NASA might have found Life on Mars (rumor)

[Asterix]

You two need to read what I wrote before and talk to each other.

I'll spell it out for you:

Asteroid belt = mineral resources many millions of times what we have available on Earth (where, for obvious reasons, we only have access to the minerals on the CRUST of the Earth, which is a small percentage of the Earth's total mass).
Mars = planet without an atmosphere (ie- we can crash asteroids into) and lots and lots of open land doing nothing.

You want to preserve the Earth? How about shipping all the heavy industry out of our gravity well and our ecosphere? Or are you really dumb enough to think we're going to create a society that's both zero population growth AND agrarian? As a species we are going to demand more and more consumer goods, more and more plain old stuff. Without digging into our planet more to produce all the stuff, where to you think we're going to get those materials?

Mars makes a logical and easy place to do the basic smelting and refining of the materials. And once that happens, Mars is the logical place to do the final production as well. It's what it's there for.

Looking for life on Mars isn't about finding life so we can preserve it. Looking for life on Mars is to NOT find it (at least in current extant form) so we can properly rape the Martian landscape for our own uses, so we can stop raping our home planet's landscape.

Is it audacious? Absolutely. But is space the obvious long-term solution to most of the first world's "pressing" problems? Absolutely.

Space SOLVES most of the "pressing problems we have at home", myopians. Thinking small doesn't get you anywhere.

You're an idiot. Go back to watching Star Wars vidioes

 

[S.C. Joe]

No, building more roads, water dams, improving the power grid, that is all a waste of money. Space its where its at.

Lets flush more money in to space...after all, man walking on the moon enriched all of our lives, so much more then cars, airplanes and computers have.

Thanks NASA--for nothing but hope thousands of years from now, the planet will be OK.

I got a idea, how bout we disband NASA and let another country, say Canada fund the space dream. Canada needs no health care, be like the USA and let the people worry about their own health

 

[BSLover]

What problems do we ever really solve here on earth? It's just constant corruption, embezzlement and politics. We can throw billions at an earth problem and pretend that money wasn't just flushed down the toilet or we can throw it at space exploration, know it was flushed down the toilet but also know that we get to see some kick ass photos or maybe even new discoveries.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Good lord. The final frontier? Are you 9 years old living in 1967? Explain to me why Mars is at all a viable planet.

Its not just Mars, smartypants. Its the complete conquering of space altogether.

The same as it was in the middle-ages, he who controls the oceans controlled the trade, and therefore controlled the world (Spain, England, Portugal, France, Holland....etc).

So how does gain more power by conquering space. Here's 3 examples off top of my head:

1. Space weapons: http://www.space.com/19-top-10-space-weapons.html

2. Moon contains helium-3. When you conquer space you can mine planets: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/moon-mars/1283056

3. Space tourism (opens up an entire new industry): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tourism

And I'm sure there are countless other reasons

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

I don't know. I'm pretty sure Mars is a perfectly viable planet. It's BEEN a planet for around 4.6 billion years, after all. That's a pretty good indication it's a viable planet.

Now, is it a viable planet for human habitation? No. And probably won't be for a long, long time. So what? It's a GOOD thing that it isn't viable for human life. The point of going to Mars isn't to live there. Not outside of maybe a few hundred people. At first, explorers. Then, builders. After that, repairmen.

Mars is the 4th planet from the Sun. What probably was the 5th planet from the Sun is now the asteroid belt. Billions and billions of tons of various minerals, many valuable for industry and goods here on Earth.

Do you get the picture yet, or do I have to spell it out in tiny little words for you to understand it?

It is pure idiocy to turn our backs to space. It is small thinking to the nth degree

Well said.

Some people believe Maldec used to be the planet thats now the asteroid belt. Supposedly it came into contact with a giant asteroid and it obliterated the planet

You're an idiot. Go back to watching Star Wars vidioes

Nah, you're the idiot. You proven that time and time again on this forum.

Also, what are vidioes??

 

[Asterix]

Its not just Mars, smartypants. Its the complete conquering of space altogether.

The same as it was in the middle-ages, he who controls the oceans controlled the trade, and therefore controlled the world (Spain, England, Portugal, France, Holland....etc).

So how does gain more power by conquering space. Here's 3 examples off top of my head:

1. Space weapons: http://www.space.com/19-top-10-space-weapons.html

2. Moon contains helium-3. When you conquer space you can mine planets: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/moon-mars/1283056

3. Space tourism (opens up an entire new industry): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tourism

And I'm sure there are countless other reasons

The top of your head. And here I would have thought that would have come come from a different part or your anatomy. Are you at all aware how far Mars is from the Earth? Mining? You've got to be kidding me.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

The top of your head. And here I would have thought that would have come come from a different part or your anatomy. Are you at all aware how far Mars is from the Earth? Mining? You've got to be kidding me

From small minds come small words

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Here you go, already plans on the books to mine the moon:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/moon-mining-canada-s-possible-new-role-in-space-1.773700

Canada could play a key role in a new international space race, with the next sprint to the moon gearing up as an extra-terrestrial gold rush.

Industry insiders will be watching closely this week as the heads of the world's five biggest space agencies get together in Quebec City, where the partners on the International Space Station will discuss more than just the future of the orbiting lab.

They will also address an idea gaining currency in business and scientific circles: that within human reach lies an unfathomable wealth of resources, some of them common on Earth and others so exotic that they could change the way we live.


Canada could figure prominently in any discussion about lunar exploration, with nearly one-quarter of the world's top mining companies headquartered here and this country also known for robotics like the famous Canadarm.

Several countries, including China, have expressed a desire to start mining the moon's resources. The mining industry is now waiting for the Canadian Space Agency to make its intentions known, while the agency awaits direction from the federal government.

"When members of the international space community decide to go to the Moon or Mars, the CSA and Canada will be ready to contribute," the agency told The Canadian Press in an email last week.

The CSA has already begun developing a number of prototype lunar rovers, in co-operation with NASA and several Canadian firms.

The testing of these prototypes on Earth, with special drills for excavating, has already begun and more tests are planned this summer in Hawaii. The next phase would involve building space-bound rovers -- but the CSA can't move forward without federal approval.

"They're not headed for the moon, yet, although we have hopes for sure," Iain Christie, the president of Neptec Design Group, maker of one of the excavation rovers, said in an interview.

"We're making, I think, a contribution to what Canada's future space program might look like."

Ottawa-based Neptec made the laser-camera system that was used to inspect for damage on the exterior of the recently retired U.S. space shuttles.

For Christie, Canada's post-shuttle vocation is a no-brainer.

Of the top 40 global mining companies, with combined assets approaching $1 trillion, nine are Canadian, according to a 2011 study by PricewaterhouseCoopers.

"On this planet, we are amongst the leading nations in figuring out how to extract resources from underneath the ground (and) we're also one of the leading countries in space exploration," he said.

Christie added that putting those two together makes a lot of sense: "It appears to me, at least from doing a quick survey of what other nations are doing, that it's also a niche that other countries might be prepared to let Canada excel at."

The moon is home to a number of compounds that are not readily available on Earth -- like Helium-3, a gas that could potentially fuel future nuclear-fusion power plants. Such a development would hold drastic implications for human activity, beginning with energy consumption. The moon also contains gold, platinum-group elements, and rare-earth elements.

Drilling for lunar resources may not be that far off. Some predict it could start by the end of this decade.

Since 2004, Neptec, NASA, the Canadian Space Agency and the Northern Centre for Advanced Technology (NORCAT) have all been working on a drilling project, called RESOLVE, which involves water ice on the Moon.

"It's a very wet place and water is the Holy Grail for space exploration," said Dale Boucher, a senior developer at NORCAT, said in an interview from his office in Sudbury, Ont.

"Water provides life support and, when you break it down into hydrogen and oxygen, it will provide fuel for ascent and even fuel for electric power generation, like in a fuel cell."

With hydrogen, the moon could hold the energy necessary to launch flights into deeper space. Several countries are even looking beyond the moon for possible mining sites, to Mars and also to asteroids.

Creating a permanent lunar outpost would be a precondition for any such projects. The Russians have already been talking about establishing a moon base by the year 2020.

But there's a slight chicken-and-egg connundrum: Boucher says there can't be a long-term lunar presence without water. And before water can be produced on the moon, there would first have to be some kind of mining.

Producing lunar H2o is necessary -- because to ship up the water required to sustain human life, there would be an out-of-this-world price tag.

"The average cost right now is estimated at a quarter of a million dollars for a one-litre bottle of water soft-landed on the Moon," Boucher said.

He believes Canadian mining expertise will prove to be "our toe in the door."

"I think we're kind of on the threshold of a mining boom on the moon and I think that we're very close," Boucher said.

"I think it's the next great activity similar to the Canadarm."

Space mining is not new to NORCAT, which develops new technologies for the mining industry. Boucher said the company has been building drills for NASA and the CSA since 1999.

The lead scientist on NASA's RESOLVE drilling project, Tony Colaprete, was also the principal investigator for LCROSS, the 2009 lunar probe that found a significant amount of water ice on the moon.

Colaprete says the next step is to find the veins of water on the moon and map out its distribution. That's where RESOLVE would go to work, drilling for samples and analyzing their components.

He says the equipment will be ready to be flown to the moon at the end of 2014. He adds that people are already interested in flying it, both commercially and within NASA.

One missing piece is a rocket to get RESOLVE to the lunar surface.

The United States is now focusing its attention on developing a heavy-lifting rocket known as the SLS, which will replace the shuttle program, but Colaprete says it isn't due to launch until 2017. The SLS, or Space Launch System, is a heavy-launch vehicle being designed by NASA and is expected to be the means of transportation for the RESOLVE payload.

That means the soonest there could be a rover driving around on the moon with RESOLVE is likely around the end of the decade, if all goes well with SLS.

"I think you can say certainly something could occur within a decade -- where we're driving on the moon, finding exactly where the water is, and sampling and tasting it, so to speak," Colaprete said

 

[Dream_State]

That Mars life looks yummy!

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Mining the moon for Helium-3:

http://news.discovery.com/space/space-energy-mining-the-moon-120907.html

Pillaging the Moon for the Promise of Space Energy

Between 1969 and 1972, Apollo astronauts brought just under 842 pounds of rocks and regolith back from the Moon. In 1985, engineers at the University of Wisconsin discovered significant amounts of Helium-3 in the lunar soil.

Helium-3 is a stable isotope of helium -- the gas we use to fill party balloons with -- and is notable because it's missing a neutron, an important property that means we can used it in nuclear fusion reactions to produce clean energy. Unfortunately, our most plentiful stores of the isotope are a quarter of a million miles away.

Current nuclear power plants use fission reactors, splitting uranium nuclei to release energy. This heat turns water into steam that drives a turbine to produce electricity. Unfortunately, radioactivity, spent nuclear fuel reprocessed into uranium, plutonium, and radioactive waste are by-products of this reaction.

To get away from fission power, scientists have been working on nuclear fusion energy.

Nuclear fusion is the same reaction that fuels the sun; high temperatures and dense concentrations of gas allow positively-charged nuclei to get close enough to each other that the attractive nuclear force overcomes the repulsive electrical force. They fuse, producing new elements and energy. Helium as the fuel in this type of reaction can provide energy without radioactivity and nuclear by-products.

Fusion reactors fueled by tritium and deuterium -- both isotopes of helium -- lose more energy than they produce, making them poor fuel sources. But fusion reactions between Helium-3 and deuterium, which creates normal helium and a proton without a neutron, wastes less energy. It's the proton that's important; manipulating it in an electric field produces energy. The Helium-3 fusion process is about 70 percent efficient compared to coal and natural gas, which are only about 20 percent efficient.

So we know how to harness the energy potential in Helium-3 (even though the technology to do so efficiently is a few years off), we just don't have enough of it on Earth to make it a viable energy source. That's because Helium-3 is carried by the solar wind and has a hard time getting through our planet's magnetic field.

We can make it -- tritium, hydrogen with two neutrons, and deuterium, hydrogen with an extra neutron, both decay into Helium-3. It's also a byproduct of nuclear weapons testing. But this still isn't enough. The United States' entire Helium-3 reserve is a little under 65 pounds; a country this size would need about 50,000 pounds -- 25 tons -- for a year's worth of power.

The moon's lack of magnetic field means Helium-3 can build up on its surface. As Apollo 17’s lunar module pilot Harrison "Jack" Schmitt sees it, there are very few disadvantages to mining Helium-3 from the moon. Aside from it being a hard thing to do. Hard, but not impossible.

Schmitt has pointed out that we more or less know how to get to the moon -- we've been there -- so we can estimate the cost and figure out whether it would be worth the investment. Then we'd have to set up a base on the moon before starting to mine the isotope. We would also need a steady stream of shuttles between the Earth and the moon to bring canisters of Helium-3 back.

The only real downside, says Schmitt, is that mining the moon will force people to work in the dangerous and punishing lunar environment. (Though with a stunning view of the Earth I think many would accept the job hazards with a smile.) It might even open up a new branch of the tourism industry: ride to the moon and back next to a batch of Helium-3 canisters!

ANALYSIS: Strip Mine the Moon to Fuel Space Exploration

But there's an ethical question to ask beyond space-labor laws. Do we strip the moon, potentially destroying its appearance in the night sky, for clean energy source for Earth? Schmitt says yes, but his opinion isn't shared by everyone.

Another moonwalker is inclined to leave the moon alone. Apollo 14's lunar module pilot Ed Mitchell says going to the moon was a turning point for him. Looking up at the Earth he realized that we on our planet are a tiny speck in the larger scheme of things. We ought to explore, he says, without consuming the resources of one planet after another as we go. In our rush to exploit the resources on planets and satellites, we might miss to exciting science that's right in front of us. Before trying to leave Earth, we ought to learn to live within our means.

There's another tricky side to mining the moon, and that's the political aspect. It could happen that the first nation to land and establish a mining operation on the moon will get the monopoly over the resources and, by extension, the world's energy. It could end up being a multinational endeavor, a group of nations taking on the expensive task of establishing a base, mining the Helium-3, and transporting it back to Earth.

Of course, if none of these mining ventures come to fruition, there's still the possibility of using the stores of Helium-3 on the moon as an interplanetary gas station. Instead of carrying all the fuel a mission or crew would need, the spacecraft could stop on the moon, mine enough Helium-3 to fuel the mission, then set off into deep space. That sounds like an equally exciting prospect

 

[diehard]

Like a paleontologist looking for fossilised dinosaur bones, the robot is sifting through the red dirt of the planet’s Gale Crater hunting for a substance that may indicate life once existed on Mars – methane. Methane is an organic compound, which means it’s a building block for life.

They're searching for farts.

 

[Boss Nass]

Everyone simmer down. Scientists can get excited over a lot of things, it may not be life. Last time they got this excited, and with good reason, was when the rover Opportunity found evidence of hematite, a mineral that is usually associated with water. Back then some of the rampant speculation in the press was that they were going to announce that they had found fossils. Let's just wait instead of getting all worked up about something.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Why do you bloody care? The planet is currently dead, agree or not? Actually you don't have to. It's dead. It doesn't have a magnetic field, the core magnet is wasted, which means it can't hold on to an atmosphere. It's a dead planet that will never be able to sustain life. On the other hand we live on a vibrant planet that offers huge obundance. Gotta take care of life at home children, Mars is a waste of time.

There's no way you're smarter than all the countless of scientists who have engaged in this endeavour, and the brilliant minds who believe this endeavour has some long term benefits.

Mars surely has minerals and ore.

 

[GPIDEAL]

No, building more roads, water dams, improving the power grid, that is all a waste of money. Space its where its at.

Lets flush more money in to space...after all, man walking on the moon enriched all of our lives, so much more then cars, airplanes and computers have.

Thanks NASA--for nothing but hope thousands of years from now, the planet will be OK.

I got a idea, how bout we disband NASA and let another country, say Canada fund the space dream. Canada needs no health care, be like the USA and let the people worry about their own health

We don't spend all our money on space. Spending on space is better than wasting it on wars, etc.

The things we learn from space exploration will add to our knowledge about other things which will benefit this planet.

It's a long term scenario.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Well said GPIDEAL

 

[GPIDEAL]

Well said GPIDEAL

May the force be with you.

 

[bobistheowl]

The Moon would be a good place for launching long distance space missions. With the gravity, a much smaller percentage of the fuel would be needed to achieve escape velocity.

 

[fuji]

I think the rover went off course and is actually on Gilligan's island.

 

[Asterix]

Mars surely has minerals and ore.

Of course it has. It is also 200 times further from us than even our own moon. It isn't economically feasiible.

 

[Asterix]

From small minds come small words

Watch another Star Trek movie. It'll make you feel better.