Hedgehog

OK, we've sent several probes and landers to Mars in recent years. We're looking to find out if Mars once had liquid water and possibly harbored life.

My question is, why do we care? Will these answers help us in any way?

Aren't we wasting time and money, when we should be sending tanks full of anaerobic bacteria and genetically-modified algae to produce an oxygen atmosphere on Mars? Wouldn't NASA be better off actually producing some tangible results rather than just spending money on reconnaisance?

__________________
Wait a minute! Where am I, and why am I in this handbasket?

KnifeMissile

You know, there are those that would consider reconnaissance "producing tangible results". In fact, the last mars mission was criticised for not bringing back enough reconnaissance. It was merely an excercise in new landing technologies. We proved that rovers like Spirit and Opportunity can work.

It all depends on what you consider to be worth time and money. The only thing your mission to send bacteria and algae will accomplish is tainting our investigation of the planet. The truth is that the technology to terraform is so far away it's not funny. Here's the first problem. Mars has a very thin atmosphere--about 1/20'th of that on Earth. So, even if we were to make the air more like Earth's in composition, we'd still need to add more air for it to be useful. Plus, the gravity on Mars is only half that of Earth's, so we'd actually need even more than what I was just suggesting. This is when conservation of mass works against us. Where the hell are we going to get this stuff? We can't use the air on Earth 'cause... well, we're using it!

So, we're back to asking the question, "How will these answers help us?" I think we do these things for the same reason we study astronomy and comsmology. I think it's also the reason a lot of people practice religion. We all have a driving need to answer questions about the universe that we live in. The question we hope to answer, here, is whether life had existed on Mars. If it did, what was that life like? Is it anything like life here? Did we come from Mars? Did life there come from here? If life existed on Mars then, perhaps, it exists on another planet, too. Perhaps outside our solour system?

Perhaps the answers to these questions will put to rest all the fighting over inane religious dogma. Think of the lives that will be saved, then. Would you consider that "helping us?" Is that worth the time and money?

losthellhound

Sending anything to Mars before first trips like this would be most likely devestating.

Mars is the hardest planet to land on, and we didnt know as much about the atmosphere, geology etc. until these probes.

Also, any mission requires something to work with. Finding the presence of past water means that the planet is suitable for water. If it is not, any biological tampering we try to do would get wiped out (size, light, geology, orbit, stability)..

For our huge human egos, we dont know much about Mars

__________________
"Life is possible only with illusions. And so, the question for the science of mental health must become an absolutely new and revolutionary one, yet one that reflects the essence of the human condition: On what level of illusion does one live?"
-- Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death

balderdash111

Scientifically, we aren't even close to being able to genetically engineer an organism that could survive the cosmic radiation, temperature extremes and other problems with living on the surface of mars.

Also, we need to do these recon missions in order to figure out (a) what nutrients there are on Mars (that bacteria ain't just gonna eat whatever they land on) and (b) whether there is water to be had (life as we know it cannot survive without water)

VF19

Since water is made of hydrogen and oxygen (correct me if im wrong), then couldn't we just melt (or somehow separate the hydro and oxy) the polar ice caps and/or the underground water (if there is any) to make oxygen?

If we could do that all we would really need is an ozone layer

ChickenNinja

I beg to differ. I believe Uranus would be much more difficult.

__________________
Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.

iamnormal

I bet Uranus has had many deep space probes.

stingc

Mars is being explored because its interesting. That's it. Science is about learning for the sake of learning.

Colonization is not remotely practical or even relevant at the moment.

teph

It's not that simple. Mars' ice caps aren't water ice; they're carbon dioxide, so that would not make for a suitable water source. To add to this, the polar caps are constantly shifting as Mars goes through "seasons", if that's what you want to call them. Finally, if you managed to thaw them, they'd probably just refreeze, seeing as how they're always moving from one end to the other anyway.

Just a note: it's been a few years since I've taken an astronomy course, so feel free to correct me at any time.

losthellhound

sorry, I meant the hardest that we've tried to land on..

And actually Jupiter WOULD be the hardest. We cant make anything that wouldnt be cfushed on landing

__________________
"Life is possible only with illusions. And so, the question for the science of mental health must become an absolutely new and revolutionary one, yet one that reflects the essence of the human condition: On what level of illusion does one live?"
-- Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death