstellar dust, and eventually gas, starts being a major concern. At these velocities a shield is essentual, which limits you cargo and fuel mass. The closer a ship is to C, the larger a shield. (Plus, gas and dust collisions also reduce ship momentum: over long voyage this is effectively a very non-linear viscosity ...). The trade-off and viscosity limits spaceship velocities so that time-dilations much more than 10 are not feasible.
Although I generally agree with the spirit of your message, this specific statement is not accurate:
First, there's a biophysical upper bound on acceleration: the body cannot concievably withstand much more than several g's for long. This limits your Lorentz factor.
Second, once v/c ~
Working for necessity's mother.
In the 50s-80s, it was about beating the USSR, now, Europe is still behind Russia and Russia is a 3rd world country!
Perhaps your impression is just related to the fact that the US media like to portray joint missions domestically as pure NASA successes, a phenomenon not entirely absent from other kinds of international ventures the US participated in. One of the examples that annoys many people to no end is the US seemingly taking sole credit for winning WWII.
In any case, Europe has mostly focused on commercial and astronomical use of space: unspectacular, but either financially or scientifically profitable. "First to..." kinds of missions don't seem to have been of so much interest.
Imagine there's no heaven, etc. No doubt you are right that a united humanity could achieve some impressive feats, be it for good or ill. One question, though: if there are to be no political, religious, or cultural boundaries, then whose political, religious, or cultural agenda is being followed?
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
You didn't mean it this way, I know, but that kind of uniformity is just what our good friend Osama bin Laden is aiming for: Once God (his), one Nation (his), one Vision (his). No thanks, even if it is "mine" instead of "his". Maybe 150+ countries are a bit much, but a world government concentrates power in a way that makes me nervous -- ask your average German or Brit what they think of the European Union, and you'll see what I mean.
... there's a slightly dented unmanned probe with a small LCD screen displaying the message "Do you really want to deploy the airbags? [Yes] [No]". Theyr'e sending someone up to click one of the buttons.
Every bloody emperor has his hand up history's skirt [Peter Hammill/VdGG]
Seriously... and whip up some kind of orgainizing medium. A web page, or use your slashdot journal. Hell, start a wiki and build ideas.
The parent post with the "imagine" idea, though flawed, has a point. United the human race can do amazing things. "Things" being plural. I can't wrap my head around what humanity could do if it decided to work together on stuff. It could certainly tackle space travel, and I am sure it would have plenty of energy left over to solve other large and complex problems.
But you don't need everyone to do it. Powered flight was a boondoggle pursued by the eccentric rich and enthusiastic hobbists, and upon that foundation a pair of brothers who ran a bicycle company achieved success. Just a few people. Plenty left to discover that chromosomes contain genes, build the Panama Canal, invent ice cream cones, formulate the theory of relativity, and write Heart of Darkness and The Wings of the Dove.
Let us have space.
*honk*
This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
I'd go. Just give me a 3000 movie dvd collection and i'd be right. plus a lot of sleeping pills
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
The planet would be fully whitewashed within a week. ...
And the BBC would have to pay for it, naturally.
greens of the worls unite.
I could tell you were one of my brothers SubltleNuance. I agree. The U.S. is not free.
You system harps on about it but actually, because you have a non existent social welfare system, and bad unaffordable education system, you are not free at all. Scandinavian people know what freedom is.! But my question to you is:
Why do you want to live in the states?
Why don't you come and live in Europe - it's not perfect but it's better.
If you think things are better in the U.S you are wrong.
Technology in America is the best but it's not for the public. Your public transport sucks.
If you lived in France or Germany, or any of the Scandinavian countries you would instantly feel you are in a country that's years ahead.
You probably don't desserve to have to live in the U.S.
Really, besides jazz, soul, and baseball, what do you have?
Celestial dynamics favor transfer of material from Mars to Earth 60 times over the reverse:
(1) Mars has 1/3rd the gravity and requires 1/9th the impact force;
(2) Mars has 1% the atmosphere (though could have had much more in the distant past);
(3) Mars is much closer to a source of meteors in the asteroid belt.
Also, Mars may have stablised geologically a couple hundred million years before the larger Earth did. It appears that life can arise in less than this time. Mars also died geologically much earlier than Earth too.
Its likely there is only one chemistry of life in the solar system due to the high interplanetary infection probability. There could have been thousands of rocks sent from Mars to Earth over the billions of years, considering we've found 18 Mars meteors on Earth without looking too hard. Other places for life uch as the warmer cloud layers of Jupiter and the oceans of Europa and Titan could have been infected too over the eons.