"Stanislaw Sidor" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ...
Newsuser "Manfred Bartz" wrote ...

Personally I think the Beagle mission had a better and more ambitious
science package. They were going to look for past and present life,
not just at a few rocks in search of past water activity. Oh well,
maybe a few missions down the track we'll get serious.... :/

Do you think, that SETI is a 'good science'?

Yeah! All these "Close Encounters" type missions, and in all
this time, when was the last time we had a rover roam the Moon?
That's a place whose resources could actually help us on Earth--
solve our energy problems and all that. And it would be the
ideal jumping board to the rest of the Solar System, if we were
able to build and launch rockets from up there.

("Aluminum, silicon, oxygen, low gravity and lots of solar ener-
gy to be had..." *That's* music to my ears! As opposed to:
"Ancient fossilized microbes found on meteorite--maybe." So
what, even if they were??)

What's the deal with Mars if we haven't even built a base on the
Moon yet? Why do I get the feeling space exploration is funded
by people who get their idea of what's important from the head-
lines of the National Enquirer?

What's the deal with trying to find life out there? I mean, it
still doesn't mean that *we* could live there, and that's all
that counts!