Mars Needs Water!

Story at:

"http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040306/ap_on_sc/mars_so_what_1"

describes NOAA scientists bemoaning spending on Mars while
their budget is cut. Article mentions that Mars is now
pretty much bone dry while Earth ocean levels are rising.

I think the solution to both problems is obvious...

- Ed Kyle

"ed kyle" wrote in message
om...
Story at:


"http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040306/ap_on_sc/mars_so_what_
1"

describes NOAA scientists bemoaning spending on Mars while
their budget is cut. Article mentions that Mars is now
pretty much bone dry while Earth ocean levels are rising.

I think the solution to both problems is obvious...

- Ed Kyle

Ahhh, where would we be without deja/google...


--
Alan Erskine
We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes.
Give NASA a real challenge

ed kyle wrote:
Story at:

"http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040306/ap_on_sc/mars_so_what_1"

describes NOAA scientists bemoaning spending on Mars while
their budget is cut. Article mentions that Mars is now
pretty much bone dry while Earth ocean levels are rising.

I think the solution to both problems is obvious...

Hmm.
What about simply covering the ice-caps with a mylar blanket in summer,
and removing in winter?

"ed kyle" wrote in message
om...
Story at:


"http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040306/ap_on_sc/mars_so_what_
1"

describes NOAA scientists bemoaning spending on Mars while
their budget is cut. Article mentions that Mars is now
pretty much bone dry while Earth ocean levels are rising.

I think the solution to both problems is obvious...

Not as obvious as it seems. You may find it obvious but I don't know anyone
else who finds it trivial to ship millions of cubic meters of water to Mars.

Besides, capturing and redirecting an icecomet towards much would be a lot
more productive not to mention cheaper.

"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote in message
...

"ed kyle" wrote in message
om...
Story at:



"http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040306/ap_on_sc/mars_so_what_
1"

describes NOAA scientists bemoaning spending on Mars while
their budget is cut. Article mentions that Mars is now
pretty much bone dry while Earth ocean levels are rising.

I think the solution to both problems is obvious...

Not as obvious as it seems. You may find it obvious but I don't know
anyone
else who finds it trivial to ship millions of cubic meters of water to
Mars.

Besides, capturing and redirecting an icecomet towards much would be a lot
more productive not to mention cheaper.

How about siphoning off hydrogen from one of the gas giants and sending it
to Mars?

There are so many other big ticket government programs with so much
more spending than space. Why is it every single big and small
interest group out there picks space as a target to cut to get more
funds for their pet projects? :x


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Why is it every single big and small
interest group out there picks space as a target to cut to get more
funds for their pet projects? BRBR


Because space is so visible. Space-related activities are well reported (not
always accurately, but prominently), leading most people to believe space in
general and NASA in particular gets far more money than it does from the US
Federal Government.


Matt Bille
)
OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR

(MattWriter) wrote in message ...

Because space is so visible. Space-related activities are well reported (not
always accurately, but prominently), leading most people to believe space in
general and NASA in particular gets far more money than it does from the US
Federal Government.

Matt, do you realize that the Federal government has spent
approximately a trillion dollars on space programs? That figure comes
from a former astronaut, not some yahoo. The fact that someone wants
to reduce space spending doesn't necessarily mean he is uninformed or
anti-space. Some people sincerely believe it is possible to do more
with less.

Matt, do you realize that the Federal government has spent
approximately a trillion dollars on space programs? BRBR


That number might not be too far off, if you take all military and civilian
space actvity since 1955 and adjust everything for inflation. My point was
that a large segment of the American people believes that NASA gets a much
bigger share of the Federal budget than the actual figure of less than one
percent.


Matt Bille
)
OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR

lid (Buck Galaxy) wrote in message ...
There are so many other big ticket government programs with so much
more spending than space. Why is it every single big and small
interest group out there picks space as a target to cut to get more
funds for their pet projects? :x


Because their are more children to kill, more women to mutilate, more
men to slaughter and that all takes bombs.