Monday, May 5, 2008 | Science : Evolution and Biology | print version

Rover instrument to sniff out life on Mars

by New Scientist

Thanks to SPS for the link.

Reposted from:
http://space.newscientist.com/channel/astronomy/astrobiology/dn13822-rover-instrument-to-sniff-out-life-on-mars.html

21:40 01 May 2008
NewScientist.com news service
Stephen Battersby

Urey

If there is life on Mars, it might soon be coaxed out of hiding by a new instrument designed to detect the subtle chemical traces of biological activity.

The Urey instrument, which will fly on the European Space Agency's ExoMars mission in 2013, has just received $2 million in funding from NASA.

It is named after Harold Urey, who showed how the biochemical building blocks called amino acids might have been produced in the atmosphere of the early Earth. One of the instrument's main aims will be to look for amino acids.

Chemical signs of life can be ambiguous, but scientists are hoping that Urey will be able to tell whether any amino acids on Mars were made by living organisms or some other process.

The key is to measure the symmetry, or "chirality" of each amino acid, which can be in either of two mirror-image configurations, labelled L and D.

"Life on Earth is based on chiral molecules, so our underlying assumption is that this is a central feature of biochemistry," says instrument team leader Jeffrey Bada of the University of California, San Diego, US.

'Lab on a chip'

The lesson from Earth is that biology will use only one of the two possible chiral forms. All amino acids in terrestrial life are of the L form, whereas synthetic amino acids come in equal mixtures of L and D.

The instrument will contain a "lab on a chip", where different chemicals will be separated out inside a set of fluid-filled channels by a process called electrophoresis, which takes advantage of the fact that different ions move at different speeds in an electric field.

Urey should be able to distinguish between the two forms of a given amino acid by the way they react with another chiral molecule, g-cyclodextrin.

As well as being lightweight and having low power consumption – both vital for use in a space mission – this technology is sensitive to very small quantities of a given chemical.

"We're down to the level of being able to detect a few cells per gram," Bada told New Scientist. That's much more sensitive than the chemical analyser flying on NASA's Phoenix Mars lander, due to touch down on 25 May. That's also a lot more sensitive than the Viking mission of the 1970s, which carried a gas-chromatograph mass spectrometer that could not test for chirality.

Drill down

The ideal outcome, says Bada, would be if Urey finds only D-amino acids. That would be compelling evidence of life, and truly alien life, based on a biochemistry that is a mirror image of our own.

"But if we find L acids, then things get more complicated," says Bada. It could mean that during the emergence of life on Earth and Mars, both happened to choose L acids by chance. "Or it may imply we're related in some way, that microbes from Earth seeded Mars, or vice versa."

Even if life on Mars is extinct, it should have left behind some chemical fossils. ExoMars will carry a drill able to penetrate 2 metres through the soil, beneath the oxidising upper layers where most organic molecules would be quickly destroyed.

Over a few billion years, slow chemical processes should swap the chiral state of some molecules. So if Urey sees mostly D acids with a few L (or mostly L and a few D), then we'll know there was life on Mars, but only long, long ago.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Monday, May 5, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 28 of 28 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #175716 by LeeC on May 5, 2008 at 11:41 pm

Excellent - lots of space posts all of a sudden.

I remember when to like Astronomy you only needed physics - now I'm suppose to understand biology as well. How times are changing.

I'm glad they are looking for life - it would be great to find something, I just hope it is very different to anything found on Earth. I would love to here the fundie explanation of life on Mars. Was God just practicing?

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

2. Comment #175719 by DavidJGrossman on May 5, 2008 at 11:45 pm

Great! Maybe they'll come up with an instrument for sniffing out life on Uranus.

(obligatory?)

- Dave

Other Comments by DavidJGrossman

3. Comment #175720 by LeeC on May 5, 2008 at 11:50 pm

Great! Maybe they'll come up with an instrument for sniffing out life on Uranus.

Oh dear... the old bottom joke.

Dave, lower your head in shame

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

4. Comment #175725 by JamesDB on May 5, 2008 at 11:54 pm

If there is one thing that bugs me about space exploration its the amount of time we have to wait for things to happen. I may be young still but who knows how long it will take before we can travel great distances in space. We need some kind of quick jump into a star trek type of space program so im around to experience it, and if you are wondering no im not a trekky just a space junkie.

Other Comments by JamesDB

5. Comment #175746 by gobbles on May 6, 2008 at 1:00 am

The reason why things in space are happening so slow is because of the lack of interest. I'm by no means saying that space exploration is boring, but a lot of the general public wants one thing and that's life. As soon as that is discovered, whatever form it may be, Nasas budget will go up, and in doing so put pressure on developing new propulsion technology.
If you were desperate for a jump start though, there's always project orion, but although the maths says it will work, the idea of dropping out nuclear bombs behind the ship and riding the explosion never really sat well with most people.

Other Comments by gobbles

6. Comment #175762 by Quetzalcoatl on May 6, 2008 at 2:02 am

LeeC-

I would love to here the fundie explanation of life on Mars. Was God just practicing?

They'd still be around if they hadn't rejected the Martian Jesus as their Lord and Saviour. He was thrown from the top of Olympus Mons for their sins, you know.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

7. Comment #175811 by logicalbasedreality on May 6, 2008 at 5:20 am

Probably what will happen will be a new cult like the Mormons saying that Jesus arrived on mars sometime and converted all the inhabitants to Christianity but they were living poor lives and god removed their atmoshpere.

Other Comments by logicalbasedreality

8. Comment #176144 by Geoff on May 6, 2008 at 5:04 pm

"The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one"...he said.

But still they come.

Other Comments by Geoff

9. Comment #176164 by mesomodel on May 6, 2008 at 5:51 pm

As much as I hate to be a stick in the mud (sand), I don't think they are going to find anything for at least two reasons. First, there is severe ionizing radiation at the surface of Mars. The bombardment will dissociate any long carbon chain molecules. The second is that there is likely very high concentrations of superoxides produced by photochemistry and especially through electrochemistry within dust devils and dust storms. These superoxides (including hydrogen peroxide) eat carbon big time.

The NASA Mars Science Laboratory will launch in 2009, although it may be delayed to 2011 due to engineering issues. Still, it will beat ExoMars to the surface. MSL carries a GCMS that should be able to identify oxidizing chemicals and organic compounds. MSL also carries the Radiation Assessment Detector (RAD), which will measure the ionizing radiation from protons through iron plus neutrons and gammas.

Other Comments by mesomodel

10. Comment #176179 by mesomodel on May 6, 2008 at 7:40 pm

Follow-up to my comment #176164

Just to be clear...
Even though they are drilling, the atmosphere will diffuse downward. Two meters is probably not deep enough to escape this, especially with billions of years to work with. Furthermore, when the layers were first emplaced, they were exposed to oxides and radiation that would have destroyed organics before burial.

Other Comments by mesomodel

11. Comment #176190 by riandouglas on May 6, 2008 at 8:25 pm

Mesomodel, you're saying that given the tools they're using, it's a waste of time to look for life, and given any tools the evidence will probably have been destroyed anyway?
Does that make it a publicity stunt?

Other Comments by riandouglas

12. Comment #176194 by mesomodel on May 6, 2008 at 9:08 pm

riandouglas,

It's not a publicity stunt, but I do think it's a waste of time and money at this point in time. Given the high probability of not finding anything, it's a lot of effort (and money). If we want to go looking for biomarkers on Mars, we still have a lot to learn both about how these signals might be preserved and where they might be preserved. And, even if we think we know where on Mars to look, chances are that we can't actually get there with today's technology. All the landed Mars missions have been heavily constrained by engineering design with limits on slope, rock abundance, and atmospheric and environmental conditions. On top of this, Mars has what is known as "special regions", which are off-limits to exploration due to concerns of forward contamination. These special regions are places that might have liquid water or, in the case of nuclear missions, places with water ice that could be melted by an "off-nominal" landing.

Of course, this is all my opinion. Other scientists may disagree. I think the Mars program has been driven too much by the hype of habitability and not enough by the notion that Mars is a cool place to explore even without the "life" question; it's close to Earth, relatively easy to get to, and can be explored by humans (eventually). There's lot's of non-life science to do on Mars and it's taken a back seat to habitability.

Many scientists have gotten caught up in the Mars habitability hype. This is for good reason. About a decade ago, starting with the Mars Pathfinder/Sojourner rover, the community found it a lot easier to sell Mars on the theme of water and habitability. Prior to this, Mars hadn't received much attention since the Viking era. The controversy over the Mars meteorite with putative microfossils started it all. Since then, selling "life", "water" and "habitability" has become part of the Mars culture. But, what's going to happen when we keep coming up empty after looking for habitable places and biomarkers? Will the public continue to support billion dollar missions that keep returning the answer of "no life here"? I don't think so. And that's a shame, because there is good science to be done on Mars. Eventually, we will want to look for biomarkers. But we won't be able to do this if we blow our goodwill on premature missions with little chance of success. We need to do a lot more precursor science before we start looking for bugs or their droppings. It's a cart before the horse thing.

Examples of things we ought to look at first:
1) Resolve the methane abundance question. Methane should be destroyed rapidly and be at relatively small concentrations (i.e., <10 ppb). But some ground-based obsevations have put the value at >100 ppb. If high concentrations are confirmed, then we ought to find the sources of methane. It could be biogenic (or not).

2) Better understand the penetration depth of high energy radiation, albedo neutrons, and the diffusion depth of oxidizers.

3) Better understand the climate history of Mars. What happened to the liquid water that laid down the sediments at Meridiani Planum discovered by the rover Opportunity?

4) At what rate is Mars losing it's atmosphere (and water in particular)? What does this say about the past climate?

5) How is the water cycle changed with obliquity cycles? Is there evidence for water ice in the tropics from periods of high obliquity.

6) What do the polar layered deposits tell us about past climates?

7) Precursor measurements for eventual human exploration and colonization: radiation, water, other in situ resources, weather.

Other Comments by mesomodel

13. Comment #176423 by AtheistAspy on May 7, 2008 at 9:51 am

It'd be cool to find life, but considering our other problems (e.g., debt, healthcare, Iraq, etc.), public funding for space exploration is a waste of money.

The money could be better spent on medical research or providing health care.

Other Comments by AtheistAspy

14. Comment #176794 by Anomalocaris on May 8, 2008 at 3:24 am

The entire Nasa budget for 2007 represents less than 0.57% of federal spending. That doesn't seem like a waste of money to me.

Other Comments by Anomalocaris

15. Comment #176903 by mesomodel on May 8, 2008 at 10:08 am

Comment #176423 by AtheistAspy

considering our other problems (e.g., debt, healthcare, Iraq, etc.), public funding for space exploration is a waste of money.

I run into this reasoning quite often. It's very true that there are lots of problems. We sure could use the money to fix them. Here's the problem: There will always be problems. At least until we've achieved utopia. So, we can either choose to continue funding fundamental research, including space exploration, or stop it entirely. Forever. And, applying the same logic, we should also stop funding the arts. Paintings, music, sculpture, dance--they don't cure cancer.

The U.S. can either continue to be a leader in the exploration of space, or it can sit back and let China do it. Countries that invest in exploration, even if the benefits are not immediately obvious, have historically done pretty darn well for themselves. Space is the future. It's a small investment for a potentially large return. I won't get into the spin-offs that space exploration and NASA can and do provide, including medical benefits.

Want to save money and put it to good use? End the Iraq war. The cost of the Iraq war is of order $1 trillion dollars plus or minus hundreds of billions. Interest on the debt to fund the war could push this substantially higher. That amount of money could fund NASA for 100 years or more. Or it could be used to fix health care, cure cancer, or end hunger. On the flip side, you could zero the NASA budget and you still won't have enough money to fix health care. The cost of two B1 bombers is equivalent to a single Mars mission. The cost of an aircraft carrier (order $5B) could fund 5-10 Mars missions, not to mention the cost of maintaining and running it. And the Navy doesn't even want them. That is a waste of money.

Other Comments by mesomodel

16. Comment #177353 by AtheistAspy on May 9, 2008 at 1:02 am

Anomalocaris

The entire Nasa budget for 2007 represents less than 0.57% of federal spending. That doesn't seem like a waste of money to me.

Every bit counts. I still don't see how this is not a waste. Even .57% spending could be put to better uses.
mesomodel

I run into this reasoning quite often. It's very true that there are lots of problems. We sure could use the money to fix them. Here's the problem: There will always be problems. At least until we've achieved utopia. So, we can either choose to continue funding fundamental research, including space exploration, or stop it entirely. Forever.

-So keep focusing on the big problems, at least where saving lives is concerned. Also, you could fund research if there is a reasonable expectation that doing so fulfills long-term priorities. I need to see how exactly that's the case with NASA.

And, applying the same logic, we should also stop funding the arts. Paintings, music, sculpture, dance--they don't cure cancer.

Absolutely!!! The arts are even more useless.

The U.S. can either continue to be a leader in the exploration of space, or it can sit back and let China do it.

I don't see a problem with that.
This sentence reminds me of pro-military types who worry that other countries could exceed the U.S. in military might, all because they want us to be the world's police man.
There's no reason why the U.S. always has to be ontop

Countries that invest in exploration, even if the benefits are not immediately obvious, have historically done pretty darn well for themselves. Space is the future. It's a small investment for a potentially large return. I won't get into the spin-offs that space exploration and NASA can and do provide, including medical benefits.

-I need to see some empirical data. It also depends on the kinds of "benefits" being talked about. If it means military technology, for example, then I see little reason to support it.

Want to save money and put it to good use? End the Iraq war. The cost of the Iraq war is of order $1 trillion dollars plus or minus hundreds of billions. Interest on the debt to fund the war could push this substantially higher. That amount of money could fund NASA for 100 years or more. Or it could be used to fix health care, cure cancer, or end hunger. On the flip side, you could zero the NASA budget and you still won't have enough money to fix health care. The cost of two B1 bombers is equivalent to a single Mars mission. The cost of an aircraft carrier (order $5B) could fund 5-10 Mars missions, not to mention the cost of maintaining and running it. And the Navy doesn't even want them. That is a waste of money.

Agreed. But as long as we're over there, we could at least give the troops body armor and support.

Lastly, I question the premise that more technology is necessarily a good thing. Psychological studies show that we are no happier than generations of 50 years ago.
Not saying happiness is all that matters, but it's pretty damned important.

I think that technology and consumer goods get way too hyped where they don't improve our lives (e.g., electric razors, color television, video games, etc.) but ignored where they can (e.g., health care).

Other Comments by AtheistAspy

17. Comment #177402 by Anomalocaris on May 9, 2008 at 3:28 am

The goal of space exploration is not technology, it is knowledge, and in the long run the continued survival of the human race. I don't see how you cannot see the value in that. You're talking about gutting a noble and beneficial endeavor to slightly increase funding for health care while vastly more is being spent to kill other human beings and hold the world hostage with nuclear weapons.

Other Comments by Anomalocaris

18. Comment #177635 by AtheistAspy on May 9, 2008 at 11:57 am

As mesomodel already pointed out, China and other countries could develop the space technology instead. As for survival of the human race, your talking about something on the scale of centuries at least. Minor contributions from the U.S. won't change anything in the long run.

I can't for the life of me see why you bring up military spending. I'm also against the exorbitant amount spent on that gravy train.

You seem to assume that I must be politically conservative just because I oppose spending in space exploration.

Other Comments by AtheistAspy

19. Comment #177648 by Shaden on May 9, 2008 at 12:12 pm

AtheistAspy,

An Astronaut aboard the International Space Station was interviewed by Stephen Colbert last night. That's all the reason I need to continue supporting space exploration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTPMjq_hU2E

Other Comments by Shaden

20. Comment #177659 by mesomodel on May 9, 2008 at 12:41 pm

AtheistAspy,

So keep focusing on the big problems, at least where saving lives is concerned. Also, you could fund research if there is a reasonable expectation that doing so fulfills long-term priorities. I need to see how exactly that's the case with NASA.

Much of our modern society benefits from the basic space technology developed by NASA. Has the investment in NASA in the past been worth it? What about satellites and the all the things supported by that technology? Communications? GPS? Internet? Monitoring of our environment? Weather prediction? Here's some NASA stuff actually saving lives: http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/

I don't have data to support this, but I'm willing to bet that the return on investment with NASA has been a net positive. That is, for every dollar invested, there is in excess of one dollar in benefit generated.

The arts are even more useless.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. I happen to think the arts serve a great purpose. I also like public television. The arts provide enjoyment and they stimulate the mind. Maybe you just haven't been to the proper performances.

You seem to be utilitarian. Can you see the benefit, any at all, in activities and experiences whose only benefit is stimulation of the mind, lightning of the spirit, flexing of the emotions, or instigation of good belly laugh?

I need to see some empirical data. It also depends on the kinds of "benefits" being talked about. If it means military technology, for example, then I see little reason to support it.

I highly recommend "American Theocracy" by Kevin Phillips. He provides mountains of empirical data (overkill actually) that shows how countries have benefited socially and economically (not just militarily) by investment in exploration, and then how overextension in war brought them to ruin. Kind of like the U.S. is doing now. As you might guess from the title, it weaves the concept of religion into the mix. Admittedly, it's a very over-the-top investigation of empires, exploration, economies, social well being, religion and war. But, even if you accept only 25% of it, it still makes my point about the importance of exploration.

But as long as we're over there, we could at least give the troops body armor and support.

No complaint here. If we're going to send our kids over there, we ought to give them the best.

There's no reason why the U.S. always has to be ontop

That's true. The U.S. doesn't have to be on top. But, then you also have to accept the consequences. Do you think it would be good for China to dominate space? I can imagine a few downsides to this.

Lastly, I question the premise that more technology is necessarily a good thing. Psychological studies show that we are no happier than generations of 50 years ago.

Let's think about the reverse experiment. Take away technology and see how happy we are. I'm grateful for the technology we have today. I can think of many instances where I would have been profoundly unhappy if it were not for today's technology. Actually, I'd probably be dead. Multiple times.

The Amish are rather utilitarian. I think they're generally happy. But, the ones that are dead because of their lack of technology can't really complain now can they?

I think that technology and consumer goods get way too hyped where they don't improve our lives (e.g., electric razors, color television, video games, etc.) but ignored where they can (e.g., health care).

I agree with you on some of these. I gave up my electric razor a long time ago. I found a plain razor to do a much better job. But, I do think television has improved our lives. It's the backbone of mass communication. It brings the reality of the world to your doorstep. Refrigeration is another very useful and recent technology. Water filters. Etc.

Other Comments by mesomodel

21. Comment #177780 by Anomalocaris on May 9, 2008 at 5:15 pm

AtheistAspy,

I am in no way under the assumption that you are politically conservative, I was suggesting that military spending is a far better place to cut funding from than space exploration. We both want to increase funding for health care, I just don't want to get that money by eliminating other worthwhile spending.

Far from some nationalistic urge to be "ontop" I believe space exploration can foster international cooperation in a peaceful quest to increase our knowledge of the universe. Note that this article is about international cooperation toward exploring mars.

Other Comments by Anomalocaris

22. Comment #178197 by AtheistAspy on May 10, 2008 at 8:24 pm

mesomodel

You could find technological benefits from virtually, if not any, field of study. The question that really needs answering is, how do the benefits compare to what can be gained from other fields of study?
So yes, space research could (indirectly) support medical research, but there's no telling how much better the benefits could have been had we directly funded medical research instead of directly funding space research.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. I happen to think the arts serve a great purpose. I also like public television. The arts provide enjoyment and they stimulate the mind. Maybe you just haven't been to the proper performances.

You can find great art without government funding. You just need to know where to look.
Also, "great" is subjective. What public art you consider to be "great" might be considered trash by someone else.

You seem to be utilitarian.

I place a high value on happiness, though some other things also have value (e.g., truth, freedom, social relationships, etc.)

Can you see the benefit, any at all, in activities and experiences whose only benefit is stimulation of the mind, lightning of the spirit, flexing of the emotions, or instigation of good belly laugh?

Of course, I just don't think any of those things require government funding.

I still need to know what specific benefits are being talked about.

Like what downsides?

Let's think about the reverse experiment. Take away technology and see how happy we are. I'm grateful for the technology we have today. I can think of many instances where I would have been profoundly unhappy if it were not for today's technology. Actually, I'd probably be dead. Multiple times.

I never argued we should take away technology. In fact, I specifically argued in support of more medical technology.
Arguing that more technology isn't necessarily better is not the same as arguing that we should get rid of all the technology we do have.

The Amish are rather utilitarian. I think they're generally happy. But, the ones that are dead because of their lack of technology can't really complain now can they?

Wrong. Living does bring more happiness just as a longer-lasting life of pain would bring more pain.
Also, I never claimed that happiness was all that mattered, just that it was one of the most important things.

I agree with you on some of these. I gave up my electric razor a long time ago. I found a plain razor to do a much better job. But, I do think television has improved our lives. It's the backbone of mass communication. It brings the reality of the world to your doorstep. Refrigeration is another very useful and recent technology. Water filters. Etc.

I never claimed that we could do without television, just that color television isn't necessary. Also, I don't see how color television is any better at informing us than a black-and-white one.

I honestly don't know why you bring up refrigeration and water filters. I specifically favored technology that improves our health.

I'm not against technology per se; I just think some types of technology deserve more emphasis than others and that some we can do without.

Other Comments by AtheistAspy

23. Comment #178198 by AtheistAspy on May 10, 2008 at 8:38 pm

Anomalocaris,

I am in no way under the assumption that you are politically conservative, I was suggesting that military spending is a far better place to cut funding from than space exploration. We both want to increase funding for health care, I just don't want to get that money by eliminating other worthwhile spending.

Far from some nationalistic urge to be "ontop" I believe space exploration can foster international cooperation in a peaceful quest to increase our knowledge of the universe. Note that this article is about international cooperation toward exploring mars.

-I'd cut money from Iraq and the space program.
-I don't think the space program is worthwhile spending.
-Why not let other countries pursue the knowledge?
-If the space program is about cooperation with other countries, then why should the U.S. overcome China in space exploration?
-I don't expect us to learn anything especially interesting by focusing on Mars anyway, much less anything of practical value. If we found life, I'd support more research, but I don't see that happening anytime soon, especially on Mars.

I don't think we have the technology to find whatever life exists, not a worthwhile chance anyways. We ought to at least wait for countries that care enough to develop the technology. Even then, Europa would probably be a better place to look for life than Mars.

Other Comments by AtheistAspy

24. Comment #178224 by Anomalocaris on May 11, 2008 at 12:24 am

AtheistAspy,

-If we were to end the Iraq war, cut back military spending, and end the bush giveaways to the richest Americans we would likely have more than enough money to provide true universal health care and dramatically increase medical research funding.

-I never said that the US had to maintain its dominance in space however if we were to step back and let china take over that would mean an almost 50 year setback in human space exploration. Also while I could be wrong it seems that china is more interested in the militarization of space than it is in science.

-Your expectations of what we might find are irrelevant the fact is we haven't looked yet, and if we look carefully and find that there is not and never has been life on mars that too is a worthwhile discovery. Mars is another planet with its own unique climate and geology studying mars can teach us a great deal about planets in general and even help us understand earth better.

-Your statement that we don't have enough technology so we shouldn't even try is ridiculous. you don't develop the needed technologies by sitting on your ass doing nothing. Maybe the survival of the human race won't depend on space exploration for centuries but its in its extreme infancy now. If we're to be ready when we actually need it we must start now.

-Europa is very interesting and could potentially harbor life. However it is much further away than mars, too far from the sun for solar panels to be an effective source of power, and it presents a whole new set of problems. don't get me wrong I think we should explore there as well, but without a dramatic increase in funding, for the short term mars is a more realistic goal.

-you say that we ought to wait for countries that care enough to develop the technology, but many many people in this country care a great deal. Just because you don't care doesn't mean that others are going to be satisfied with ignoring the future.

Other Comments by Anomalocaris

25. Comment #178232 by AtheistAspy on May 11, 2008 at 1:18 am

If we were to end the Iraq war, cut back military spending, and end the bush giveaways to the richest Americans we would likely have more than enough money to provide true universal health care and dramatically increase medical research funding.

-I don't know why you keeping harping on about what other areas of spending we can reduce. I'd agree but also like to see space programs cut.
-It's a non-sequitor, really. That we waste money in other areas does not make the space program any less of a waste.

I never said that the US had to maintain its dominance in space however if we were to step back and let china take over that would mean an almost 50 year setback in human space exploration. Also while I could be wrong it seems that china is more interested in the militarization of space than it is in science.

-You need back up your claim that it would a 50 year set back and demonstrate why that's necessarily a bad thing.
-Even if China wishes to militarize space, I don't see how our involvement will prevent that unless we militarize things ourselves, by which point we would be the world's policeman.

Your expectations of what we might find are irrelevant the fact is we haven't looked yet, and if we look carefully and find that there is not and never has been life on mars that too is a worthwhile discovery. Mars is another planet with its own unique climate and geology studying mars can teach us a great deal about planets in general and even help us understand earth better.

-Wrong. We have looked, repeatedly. Even if life is there, the odds of us finding it don't look very good. Mars is a barren wasteland. So far we have nothing. Europa is currently thought to have liquid water under its surface. What better place to look for life than one that already has water and is not light years away?

Your statement that we don't have enough technology so we shouldn't even try is ridiculous. you don't develop the needed technologies by sitting on your ass doing nothing.

-You're totally missing the point. I don't want us to develop the technology. I want to wait until other countries have developed it. Other countries are clearly interested in space travel. Let them make the discoveries.
-Why blow billions of dollars sending space craft to a barren desert in a futile search for extinct life, when we can wait 50 years to have much cheaper craft that could find an entire ecosystem on a watery world, totally different from our own? That the U.S. is not the one making the discoveries should not be a problem if the primary concern is simply the pursuit of knowledge.

Maybe the survival of the human race won't depend on space exploration for centuries but its in its extreme infancy now. If we're to be ready when we actually need it we must start now.

-Again, other countries are already interested in space travel. Let them deal with it.
-How would you even move millions, if not billions, of people into space? Where would they even go? What would provoke such a mass migration?
-If such a disaster occurred in the short-term, we'd be screwed anyways. No amount of research is going to improve space travel that much that quickly.
-If the disaster occurred far into the future, it would probably be so far into the future that any contribution from the U.S. would be miniscule.
-The best remedy is to prevent or mitigate such disasters (e.g., global warming) in the first place rather than focusing on far fetched plans to evacuate the earth.
-If you wish to preserve the human race indefinitely, then your wish is unrealistic. We're long overdue for the destructive asteroid impact that killed off the dinosaurs; and the sun will eventually engulf the earth.

Europa is very interesting and could potentially harbor life. However it is much further away than mars, too far from the sun for solar panels to be an effective source of power, and it presents a whole new set of problems. don't get me wrong I think we should explore there as well, but without a dramatic increase in funding, for the short term mars is a more realistic goal.

-There shouldn't be a dramatic increase in funding, nor should we bother with Mars, and of course Europa is hard to get to. That's exactly why we should wait until the technology exists. Why spend many billions now on our inadequate technology, when we can use cheaper, more advanced technology in the future to explore Europa for life?

you say that we ought to wait for countries that care enough to develop the technology, but many many people in this country care a great deal. Just because you don't care doesn't mean that others are going to be satisfied with ignoring the future.

-Actually, people tend to care more about issues that impact their lives personally, for better or worse. You fail to show how the space program does that.
-I want us to address immediate problems that have long-term consequences. How is that ignoring the future?
-You act as if the space program was on par with combating global warming or other immediate concerns for which we need immediate solutions, when the space program at best, could only meet far and away, and largely undefined, problems, even though there's no evidence the U.S. space program would mitigate any problems in the long run.

Other Comments by AtheistAspy

26. Comment #178261 by Anomalocaris on May 11, 2008 at 3:40 am

AtheistAspy,

Why! why! why! would it be a good idea for the richest country in the world, the country with the best technology, and the only country with the know how, the experience, and the infrastructure to support an effective space program to sit back and wait for other countries to develop space technology????

obviously the idea of evacuating earth is retarded, even if you built a space elevator you couldn't move that many people into space even assuming you had somewhere to put them.
what IS reasonable is the establishment of self sufficient colonies on mars, and the moons of the outer solar system. Eventually over the course of hundreds or thousands of years we might even be able to develop interstellar travel and expand beyond the solar system. What I was actually referring to however was the ability to deflect large asteroids and other bodies capable of causing extinction level impact events. I'm surprised you didn't get that considering that you seem to think that human extinction via one of these impacts is inevitable and overdue.

We have not thoroughly examined mars for life we have barely scratched the surface with a handful of robotic probes designed chiefly for other things than looking for life. However even if it is completely lifeless it can teach us many things about geology, and climatology to say nothing of its potential for terraforming and colonization.

It is interesting that you would bring up global warming as much of what we know about the greenhouse effect was discovered by studying Venus and through satellite observations of the earth neither of which would be possible without a space program.

It is possible for the human race to do more than one thing at a time. We can improve health care, protect the environment, increase standards of living, work towards ending our tribalistic infighting, AND expand our knowledge of the universe.

Other Comments by Anomalocaris

27. Comment #178728 by AtheistAspy on May 12, 2008 at 1:05 am

AtheistAspy,

Why! why! why! would it be a good idea for the richest country in the world, the country with the best technology, and the only country with the know how, the experience, and the infrastructure to support an effective space program to sit back and wait for other countries to develop space technology????

As mesomodel pointed out, China and other countries could easily develop the technology instead. Besides, anything involving space colonies would occur on a long term scale. I see no reason to think that U.S. contributions will matter in the long-run, especially if China's economy overtakes us.

obviously the idea of evacuating earth is retarded, even if you built a space elevator you couldn't move that many people into space even assuming you had somewhere to put them.
what IS reasonable is the establishment of self sufficient colonies on mars, and the moons of the outer solar system. Eventually over the course of hundreds or thousands of years we might even be able to develop interstellar travel and expand beyond the solar system. What I was actually referring to however was the ability to deflect large asteroids and other bodies capable of causing extinction level impact events. I'm surprised you didn't get that considering that you seem to think that human extinction via one of these impacts is inevitable and overdue.

-Again this is all long-term and I don't see what difference U.S. contributions will make.
-Again, if any major disasters occurred in the short-term, we'd be screwed anyways. No amount of research dollars could possibly improve the situation no such short notice.
-Again, for anything long-term, I don't expect that U.S. contribtuins will make a neglible difference.
-Furthermore, the U.S. space program's primary focus seems to be, not on deflecting asteroids, but on searching Mars for life.

We have not thoroughly examined mars for life we have barely scratched the surface with a handful of robotic probes designed chiefly for other things than looking for life. However even if it is completely lifeless it can teach us many things about geology, and climatology to say nothing of its potential for terraforming and colonization.

-Again, Mars is a barren desert. Why blow billions now on a barren piece of rock, when we could search water Europa in a few decades with cheaper, more effective technology?
-Again, let other countries learn whatever information Mars has to offer.

It is interesting that you would bring up global warming as much of what we know about the greenhouse effect was discovered by studying Venus and through satellite observations of the earth neither of which would be possible without a space program.

-Again, let other countries make these discoveries for us.

It is possible for the human race to do more than one thing at a time. We can improve health care, protect the environment, increase standards of living, work towards ending our tribalistic infighting, AND expand our knowledge of the universe.

-Of course, just let other countries handle the part dealing with the space program.
-Besides, we'd gain knowledge by focusing on medical and environmental research as well.

Other Comments by AtheistAspy

28. Comment #179287 by Anomalocaris on May 13, 2008 at 3:56 am

AtheistAspy,

to quote from Carl Sagan's wonderful book, The Demon-Haunted World,

Maxwell wasn't thinking of radio, radar, and television when he first scratched out the fundamental equations of electromagnetism; Newton wasn't dreaming of space flight or communications satellites when he first understood the motion of the Moon; Roentgen wasn't contemplating medical diagnosis when he investigated a penetrating radiation so mysterious he called it "X-rays"; Curie wasn't thinking of cancer therapy when she painstakingly extracted minute amounts of radium from tons of pitchblende; Fleming wasn't planning on saving the lives of millions with antibiotics when he noticed a circle free of bacteria around a growth of mold; Watson and Crick weren't imagining the cure of genetic diseases when they puzzled over the X-ray diffractometry of DNA; Rowland and Molina weren't planning to implicate CFCs in ozone depletion when they began studying the role of halogens in stratospheric photochemistry.

It is the ultimate in presumption and arrogance for you to assume that you know which areas of research are worthwhile and which should be ignored. Also, you seem to be afflicted with an extremely pessimistic fatalism with regards to scientific and technological advancement. In the history of science many world changing accomplishments came from the seemingly insignificant work of individuals, yet you seem to think that the long term work of thousands of brilliant scientists, "will make a negligible difference".

You have yet to make a compelling argument for why it would be better for the United States to foist all responsibility for space exploration on other less wealthy and less capable nations. After all if the United States, with its vast wealth were to deem space exploration too costly what makes you think poorer countries would step in to fill that void.

Other Comments by Anomalocaris