121–128 of 128 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please link to any of these 'large structures' otherwise we'll just continue to assume this is being pulled from your ass.
Rather not waste time finding photos which you will just argue is fake or not possible because of your "PhD" accreditation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mars and Earth send surface rocks to each other via meteor impacts that would almost certainly contain live bacteria spores. Life could have started out on Earth or Mars or both, but finding life on Mars won't answer your question on its own. There are even theories that life on Earth was seeding from life from other solar systems, but that is much more unlikely and an in solar system transfer. Check out scholar.goog…
I feel like the assertation that meteor impact ejecta would 'almost certainly' contain live bacteria spores and the implication that those spores would survive vacuum , radiation, heat cycling, and dessication for the very long trip from earth to mars is going to need a big old citation required here. That seems like a stretch.
In the abstract: "The conclusion is that if microbes existed or exist on Mars, viable transfer to Earth is not only possible but also highly probable, due to microbes’ impressive resistance to the dangers of space transfer and to the dense traffic of billions of martian meteorites which have fallen on Earth since the dawn of our planetary system. Earth-to-Mars transfer is also possible but at a much lower frequency."
As soon as the habitation of Mars picks up a little momentum, martians and Mars colonization will be demonized by the media. It will become a political debate that is fueled by the CIA and other entrenched interests. They will paint it as an ethical issue and focus on the immorality of disturbing the native habitat, or something similar to that. Mark my words.
The ethical issues with colonizing/developing Mars were already explored pretty deeply in Red/Blue Mars almost 30 years ago, so readers could mark Kim Stanley Robinson's words instead
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they never developed aggression then they are not eating each other. Animals eat other animals because of the high concentration of nutrients in living things. Eating highly nutritious things allows an organism to develop both physically and mentally. So they either have an abundant source of nutrients that has not been depleted for their entire evolution, or they are not highly developed, or they have developed a…
I agree, but plants are nasty too, just in slow motion. For example some ficus grow over other trees, and later the roots cover the old tree until it dies. They don't eat the other tree, just "reuse" the wood to have an initial high place to get light. I coudn't find a nice link about this, but here are a few photos https://www.flickr.com/photos/rodolfocol/15129590163/in/phot... https://www.alamy.es/brasil-el-pantana…
Include in that the fire-economy of some forest and savannahs + the animals marshalled by these ecosystems and "peaceful" nature stops looking peaceful
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Show us your best evidence. I'm not going to waste my time looking for something you may dismiss as being from an invalid source.
likewise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
we'll have exhausted this planet a thousand years before we'd have the technology to make Mars habitable. It just isn't going to happen for numerous reasons. The biggest are the lower gravity and the very weak magnetosphere.
Mars’ magnetosphere is something we could fix with known tech if we cared to. Expensive, but we could. Lack of water, low atmosphere, they’re a bit further out of our range. Fixing the lower level of sunlight is way out of our current league.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
we'll have exhausted this planet a thousand years before we'd have the technology to make Mars habitable. It just isn't going to happen for numerous reasons. The biggest are the lower gravity and the very weak magnetosphere.
Mars’ magnetosphere is something we could fix with known tech if we cared to. Expensive, but we could. Lack of water, low atmosphere, they’re a bit further out of our range. Fixing the lower level of sunlight is way out of our current league.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems highly unlikely to ever happen unfortunately. Any mission able to land and take off from the surface of Mars for a return trip is likely going to be able to take its own soil samples
A later mission doesn't have to focus resources on scouting sites of potential interest, drilling, testing, analysis and sample storage. It can focus on picking up its cargo and getting back to Earth, which would be an amazing feat by itself.