Is there Life on Mars?

Forums › Off topic › Is there Life on Mars?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16317

Lifetime subscriber

#2031890 8-Jun-2018 09:14

1eStar: Can someone explain why it is so imperative to know whether life is/was/will be on Mars?

If you have to ask that question, you probably won't understand the answer.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2031901 8-Jun-2018 09:24

Rikkitic:

1eStar: Can someone explain why it is so imperative to know whether life is/was/will be on Mars?

If you have to ask that question, you probably won't understand the answer.

Apart from general curiosity, I'd be happy just to see the reaction from creationists if any extraterrestrial life was found, and the reaction from evangelists if sentient/sapient life was ever found.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2031905 8-Jun-2018 09:29

Fred99:

Rikkitic:

1eStar: Can someone explain why it is so imperative to know whether life is/was/will be on Mars?

If you have to ask that question, you probably won't understand the answer.

Apart from general curiosity, I'd be happy just to see the reaction from creationists if any extraterrestrial life was found, and the reaction from evangelists if sentient/sapient life was ever found.

They will say it was their Gods first attempt and he/she blew it so wiped the disc and started again with Earth. Of course only 6,000 years agao.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

1101

3141 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1143

#2031909 8-Jun-2018 09:34

Fred99:

I'd spend the 6 month trip there thinking about...

you'd spend the 6+ month trip freaking about about the radiation dose youre getting, worrying about a solar flare that would cook you, worried about the radiation dose on the planet, worried about
the extremely poisonous dirt , worried about if cancer from radiation will kill you in the next 2 years.
All thats assuming the spacecraft actually makes it there & lands safely. Been plenty of unmanned failures so far.

they say its a one way trip . A death trip.
Humans wont be going to mars untill the radiation issues are solved .

And then theres the cost , the US only went to the Moon because of the cold war with the Russians .
NASA are too inefficent & seem to burn $ , no way will they get funding to go to Mars . Look at how much they have spent so far on the shuttle replacement . If NASA had kept the Saturn5
& the Apollo they could have achieved alot more by now.
Nasa cant even put a single man into low orbit, they arnt going to Mars .

jpoc

1043 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 289

#2031916 8-Jun-2018 09:39

1eStar: Can someone explain why it is so imperative to know whether life is/was/will be on Mars?

Because if there is life there, Mr T. might need to build another big beautiful wall to stop Martian bacteria from taking 'merican jobs.

Hammerer

2480 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 802

Lifetime subscriber

#2031918 8-Jun-2018 09:41

Fred99:

Rikkitic:

1eStar: Can someone explain why it is so imperative to know whether life is/was/will be on Mars?

If you have to ask that question, you probably won't understand the answer.

Apart from general curiosity, I'd be happy just to see the reaction from creationists if any extraterrestrial life was found, and the reaction from evangelists if sentient/sapient life was ever found.

In either case it is unlikely to make much difference. You can read many web articles on these topics to see how little impact such events would have.

Here's some reasons why. Sentient and extraterrestrial life are already present in the Bible. The original words used in the Bible often have a more universal scope than just the Earth. Many Christian authors write about such themes, e.g. C.S. Lewis (Space Trilogy), Madeleine L'Engle ("A Wrinkle in Time" movie released this year). Creationists and evangelists are always adjusting their arguments to relate to the current milieu. And so on.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2031920 8-Jun-2018 09:43

1101:

you'd spend the 6+ month trip freaking about about the radiation dose youre getting, worrying about a solar flare that would cook you, worried about the radiation dose on the planet, worried about
the extremely poisonous dirt , worried about if cancer from radiation will kill you in the next 2 years.
All thats assuming the spacecraft actually makes it there & lands safely. Been plenty of unmanned failures so far.

I agree 100%. However there seems to be a lot of zealous confidence that these issues can be solved soon. I doubt it.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16317

Lifetime subscriber

#2031923 8-Jun-2018 09:48

Caveman 1: I wonder what those lights in the sky are.

Caveman 2: Can't. Talk. Busy. Eating.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

jpoc

1043 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 289

#2031930 8-Jun-2018 10:00

1101:

Fred99:

I'd spend the 6 month trip there thinking about...

you'd spend the 6+ month trip freaking about about the radiation dose youre getting, worrying about a solar flare that would cook you, worried about the radiation dose on the planet, worried about
the extremely poisonous dirt , worried about if cancer from radiation will kill you in the next 2 years.
All thats assuming the spacecraft actually makes it there & lands safely. Been plenty of unmanned failures so far.

they say its a one way trip . A death trip.
Humans wont be going to mars untill the radiation issues are solved .

And then theres the cost , the US only went to the Moon because of the cold war with the Russians .
NASA are too inefficent & seem to burn $ , no way will they get funding to go to Mars . Look at how much they have spent so far on the shuttle replacement . If NASA had kept the Saturn5
& the Apollo they could have achieved alot more by now.
Nasa cant even put a single man into low orbit, they arnt going to Mars .

The radiation problem is not as bad as the media has led people to believe.

Actual measurements from recent NASA Mars missions suggest that, with current shielding tech, the radiation encountered during a one way trip would give an astronaut an additional 5% chance of developing a potentially fatal cancer years after the exposure. That is more than is allowed by NASA's current health and safety at work standards but not so bad that nobody would ever volunteer for it. Also, by the time that we get around to the trip, shielding will certainly have improved and medical approaches to minimising or reversing the harm may also change the risks.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2031936 8-Jun-2018 10:09

Hammerer:

Fred99:

Rikkitic:

1eStar: Can someone explain why it is so imperative to know whether life is/was/will be on Mars?

If you have to ask that question, you probably won't understand the answer.

Apart from general curiosity, I'd be happy just to see the reaction from creationists if any extraterrestrial life was found, and the reaction from evangelists if sentient/sapient life was ever found.

In either case it is unlikely to make much difference. You can read many web articles on these topics to see how little impact such events would have.

Here's some reasons why. Sentient and extraterrestrial life are already present in the Bible. The original words used in the Bible often have a more universal scope than just the Earth. Many Christian authors write about such themes, e.g. C.S. Lewis (Space Trilogy), Madeleine L'Engle ("A Wrinkle in Time" movie released this year). Creationists and evangelists are always adjusting their arguments to relate to the current milieu. And so on.

Here's a paragraph from an optimistic theist:

But it’s ahistorical to assume that religion is too weak to survive in a world with aliens. That’s because, as Peters points out, this claim underestimates “the degree of adaptation that has already taken place.” With few notable exceptions – creationism, violent fundamentalism, gay marriage – religion has often been able to adapt without much fuss to various paradigm shifts it’s encountered. Surely its re-inventiveness, its adaptability is a testament to the fact that there is something about religion that resonates with humans at a basic level.

His notable exceptions are kind of recent, they also coincide with a mass exodus from religion in most western countries, even in the USA. Something else to give that trend a nudge would be very good news.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2032118 8-Jun-2018 13:25

1101:

And then theres the cost , the US only went to the Moon because of the cold war with the Russians .
NASA are too inefficent & seem to burn $ , no way will they get funding to go to Mars . Look at how much they have spent so far on the shuttle replacement . If NASA had kept the Saturn5
& the Apollo they could have achieved alot more by now.

This is a self-contradictory argument. First you say that NASA was inefficient and wasted in the Moon race, then you say they should have continued using the supposedly inefficient and wasteful Saturn 5.

In all engineering, you get to trade-off pick between cheap, good, and soon. In the Moon race, soon was required, good (i.e. safe) was required, which meant that it was never going to be cheap.

I think that NASA cut things pretty close on the Moon race in terms of safety; despite their efforts, several astronauts got killed, and at least 3 more were within a hair of it. As per John Glenn: “As I hurtled through space, one thought kept crossing my mind - every part of this rocket was supplied by the lowest bidder.” So I doubt that it could have been done significantly cheaper without compromising the safety or time constraints. Certainly the free-marketeers would have to agree. I wonder how close the Russians were to going to the Moon? Could NASA have extended their programs by a couple of years and thereby saved a whole lot of money?

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2032131 8-Jun-2018 13:49

I met a guy who worked on explosive systems for the shuttle, things like for that arm that came out to grab satellites, it had charges in the base to jettison it out of the way if they couldn't retract it to close the doors.

Part of his job was to test detonate 1000 charges out of each of two batches of explosives, if they all worked, then one from each batch (one as a backup system) was used. This is how things get expensive - yet still people died. Many thousands of systems all of which are mission critical / potentially fatal.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16317

Lifetime subscriber

#2032147 8-Jun-2018 14:01

NASA had to improvise a carbon-scrubber interface on the fly for Apollo 13 as the astronauts slowly asphyxiated. This was indeed their finest hour and what they came up with was super-cool, but Nasa might have improved safety and saved money if they had insisted that different subcontractors at least talked with each other. Why keep inventing the wheel over and over? Why not design a single carbon scrubbing system that works on both spacecraft? Of course things are going to be more expensive if everything is a custom-designed single-use job.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos