I hereby share my unique genetic code with the rest of the world and am more than happy to give out free samples...especially to large-breasted 20-ish women.
Now that that's out of the way...
It seems to me that there's a middle ground to be walked. For example, it's ludicrous to think that Monsanto (or some other giant corporation) would be able to simply point to an apple tree and say "We're patenting that DNA". That's public domain and should fall under the laws pertaining to that sort of thing.
On the other hand, should Monsanto (or some other giant corporation) splice together some apple DNA that's noticably different (maybe containing natural antibiotics to help fight stomach ulcers, for example, or drought/cold tolerance that far exceeds the norm) then Monsanto SHOULD receive a patent on that DNA...but it would be up to Monsanto (or some other giant corporation) to protect that patent by controlling the propagation of the DNA. If some honeybee cross-pollinates the super apple with the apple tree in my backyard and my fruit then contains some of Monsanto's patented characteristics that's Monsanto's problem, not mine, and should not be legally actionable.
Notice that this also builds in some greed-driven checks on the spread of genetically-modified organisms...two birds in one stone.
If we want to see a biotech future we need to understand that a good chunk of the R&D resources are concentrated in the corporate sector and that we'll need to find a way to both encourage and control development of these technologies.
You really can't "test for getting to Mars" by going to the Moon first. Not only are the environments completely different (to the point where EVA suits for one location probably won't work on the other), but the mission profiles are completely different as well.
Claiming that lunar infrastructure can be used to support or stage a Mars mission is ludicrous; why add TWO gravity wells? What people who advocate this approach forget is the cost of installing all of that infrastructure on the lunar surface to begin with.
Think about that: what's easier/cheaper/faster? Building the Mars spacecraft on Earth, or first building the aerospace infrastructure on the Moon that allows you to then build the Mars spacecraft on the Moon? Do you see the fallacy?
Now, if going to Mars becomes a regularly-scheduled event, then the argument for lunar-generated supplies (in the form of oxidizer, since lunar water will be valuable enough NOT to use as fuel) comes into it's own, but for the foreseeable future we'll be running Mars missions that are loosely based on Mars Direct architecture. The only thing that we gain from throwing the moon into the mission architecture is complexity.
The moon is an interesting place to visit and should be thought of as an orbiting industrial park; lots of minerals, vacuum, solar polar (at least half the time), etc...there's a lot of neat things you can do on the lunar surface.
BUT...the environments of Mars and the Moon are so different that the idea of testing equipment meant for Mars on the Moon is ludicrous.
This announcement will probably mention that evidence has been found that hematite deposits were created in a wet environment and that the Martian surface was once warmer and wetter than it is now.
I doubt that any mention will be made of brine, although it's possible that a carefully phrased statement such as "the surface characteristics *suggest* the *potential* of brine" may be made.
Why hedge? Simple. If definitive findings are announced solving various Martian mysteries there's little or no incentive to send the next rover...
There will be NO mention of bacteria/fossils/our Martian Overlords. Look at the list of announcers, there's no biologist (and no real biology experiments on the rovers anyway).
Re:Let's not forget
on
Brine on Mars?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It's doubtful that there'd be microbes in existing near-surface brine simply because the surface has been extensively 'gardened', exposing underlying layers of soil to the unrestricted UV environment on the surface.
On the other hand, I wouldn't rule it completely out either. If the duracrust is relatively firm 'gardening' might not have caused as much damage (and it's even possible that a lot of the landscape effects that are attributed to meteor impacts might actually be due to weather) so the potential for a near-surface biozone is certainly there.
There's just no way to tell what's really going on up there without some hands-on work. The rovers are nice machines, but give me a guy with an education, a rock hammer and a microscope and I'll have Meridiani characterized in about a week.
Oh sure, coming up with plans is important, but finding a source of funding is equally if not more important; funding helps determine the scope of the project.
Without the funding there IS no hardware, no matter how well laid-out the plans. If NASA had gotten the proper funding in the early 70's the US would have attempted to land men on Mars in 1982. No bucks, no Buck Rogers.
I use the phrase 'attempted to land' because I don't believe we knew enough about the surface conditions of Mars to successfully land there in 1982.
A couple of quick corrections:
1) Upmass using ATV and Progress will barely be sufficient to support a full-time crew of six,and as you've pointed out there is no effective downmass capability in the ISS program once the shuttle is phased out. This might not seem to be a big deal until the experiment wracks are maxed out or researchers need to bring quantities of research materials home. Downmass isn't necessary for simple ISS operations, but if you want to start doing useful things it's nice to have. ATV. Progress, and OSP/CEV/Apollo-Jr don't have that capability.
2)If anything, adding habitable volume will result in a HIGHER load on the existing life support systems within ISS. The existing systems are nearly identical to the units that were used by MIR. Standard MIR operations included burning oxygen-generating 'candles' whenever the crewsize exceeded three people and the same holds true fo ISS; the current life support systems really aren't sized for six people. The US HAB module was supposed to have more life support systems; Core Complete does not include the US HAB module.
3) Evacuation procedures for six people could be met by using two Soyuz vehicles. The Russians are perpetually strapped for cash and it's not clear that the Russian aerospace infrastructure could produce more than several Progess and two Soyuz vehicles a year without a large infusion of funds.
Read that last point very carefully. That's the key to interpreting this article.
Koptev has a habit of shooting off his mouth about one wonderful Russian space project after another. The money isn't there (or rather, the money MIGHT be there but no one in Russia is willing to spend it on space and spacecraft).
BTW, this latest proposal is a resurrection of an older 'super-Soyuz' project called Zarya.
Wrong. ISS can't accomodate more than three long-term residents at this point due to limitations on the life support system, the habitation requirements, the lack of an adequate supply chain (Progress is a nice vehicle but the upmass isn't large enough) and evacuation requirements.
That's right; each MER rover built *after the first one* is simply an exercise in parts and labor.
I imagine that the true make or break cost for the second rover would have been the cost of the booster and launch services. Until we find a magic way to get the cost/pound of spaceflight down your transportation charges almost* always cost more than the payload itself.
The problem is that to lower launch costs with our current systems means we need to fly more, a LOT more, to get economy of scale when producing boosters. Let's face it: most rocket boosters are nothing more than big empty tanks with OTS engines and guidance systems, but as long as they only build two at a time they'll be overly expensive no matter WHO builds them, whether it's Boeing or some 21st Wright Brothers.
The problem is that the current launch costs are high enough to keep the flight rate down. It's a chicken and egg problem.
Rotary Rocket and Kistler tried getting around this problem by building reusable launchers. Reuse the booster, right? The tech isn't advanced enough to make this into a paying proposition, not yet, because it's right on the bleeding edge and the slightest overruns ruin your cost models and make you offer the same cost/pound as a proven booster, only since your RLV isn't proven (some of these boosters, like the Delta, have been around for close to 40 years) you'll have a hard time attracting customers. The chicken and egg problem strikes again.
[*Almost; I can think of a few satellites that cost more, but not many.]
NASA/JPL learned their lesson when the Mars Polar Lander disappeared. Most Mars probes up until then had actually consisted of two spacecraft (the Mariner series and Viking 1/2) simply for redundancy; if your launch failed or the spacecraft blew up (Mars Observer, anyone?) there was a complete second set of spacecraft hardware available.
With two rovers that redundancy is back, and at the same time you can target them into two different landing zones on Mars, doubling your data sampling if they both survive.
Doesn't this qualify as the same sort of junior-level "unauthorized access" hacking that Asscroft wanted to punish with prison terms up to life?
I demand that these perpetrators be punished to the fullest extent of the law!
This is undoubtably NOT a conspiracy, or a warm-up for DRM. I'd bet Dubya's left nut that this has been built-in to meet some government contract requirement, especially since it seems so easy to disable that this can't be taken as a serious anti-counterfeiting attempt.
Re:Spirit not that impressive...?
on
News from Mars
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The sad thing about the early Russian (aka Soviet) efforts at landing on Mars is the probes probably weren't sterilized very well, if at all.
Soviet-era space electronics were tube-based, not transistor based, and were prone to heat-induced failure. Even their unmanned vehicles were pressurized to air-cool the electronicsm, and some of their early failures are probably attributable to loss of pressure in the probe itself, leading to heat-induced failure.
What's this got to do with Mars? The Soviets couldn't 'cook' their probes high enough temperatures, for long enough periods of time, to sterilize them properly. Several of these probes (Mars 2, 3 and 6) made it to the surface, and it's entirely possible that they carried some hardy, tough bacteria with them.
The low air pressure and the low temperatures in Gusev would seem to rule out liquid water.
It's more likely (in my opinion) that what they're seeing is clay, which would have the water chemically bound.
Although, as you stated, it's also possible that it's composed of statically-charged Martian fines.
Let's see if someone can make this cancer-killing virus infectious. Imagine riding the subway and being cured of cancer by standing next to an unhygienic stranger.
No, actually, it's NOT difficult to get things into space; we've been doing it since 1957. Heck, we pretty much use the same techology now.
The difficulty with space travel, I'm afraid, isn't technical, it's organizational.
Slashdot Mirror
I hereby share my unique genetic code with the rest of the world and am more than happy to give out free samples...especially to large-breasted 20-ish women. Now that that's out of the way... It seems to me that there's a middle ground to be walked. For example, it's ludicrous to think that Monsanto (or some other giant corporation) would be able to simply point to an apple tree and say "We're patenting that DNA". That's public domain and should fall under the laws pertaining to that sort of thing. On the other hand, should Monsanto (or some other giant corporation) splice together some apple DNA that's noticably different (maybe containing natural antibiotics to help fight stomach ulcers, for example, or drought/cold tolerance that far exceeds the norm) then Monsanto SHOULD receive a patent on that DNA...but it would be up to Monsanto (or some other giant corporation) to protect that patent by controlling the propagation of the DNA. If some honeybee cross-pollinates the super apple with the apple tree in my backyard and my fruit then contains some of Monsanto's patented characteristics that's Monsanto's problem, not mine, and should not be legally actionable. Notice that this also builds in some greed-driven checks on the spread of genetically-modified organisms...two birds in one stone. If we want to see a biotech future we need to understand that a good chunk of the R&D resources are concentrated in the corporate sector and that we'll need to find a way to both encourage and control development of these technologies.
You really can't "test for getting to Mars" by going to the Moon first. Not only are the environments completely different (to the point where EVA suits for one location probably won't work on the other), but the mission profiles are completely different as well. Claiming that lunar infrastructure can be used to support or stage a Mars mission is ludicrous; why add TWO gravity wells? What people who advocate this approach forget is the cost of installing all of that infrastructure on the lunar surface to begin with. Think about that: what's easier/cheaper/faster? Building the Mars spacecraft on Earth, or first building the aerospace infrastructure on the Moon that allows you to then build the Mars spacecraft on the Moon? Do you see the fallacy? Now, if going to Mars becomes a regularly-scheduled event, then the argument for lunar-generated supplies (in the form of oxidizer, since lunar water will be valuable enough NOT to use as fuel) comes into it's own, but for the foreseeable future we'll be running Mars missions that are loosely based on Mars Direct architecture. The only thing that we gain from throwing the moon into the mission architecture is complexity.
The moon is an interesting place to visit and should be thought of as an orbiting industrial park; lots of minerals, vacuum, solar polar (at least half the time), etc...there's a lot of neat things you can do on the lunar surface. BUT...the environments of Mars and the Moon are so different that the idea of testing equipment meant for Mars on the Moon is ludicrous.
This announcement will probably mention that evidence has been found that hematite deposits were created in a wet environment and that the Martian surface was once warmer and wetter than it is now. I doubt that any mention will be made of brine, although it's possible that a carefully phrased statement such as "the surface characteristics *suggest* the *potential* of brine" may be made. Why hedge? Simple. If definitive findings are announced solving various Martian mysteries there's little or no incentive to send the next rover... There will be NO mention of bacteria/fossils/our Martian Overlords. Look at the list of announcers, there's no biologist (and no real biology experiments on the rovers anyway).
It's doubtful that there'd be microbes in existing near-surface brine simply because the surface has been extensively 'gardened', exposing underlying layers of soil to the unrestricted UV environment on the surface. On the other hand, I wouldn't rule it completely out either. If the duracrust is relatively firm 'gardening' might not have caused as much damage (and it's even possible that a lot of the landscape effects that are attributed to meteor impacts might actually be due to weather) so the potential for a near-surface biozone is certainly there. There's just no way to tell what's really going on up there without some hands-on work. The rovers are nice machines, but give me a guy with an education, a rock hammer and a microscope and I'll have Meridiani characterized in about a week.
Oh sure, coming up with plans is important, but finding a source of funding is equally if not more important; funding helps determine the scope of the project. Without the funding there IS no hardware, no matter how well laid-out the plans. If NASA had gotten the proper funding in the early 70's the US would have attempted to land men on Mars in 1982. No bucks, no Buck Rogers. I use the phrase 'attempted to land' because I don't believe we knew enough about the surface conditions of Mars to successfully land there in 1982.
A couple of quick corrections: 1) Upmass using ATV and Progress will barely be sufficient to support a full-time crew of six,and as you've pointed out there is no effective downmass capability in the ISS program once the shuttle is phased out. This might not seem to be a big deal until the experiment wracks are maxed out or researchers need to bring quantities of research materials home. Downmass isn't necessary for simple ISS operations, but if you want to start doing useful things it's nice to have. ATV. Progress, and OSP/CEV/Apollo-Jr don't have that capability. 2)If anything, adding habitable volume will result in a HIGHER load on the existing life support systems within ISS. The existing systems are nearly identical to the units that were used by MIR. Standard MIR operations included burning oxygen-generating 'candles' whenever the crewsize exceeded three people and the same holds true fo ISS; the current life support systems really aren't sized for six people. The US HAB module was supposed to have more life support systems; Core Complete does not include the US HAB module. 3) Evacuation procedures for six people could be met by using two Soyuz vehicles. The Russians are perpetually strapped for cash and it's not clear that the Russian aerospace infrastructure could produce more than several Progess and two Soyuz vehicles a year without a large infusion of funds. Read that last point very carefully. That's the key to interpreting this article. Koptev has a habit of shooting off his mouth about one wonderful Russian space project after another. The money isn't there (or rather, the money MIGHT be there but no one in Russia is willing to spend it on space and spacecraft). BTW, this latest proposal is a resurrection of an older 'super-Soyuz' project called Zarya.
Wrong. ISS can't accomodate more than three long-term residents at this point due to limitations on the life support system, the habitation requirements, the lack of an adequate supply chain (Progress is a nice vehicle but the upmass isn't large enough) and evacuation requirements.
That's right; each MER rover built *after the first one* is simply an exercise in parts and labor. I imagine that the true make or break cost for the second rover would have been the cost of the booster and launch services. Until we find a magic way to get the cost/pound of spaceflight down your transportation charges almost* always cost more than the payload itself. The problem is that to lower launch costs with our current systems means we need to fly more, a LOT more, to get economy of scale when producing boosters. Let's face it: most rocket boosters are nothing more than big empty tanks with OTS engines and guidance systems, but as long as they only build two at a time they'll be overly expensive no matter WHO builds them, whether it's Boeing or some 21st Wright Brothers. The problem is that the current launch costs are high enough to keep the flight rate down. It's a chicken and egg problem. Rotary Rocket and Kistler tried getting around this problem by building reusable launchers. Reuse the booster, right? The tech isn't advanced enough to make this into a paying proposition, not yet, because it's right on the bleeding edge and the slightest overruns ruin your cost models and make you offer the same cost/pound as a proven booster, only since your RLV isn't proven (some of these boosters, like the Delta, have been around for close to 40 years) you'll have a hard time attracting customers. The chicken and egg problem strikes again. [*Almost; I can think of a few satellites that cost more, but not many.]
NASA/JPL learned their lesson when the Mars Polar Lander disappeared. Most Mars probes up until then had actually consisted of two spacecraft (the Mariner series and Viking 1/2) simply for redundancy; if your launch failed or the spacecraft blew up (Mars Observer, anyone?) there was a complete second set of spacecraft hardware available. With two rovers that redundancy is back, and at the same time you can target them into two different landing zones on Mars, doubling your data sampling if they both survive.
Doesn't this qualify as the same sort of junior-level "unauthorized access" hacking that Asscroft wanted to punish with prison terms up to life? I demand that these perpetrators be punished to the fullest extent of the law!
This is undoubtably NOT a conspiracy, or a warm-up for DRM. I'd bet Dubya's left nut that this has been built-in to meet some government contract requirement, especially since it seems so easy to disable that this can't be taken as a serious anti-counterfeiting attempt.
The sad thing about the early Russian (aka Soviet) efforts at landing on Mars is the probes probably weren't sterilized very well, if at all. Soviet-era space electronics were tube-based, not transistor based, and were prone to heat-induced failure. Even their unmanned vehicles were pressurized to air-cool the electronicsm, and some of their early failures are probably attributable to loss of pressure in the probe itself, leading to heat-induced failure. What's this got to do with Mars? The Soviets couldn't 'cook' their probes high enough temperatures, for long enough periods of time, to sterilize them properly. Several of these probes (Mars 2, 3 and 6) made it to the surface, and it's entirely possible that they carried some hardy, tough bacteria with them.
The low air pressure and the low temperatures in Gusev would seem to rule out liquid water. It's more likely (in my opinion) that what they're seeing is clay, which would have the water chemically bound. Although, as you stated, it's also possible that it's composed of statically-charged Martian fines.
Let's see if someone can make this cancer-killing virus infectious. Imagine riding the subway and being cured of cancer by standing next to an unhygienic stranger.
Shit, I hope so. Type 1 is killing me.
No, actually, it's NOT difficult to get things into space; we've been doing it since 1957. Heck, we pretty much use the same techology now. The difficulty with space travel, I'm afraid, isn't technical, it's organizational.