From: spamhere@dev.null.retro.com   
      
   "Ool"  writes:   
      
   > "Stanislaw Sidor"  schrieb im Newsbeitrag   
   news:btkpsr$k6i$2@nemesis.news.tpi.pl...   
   >> Newsuser "Manfred Bartz"  wrote ...   
   >   
   >> > Personally I think the Beagle mission had a better and more ambitious   
   >> > science package.  They were going to look for past and present life,   
   >> > not just at a few rocks in search of past water activity.  Oh well,   
   >> > maybe a few missions down the track we'll get serious....  :/   
   >   
   >> Do you think, that SETI is a 'good science'? :)   
   >   
   > Yeah!  All these "Close Encounters" type missions, and in all   
   > this time, when was the last time we had a rover roam the Moon?   
   > That's a place whose resources could actually help us on Earth--   
   > solve our energy problems and all that.   
      
   Nonsense.   
      
   If you are after resources you don't go down another gravity well.   
   You'd be much better off exploiting NEOs, especially the Ni-Fe ones.   
      
   > And it would be the ideal jumping board to the rest of the Solar   
   > System, if we were able to build and launch rockets from up there.   
      
   Nonsense again.   
      
   Assembling inter-planetary ships in free-fall makes a lot more sense   
   than at the bottom of a gravity well.   
      
   > ("Aluminum, silicon, oxygen, low gravity and lots of solar ener-   
   > gy to be had..."  *That's* music to my ears!   
      
   Lets talk about exploiting NEOs then.  I am all for it.   
   Same with solar power satellites.   
   And space based, solar powered antimatter factories.   
      
   > What's the deal with Mars if we haven't even built a base on the   
   > Moon yet?   
      
   What would a base on the Moon achieve?  About the only thing I can   
   think of is to learn how to build a base on Mars.  And as you rightly   
   ask "what's the deal?"  The answer might be "tourism", but probably not   
   much else.   
      
   > Why do I get the feeling space exploration is funded by people who   
   > get their idea of what's important from the head- lines of the   
   > National Enquirer?   
      
   Hmm, maybe space exploration *is* funded by people who get their idea   
   of what's important from the headlines of the National Enquirer?  ;)   
      
   > What's the deal with trying to find life out there?   
      
   Big deal or not, I am not *that* much focused on life on Mars.  My   
   comment reflects more of a resentment that the science package on the   
   current rovers will not produce science commensurate with the expense.   
   All we'll get in the end is another IMAX movie and some more evidence   
   (probably still inconclusive) of past water.  IMHO, that isn't   
   ambitious enough for 800M$.   
      
   > I mean, it still doesn't mean that *we* could live there, and that's   
   > all that counts!   
      
   Humans now have the ability to live nearly anywhere thanks to our   
   technology.  The only thing missing at this stage is the will to do   
   this on a large scale.   
      
   AFAICS, about the only good reason to build bases on the Moon and on   
   Mars would be if it is done with the long term intention of creating   
   self-sufficient human colonies.  And why would we want to do that?   
   -- As a contingency against a doomsday event I suggest.   
      
   --   
   Manfred Bartz   
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------   
   "Earth is the cradle of the mind, but one cannot remain in the cradle   
   forever."            -- Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, Russian space pioneer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)