Why we can't go to Mars (yet)

"R F L Henley" skrev i en meddelelse
...

unless and until we have robotically established conclusively that there
is or is not life on Mars, we can't put humans on the planet because
they will inevitably bio-contaminate it.

To a degree, I agree. The absence of life on Mars can never be
established conclusively, and certainly not by softlanding a number of
robotic probes. There may be subsurface life in a few locations. But a
rather thorough survey by robotic landers may at least conclude that the
surface and near-surface of Mars is very probably without life. Or find it,
of course.

Jon Lennart Beck.

To a degree, I agree. The absence of life on Mars can never be
established conclusively, and certainly not by softlanding a number of
robotic probes. There may be subsurface life in a few locations. But a
rather thorough survey by robotic landers may at least conclude that the
surface and near-surface of Mars is very probably without life. Or find it,
of course.

Jon Lennart Beck.

The way I look at it is that our biosphere will expand to include Mars. Any
Martian organisms will either have to adapt or die, that is a part of
evolution. Environmentalists have this unrealistic idea of stopping Evolution
in its tracks. By this logic an environmentalist will try to exterminate any
new organisms that develop, since those will tend to put some established
species in danger. If Enviromentalists existed at the end of the Precambrian,
they would try to put a stop to all oxygen breathing multi-cellular life as
they might endanger some of the anarobic bacteria. We'll likewise simply
advance the state of evolution on Mars.

Tom

In article ,
TKalbfus wrote:
To a degree, I agree. The absence of life on Mars can never be
established conclusively, and certainly not by softlanding a number of
robotic probes. There may be subsurface life in a few locations. But a
rather thorough survey by robotic landers may at least conclude that the
surface and near-surface of Mars is very probably without life. Or find it,
of course.

Jon Lennart Beck.

The way I look at it is that our biosphere will expand to include Mars. Any
Martian organisms will either have to adapt or die

Us too, which is why maybe the first few missions should be of
sufficient duration to allow Martian Rot to show itself in the astronauts.

--
"Precepts of religion. Every victory is a defeat. Every cut made is a wound
received. Every strength is a weakness. Every time you kill, you die."
In which case, he thought, clawing briars from in front of his face, the
enemy must be taking a right pounding, the poor buggers. [Memory, K.J. Parker]

"TKalbfus" skrev i en meddelelse
...

The way I look at it is that our biosphere will expand to include Mars.
Any Martian organisms will either have to adapt or die, that is a part
of evolution.

But not without being thoroughly examined by us first.

Jon Lennart Beck.

TKalbfus wrote:

To a degree, I agree. The absence of life on Mars can never be
established conclusively, and certainly not by softlanding a number of
robotic probes. There may be subsurface life in a few locations. But a
rather thorough survey by robotic landers may at least conclude that the
surface and near-surface of Mars is very probably without life. Or find it,
of course.

Jon Lennart Beck.

The way I look at it is that our biosphere will expand to include Mars. Any
Martian organisms will either have to adapt or die, that is a part of
evolution. Environmentalists have this unrealistic idea of stopping Evolution
in its tracks. By this logic an environmentalist will try to exterminate any
new organisms that develop, since those will tend to put some established
species in danger. If Enviromentalists existed at the end of the Precambrian,
they would try to put a stop to all oxygen breathing multi-cellular life as
they might endanger some of the anarobic bacteria. We'll likewise simply
advance the state of evolution on Mars.

Where did you get this idea? What we want is for life (all of it) to
continue to flourish and evolve for another few billion years. You need
to stop equating human caused extinctions with evolution. You can
excuse almost anything with that sort of philosophy.

Tom