Hi Erik...




With all due respect, I must tell you that no one's serious "target" was Mars during the space race.
I will concede that most assuredly, both the Soviet Union and the United States had space folks who were contemplating it...but reasonability indicates that no one tries for a manned Mars mission before they've tried the Moon, and learned the lessons inherent in that massive effort.

To do otherwise is virtual suicide.

Now, having said that, it is well known that the paradigm of the Soviet effort was run by the government and the military in a fashion that often saw decisions being made to press forward against the scientist's and engineer's better judgment. The latter party was correct in all cases, and disaster resulted because of that paradigm.

To think someone in the Soviet Union was pressing for a manned Mars mission to upstage the United States, who was openly shooting for the Moon is not outside the realm of possibility, but it's insanity that no scientist of engineer working in the program would deny.

And, as Waspie pointed out, they were indeed engaged in a manned lunar program, in direct competition with us. They couldn't possibly have been intensely attempting a manned Mars mission at the same time.

The fact is, they couldn't build engines like the F-1, and they couldn't cluster a large booster capable of launching a lunar package. They were trying, most certainly, and we knew that. We also knew, in certain circles that they failed and destroyed their potential before the flight of Apollo 11.



Cheaper is not more efficient, unless cheaper can produce the same heavy lift capabilities for the buck.
The Russians don't have the lift capability.

The Proton can lift ~48,500 lbs. into LEO.
The Soyuz FG, ~ 18,000 lbs.
The Shuttle...250,000 lbs.
The Ares 1: will lift 55,000 lbs.
Ares V: ~ 287,000 pounds into LEO, and ~143,000 lbs. to the Moon.

The Angara V Russian vehicle, currently in development is no more than what we would consider a medium lift booster, capable of putting 49,000 lbs. into LEO, and comparable with our current Delta IV and Atlas V rockets, as well as the Ariane 5.

In fact, the Ares 1 will exceed all of them in capability.


Now what is necessary to show the efficiency concerning several aspects.
First, what's the cost per pound into LEO for a PROTON, or instance, relative to a Delta V.


Next, look at the efficiency of a PROTON in terms of payload to LEO:

PROTON: 45,000 lbs to LEO (3% of vehicle launch weight).

And compare that with a Delta IV (a comparable U.S. vehicle):

DELTA IV: 56,000 lbs. to LEO (5-10% of vehicle launch weight, depending on the variant).

Hmmm....looks like the U.S. rocket is more efficient in that respect.

If you look at 1st stage thrust:

The PROTON uses 2,300,000 pounds of thrust to deliver it's 3% vehicle weeight into LEO.
The DELTA IV uses 1,400,000 pounds of thrust to deliver it's 56,000 pounds...

From initial thrust per pound ratios, (PROTON: 51 lbs/lb. payload---DELTA IV 25 lbs./lb. payload) it appears obvious that DELTA V is twice as efficient as the PROTON.

However, you must also determine the cost per pound to get the whole picture...and that's pretty complicated. Unless the Russian cost per pound is half that of the American cost, they've lost that battle.



.

I think a large part of the past 40 years has been a shame vis-a-vis space exploration. However, space tourism is not space exploration, and will have no impact on exploratory efforts in the forseeable future. That is a job best left to the professionals...and it will be.

Indeed. In the step by step approach of the Soviet Union Mars was an eventual goal, just as it is for the USA now, but no serious effort or money was placed into achieving the goal. As I said in my earlier post the Soviet Union planned to do these things one after the other. Mars missions would follow only after space stations and the Moon landings.

In many ways the Russian manned lunar programme was ahuge distraction for them. Up until then they had aimed towards manned space stations. They entered the race to the moon late and half heartedly, returning to their programme of space stations once they gave up on the moon.

The step by step approach, rather than showing that they had serious intentions to land men on Mars, highlights the Soviet short comings in this area. The attempt to go to Mars could be considered only after a successful moon landing, something Russia has not achieved nearly 4 decades after the USA did.

The Russians are currently a long way off of being able to mount a manned landing on the moon (although they could beat the USA into send a human crew back into orbit around the Moon, their Soyuz vehicle was, after all, designed for such a task). If Russia is in no position to beat the USA to the Moon then their is no reason to presume they could beat the USA to Mars.

Of course their will be several elections in both the USA and Russia before either nation is in any position to consider carrying out such a mission. Political will has always been a problem in exploration (even in the days of sailing vessels). In 15 years I could be writing a post explaining how the USA lost the ability to beat Russia to Mars or how the two nations decided to go together.

Its intereting how Robert Zimmerman in one of his books about space stations tell how the russians studied the human body during long times of ingravity for a posible Mars travel.

I think that was just a forced response, you know?

They launched Sputnik, and set the tone. We struggled with Explorer and Vanguard, perceiving ourselves as being behind them (well, it was more than perception...it was a fact), and the race was on, with us chasing the Soviet's tails.

For a time, it was the U.S. responding to the Soviet accomplisments. They're first with a satellite. They're first to orbit a man, and then, before we even do that, we make an offensive move that changes the tenure and forces their hand. We're going to go to the Moon.


They had no choice but to ramp up in that direction, no matter what they actually wanted to do.
Putting a manned outpost on orbit just didn't match up to the outrageous Kennedy's plans of landing on the Moon. Maybe by 1969 they might have been able to place a rudimentary, albeit workable and marvelous three man orbital outpost on orbit, and men might be on board for a month or two at a time.

Then the Americans land a man on the Moon. Which makes a bigger political splash?


I think you're absolutely correct.

Not a big surprise...

One of the reason for long term EO missions is in fact to study those effects for a possible Mars mission in the future.
Learning about the most critical component of any manned mission...man, and how it behaves and changes after lengthy exposures to zero g is the most important reason for long term orbital flight...with an eye to the future.

I think that was the perception. However I don't think it is entirely true to say that he USA was responding to the USSR. After all the US was already planning to send a satellite into orbit during the International Geophysical Year before the rest of the world had even heard of the word Sputnik. Project Mercury was already under way before Gagarin was launched. It may have seemed that the US was responding to the USSR but it was, in my opinion, not really doing so.

In this respect the secrecy of the Soviet Space programme gave them an advantage. The US was open in what it was doing, the Soviet Union could adjust their programmes accordingly. The Soviet Union on the other hand kept secret what they were doing until it succeeded or simply denied they had ever tried if they failed.

That's very true...and from the scientific standpoint, I'd agree. We were just trying to do it!
But from a nationalistic and political standpoint, the government was responding to Soviet accomplishments...there was a pressure there to prove we were as good as they were, and we ramped it up accordingly...without of course unduly sacrificing safety for success, and while allowing the experts in the field to do the job.





Oh it sure did give them the advantage!
We stuck our pink hineys on the line in full view of the world. They hid until they succeeded.


Your points, as always, are well taken!

There were a lot of good information from the U.s and Russian missions in both camps of long term stays. I remember reading Jerry Litengeners? Last name ? but when he was on MIR and it caught fire,Wow great read that was in his book every detail and the russians were really not too happy about what went on. They all learned how dangerous space is. A Mars trip is a big step we need to take baby steps as we learn. I bet there are hundreds of long druation mission stories that would scare the be-jesus outta us?

Lineger.


It was not a huge fire, it was an oxygen generating candle that caught fire. Still dangerous though, the smoke inhalation could have caused problems.



Lineger highlights another problem with long duration missions. He did not integrate very well with the Russian crew members. It led to problems for Michale Foale on the next NASA mission to Mir. It meant that Foale really had to fight to get his view point across when he had ideas that helped save the Mir station after the collision with Progress M34.

The psychological aspects of small crews in confined spaces on long duration missions are something that Russia has far more experience of than NASA and an area where NASA has had to learn a lot. A crew that fails to get on during a mission to Mars could be a huge problem.

And THAT is a major area of research when considering long term missions to the planets....it's not one considered too much by the average person, but it is all important...

Sun the probe hits the dirt All in good shape I hope I wonder if I`ll be around when we get to walk on that planet?Good Luck Mars probe!

I assume you are talking about Phoenix Mars Lander. I'm afraid it will not be around then. Because it is landing in the Martian "Arctic" it will be crushed by ice when winter comes.

really? the ice builds up that much? I see in some pics of the polar areas the ice and then the melts but never knew it was of that depth. We really need to go there ! Gotta be microbes of life there IMO.

Space probes are, by necessity, built to be as light as possible. That means it won't take a huge build up of ice to destroy Phoenix. There was no point in building Phoenix strong enough to survive the ice. Just as on Earth, the Martian polar regions have periods during winter when the sun does not rise. As Phoenix is solar powered it will die before it is encased in ice.


Opinions count for little, it's facts that matter. Hopefully Phoenix will provide us with a few more.

I never understand wht people say "gotta be" when talking about life on Mars. There is no got to be about it. We have no idea what the chances are for life on Mars except to say that it is more probable there than most other places in the Solar System. We simply do not know enough to make more than a crude guess as to whether life started on Mars and if so whether it still lives today.

I hope we find it their but I have no belief one way or the other as to whether we actually will.

waspie the belief of gottabe is wide spread in America.Like We gottabe smarter voteing for our next pres,and we gottbe positive in all our endevours through out the universe of all our explorations. Not lets wait and see ifthis or that is possible. But beleive in what we look for.Then if and when we find or invent whatever that may be We gottabe a people that shares all that information.IMO

Yes but in this case it is wrong. There is no gottabe about life on Mars, there is maybe.

The other things you talk about are things you have some control over, life on Mars isn't. It doesn't matter how much you want there to be, or believe there to be life on Mars it will have no effect at all on whether there actually is. There is plenty of evidence that conditions were probably once conducive to life, but since we have no idea how easily life emerges we have no idea what the actual chances of life on Mars are. We have only one example of a planet with life on it and it is impossible to extrapolate from one result. Does life exist every where that conditions are good, or 50%? Maybe it's 1% or 1 in a million? Until we have more examples we simply do not and can not know this. This is what I meant by "I never understand why people say "gotta be" when talking about life on Mars."

Keep us abreast of the landing waspie I watch nasa till my eyes pop out and then grab a sleep or two.I thinks the Universtiy of Dallas Science guys are watching here so we should get something by mid afternoon Sunday. I think thats when some responce hits our area.Wish em-good luck,sounds like a fifty fifty chance it wont smack into the surface wit a Bang? See you DONTEATUS

Maybe, like the mythological phoenix, it will come back to life after the Martian winter.

If all goes well, data feeds should be coming through by around 7:30pm Dallas time today.
Coverage starts at about 5:30pm on NASA TV...so you can keep yer eye on it live!

There is no hope of this, it can not survive the cold of the Martian Polar winter and the build up of ice that will occur. This was always planned to be a short mission.

Anyway, before this thread gets too off topic from the subject of a manned mission to Mars, it might be better to post comments about Phoenix in this thread started by Alex01.

This is a good start to a manned mission to Mars,if something new is found i.e. microbes ect goodies we may just see it in our best plans to put some more funding into NASA! PRINT MORE MONEY PLEASE.

We may, but a even then a manned mission to Mars is still decades away. As has already been pointed out there is a vast amount to learn before we can go that will take time regardless of how many zillion dollars you throw at it. In fact NASA has recently changed its priorities. It is going to focus less of its future unmanned missions on Mars and more on the outer solar system. The problem is that there is a vast amount in the solar system for us to explore and only a finite budget to do it with. You can not please all of the people all of the time.

IMO we could with out any problem in this country stop the outrageous spending we have been told we need to send to forgein wars and loose great mankind in the process too, by just rethinking the problem . A new pres,would be a great start.One that puts or future and lifes at the top of the list of things to Do! Space as here on earth is our future.Pull out that wallet Uncle Sam!

When you say "this country" remember this is an international site, not an American one (Saru is Scottish). Secondly let's not go to far down the political road. It tends to get messy and is likely to take the thread well off topic.

So, attempting not to bring too much politics in to this, I too would like to see the world spend more on space exploration. I would also like to see it spend more on a cure for cancer, AIDS, malaria, etc, solving world hunger and poverty, particle physics, astronomy... this list is endless.

Spaceflight will always have a small portion of the budgetary pie. It will never have enough to satisfy the space buffs like me.

We are totally alinged in this train of thought. Now with the whole world helping out.there should be no worries !

There will always be worries and problems. Going to Mars will be one of the most amazing adventures mankind has had since he first threw himself at the mercy of the oceans in primitive boats. It will be vastly difficult and vastly expensive, much more so than even Apollo. It will also carry far more risks. There is every chance that lives will be lost in this endeavour.

There will be huge public out cry that it is not worth the cost or the risk. Space exploration always brings the calls that the money can be better spent elsewhere.

Despite this I think it is worth the attempt. I believe that mankind is destined to become a truly space-faring species. I think that we are on the verge of an evolutionary step equal with that of the first fish that ventured on to dry land. It will take us first to the planets and then to the stars. All that is holding us back is the will power. Once the will power is there the money will follow.

This is it with all the money people, don't they realise the vast natural resources that could be gained by such a venture? Once we've conquered travelling to Mars, the next step is the Asteroid Belt. We already know that the metals and such forth that are available in the Asteroid Belt could sustain our race for millenia, and without destroying our own planet 'or' Mars in the process. Everyone goes on about all the global warming and how we've mined this planet dry, landing men on Mars could be the best solution to that problem. Personally, I believe that the men who are willing to take the risks with their money and help to fund a manned mission will reap the rewards. Then again, I don't have that kind of money, so what do I know.

I also like to think that this will be a great venture that, not only will prove the viability of space exploration, but just might give the people of this planet hope that all our petty differences might one day be put aside. If the example set by the ISS can be carried on, if those who were once enemies can join forces to land men on an entirely different planet together, then surely that can only be good for the rest of the world.

Or am I just full of romantisised notions tonight?

Competition get things done. It is unlikely we would have ha a manned landing on the moon, even by today, were it not for the US/Soviet space race. A future mission to Mars is most likely to be successful from the result of either individual nations, or small groups of nations competing for the objective. While I fervently we do not return to any Cold War status, a friendly competition, based on national pride (status, technical prowess, bragging rights) where the science is still available for all (and the mission done in the "name of all mankind") would probably work.

I just don't see any truly international or UN project working. There have been numerous turf wars, international snits, funding shortfalls, and contract non-compliance with the ISS. It has probably generated more ill-will between the various national aerospace organizations than good. A Mars mission would have even more problems.

Private enterprise will only be interested in Mars if some way of making moey is discovered. If that happens, though, it will likely become the primary force for Mars projects.

Basing projections on current booster technology is irrelevant. No-one today has booster that can do the job. The question is who will be able to create the gigantic boosters, or assemble large structures in orbit, necessary to do the job.

We also need to be looking seriously at new and not-so new technologies. Nuclear-thermal, nuclear-ion, solar-ion, and other drives have been built and tested (some are decades old). Yet, all serious proposals I have seen use only liquid fuel rockets. Why?

Likely as not, a manned mission on Mars will have to make some use of local resources. Water ice (for oxygen and hydrogen), and well as possible chemical plants to generate fuel or reaction mass. Recycling will probably not just involve oxygen and water, but also probably microbial farming (every kilogram to mars is a fortune).

That's a good question!

The answer is because of regulations which prohibit nuclear power usage in space for propulsion purposes. We've got plenty of good designs and systems which could provide adequate power for spacecraft propulsion and power generation, but the fact is that the same movement which, for the past 3+ decades in the United States has stimied nuclear electrical energy generation, dis-allowed the building of a single gasoline refinery, prohibited reasonable drilling for crude oil, and thus insured dependence upon foreign oil resources, caused the prices we now pay for gasoline, and suppressed adequate research into alternative energy sources for the future, are at the root of the similar regulations that don't allow a nuclear powered spacecraft...

Im with you Mid its all about the Human shortfall called Greed! Bottom line idea of the world. We have to grow up and start looking thru Rose colored glasses. And think alot outside the box. The sooned we change our greed based world ,the better.We have the minds and ways to explore anywhere and anytime, Its all up to us ,get out and be heard people.Vote is a good start change is good! PO.S How about those Mars exploriers? Way to go guys and girls! Great landing.

There is a certain degree of greed involved in the regulatory nonsense we have to put up with, although I prefer to look at it as lust for power...one needs to look deeply at what's really going on to see it.

It's kind of funny, but far left environmentalism is exactly contrary to what must be done in order to fix the problems we see. These current regulations talk all about clean alternative sources of energy for the future, yet they also prohibit safe, clean nuclear power, and the thinking extends all the way to spacecraft powerplants...which is amazingly short sighted to say the least.

Our energy companies have the means to develop these alternatives, in concert with our automakers and other industry experts. But they won't be able to adequately invest in the research and time and money necessary until we attain independence of foreign crude oil. Their costs must decrease, so their investments can happen. Yet, certain Federally inclined politicians want to tax the bejesus out the "profits" they're now making...on top of their already exhortbitant corporate taxes and restrictive and costly regulations. They want to tax the 8 cents a gallon profit they make, whilke they already make 130% more per gallon off of us now...for no effort at all!

And of course, we can't develop adequate nuclear power, nor use it for spacecraft propulsion...

This all sounds like a political diatribe, but when you think about it, politics is an essential ingredient, and an inhibitor to American success, both in energy, and in spaceflight...




Yea, it sure was...magnificent piece of work by the good folks out at JPL.

men would be first on mars as the women would be sensible enough to stay on earth. unless mars was habitable and safer to live on than earth then it would be the other way around.

Really. You do know that there are an increasing number of women joining the corps of astronauts don't you? You do realise that in October last year we had the shuttle and the ISS docked and both were commanded by women?

I would lay money on the fact that there will be women on the Moon within 20 years and on Mars on one of, if not THE, first mission.

Removing sexism from Earth.. now there is a challenge.

Hey Doc...

I think there's an Astronaut Office down in Houston today which would have a line at the boss's door consisting of just about everyone in the corps if a mission to Mars was offered on a volunteer basis.

It won't be, of course, but you can be absolutely guaranteed that women would be in that line, just as they will be in consideration for the mission(s) when they actually come to pass.

It's not that women are sensible enough to stay on Earth. The fact is they're fully qualified and driven enough to go!

...It is precisely because they're sensible, talented, educated in extremis, and qualified beyond measure that they would want to go!

There are some immensely talented and super-smart women in the astronaut corps...in fact, they all are, and I'd personally be proud (and excited) to fly with any of them. In fact, I'd absolutely love to fly with Pam Melroy or Eileen Collins. There's little doubt they'd teach me a whole lot about airplanes I never knew.

Women will fly to Mars...and the Moon.

it was just a bit of a joke.

OK...I was hoping it was!

If you want to see a "Manned Mars Mission" go to the movies. Total nonsense, and a total waste of REAL money and resources just to indulge the parasitic "Trekkies" that pass as scientists at NASA and are LAUGHING at you an me for being idiotic enough to put up with supplying the public funding of their pointless "final frontier" fantasies......

Brilliant.

Wondrously inept...

Tell me:

What's pointless about manned space exploration?
Really, give it a try!

(it'll be fun...after all, you wouldn't even be sitting at the computer you used to type this tripe if not for space exploration--I'm just looking for a fresh, unique way of explaining how space exploration is a waste of money, or a "final frontier fantasy..! Maybe you've got something that doesn't resemble the mindless blurb we've heard before?)

Further (and associated to be sure), what would you have NASA do...or perhaps better said; what would you do with the pittance that NASA receives to perform their miraculous endeavors with (you know, that 3/10% of the Federal budget that NASA gets for space exploration...the 6 cents per day that each person in America pays for space exploration?...6 cents out of the $25.00 / day the average American pays the federal government to cover their expenses... )?

What would you do with that 6 cents???

Here! Here! Mid`s right on the ole Soap box Hat`s off to him! Im getting first in line to vote the american way with him! We as a great and still powerful country should all drop nasa a few hundred dollars in the mail today! 6cents is shameful! NASA is directly responsible for almost everything we use today ,i.e medical,materails,weather,comucations,the list is in the thousands of new break through`s each year. Thats smart money in anyones book.Get a life Get into NASA, off the soap box for nowDONTEATUS See you Mid! great post.

Thank you, Pal.

MID, what exactly are these regulations that prohibit that the use of nuclear power for propulsion purposes? Also what was the justification behind these regulations? I personally always thought that nuclear power would be a simple and obvious solution for spacrecraft propulsion for the short-term.

I'm not sure how simple nulear power would be for propulsion purposes, but it is something that was seriously considered, and essentially shelved a couple decades ago.

The operative term is propulsion. We use small nuclear power generators on many spacecraft today, to supply electrical power for systems on a long term basis. We even carried small nuclear generators on Apollo lunar missions to power ALSEP stations. Nothing prohibits that use.

The problem with propulsion stems from the fact that a nuclear rocket engine, based upon initial designs, involved pulses...series of detonations of nuclear material in order to provide thrust--now, in what I always considered gross and silly misinterpretations of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the Outer Space Treaty, these things are considered by some, environmentalists, diplomats, etc., nuclear bombs of a sort, thus , weapons of mass destruction, and are thusly considered prohibited, despite the fact that their concept is propulsion, not destruction.

I've heard plenty of people say things like, "What if one of these nuclear rockets fails, or explodes in Earth orbit, or re-enters the atmsphere? It would be a humanitarian disaster!"

It's uninformed, and frankly silly stuff, but that's the way it's seen by some.

I think we'll stick with hydrogen-oxygen engines to get into space, but nuclear propulsion systems seem to me to be the key to long term space flight in the future. The mass requirements are lower, fuel requirements lower, etc., etc...

But for now, as far as nuclear rocket engines are concerned, scientists and engineers have their hands somewhat tied.

That makes a lot of sense, thanks MID. I remember that the Cassini mission to Saturn was almost scrubbed at the lat minute, because of the reactor on the probe (as if their concerns could have not been voiced during the planning stage, before sinking all of the funding into the vehicle ). These kinds of obstructions may be well-intended, but as you point out, can have long-term and serious consequences, that usually don't get a serious discussion.

As to nuclear rockets, there are different types. The nuclear-detonation propulsion engine sounds like Project Orion (whereupon nuclear blasts are absorbed by a pusher-place and move the vehicle). There are also nuclear-thermal engines like Nirva (which have been successfully ground tested) where a gas is heated in a nuclear reactor and expelled. Nuclear-ion would involve a nuclear reactor 9rather than a solar panel) energizing a non-radioactive ion-exhaust (such as chemically inert Xenon) to very high speeds. Nuclear-ion is likely more powerful than solar-ion (test-flighted by Deep Space One) and could operate in the outer solar system (where the sun is weak).

I seen to remember hearing about some sort of international or UN treaty banning private use of space and governments from claiming any areas thereof, or some such. Does anyone have the relevant regulations handy?

Arch...

It's now referred to as the Outer Space Treaty, which was signed by several nations, including the U.S. in 1967, and which now has almost 100 signors on board.

You might find it referred to as the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.

Thanks, MID. It seems the treaty is mostly concerned with the militarization of space. It doesn't seem to expressly exclude private development (although I can see how it can be stretched to do so).

Good point Mid and Archosaur, We need rules and reg`s Because the" Space Lawyer`s" will all want a peice of the action.And if man is involved in any outter space exploration past our own hood.Well Its all going to be a real mess .We have to grow up on earth first ,we cant even decide how to do most of our next actions here from day to day.IMO

That's the point Arch...

It's been somewhat stretched!

So ? Mid whats your opinion on the development of mars? Is it ours to mess with like we think earth is,LoL we purty much have made a mess of this planet already. But as far as future human kind transforming mars to our likeing? Whats the implications of us going any where in the Cosmos and starting our little bussiness. And If we can do it why cant others be allowed to do it? Still waiting for the others by the way. LoL but It could happen.

Hmmm...my opinion on Mars and it's "development", eh?

Well...


My opinion is this:

We do not own Mars, or any other heavenly body.
We should not do what we wish with Mars, if anyone else is there (by anyone else I mean indigenous Martian life forms).

As pertains to terraforming Mars...it's a GO as far as I'm concerned (as an idea that might be considered in the far future), so long as we determine it's a dead world. If we find life there, NO GO. We don't mess with it.


But I wonder...beyond the theoretically plausible idea of being able, over the course of centuries...perhaps many, to terraform Mars...what is the point? We've got much better things to do with our space dollars.

To support human life in the future...like air conditioning a planet or something? A nice idea, I suppose.

The only reasonable justification (perhaps...sometime in the far future) for such a project I could see is this:


If we discover life forms on Mars, and can determine, beyond any uncertainty, that these life forms are Earthlike in biology, and that their environment will be fatal to them in the long term, and that a more stable oxygen rich atmospheric condition and temperature realm might be conducive to their flourishment (as well as make it easier for us to move around on its surface without so much cumbersome life-sustaining gear...a secondary thought, mind you) well then, we might do it...maybe (but have no illusions that there wouldn't be vehemnent arguments among scientists concerning such a proposal...!).

But I'm more inclined to leave things as they are, if life is present. It's there for a reason, and we have no right to mess with it, for sometimes the best laid plans or the grandest intentions often backfire in one's face...


Besides, we've got literally generations of Martian study to do before we become even semi-adept at Martian geology, meteorology and geologic and perhaps even biological history. The idea, fanciful as it sounds, that one day, the Martians might be us is (God bless you, Carl...) is one that none of us on this planet at this time, nor in the next several generations have a right to contemplate seriously.

We haven't passed Mars 101 yet. That's a long way off. Terraforming...that's planetary engineering, and it may be playing God, which is something that I think the serious scientific community will be less than wont to engage in now, nor in the foreseeable future.

Thank you for that reply,I feel the same way on all counts.ITs easy to say we can do anything we want being how advanced we are here.LoL but In reality we cant even deal with our simple enegry problems here on this paradise planet we are quickly destroying. Like oil for christ sake! Its should be called the Greed Seed! we keep screwing up everything we do on this rock.All for Greed and Power games.Not to mention inabilty to manage the population and eveloution of this so called Advanced race we call ourselfs. Thanks again Mid.