Chris wrote: "As to you picking on me...go read the above again. I say us. That 'us' includes many scientists and engineers with degrees including many with Ph.D.s and three members of TMS steering committee who also happen to be members of the Phoenix Landed team...one of which is the Principal Investigator of the Lander!!!"

BD replies: I addressed The Mars Society, not you personally. "Dr. Levin and Straat are science advisors to ICAMSR and have actually designed instruments that have been flown to Mars on Mariner 9, Viking 1 and 2 and Mars 96. I see you have no respect for them in spite of those accomplishments, do you? Be careful, Beagle 2 lands this December and you, Mark and KCBuster will all have to pay for your arrogant comments about them if Beagle 2 finds organic molecules. Since Isidis Planitia is considered by NASA to be one of the least likely places on Mars to find organics, if it should find them, would infer that organics are widespread over the planet. At that point, I think a scientific symposium would need to be convened to rethink the Viking LR data.

Chris writes: How do I tell when you mean me and not some monolith conspiracy of your own design? I'm not being arrogant at all over Beagle II and if it survives and reports data that clearly suggests organic compounds in the regolith then I will be happy. As to what that suggest about all of Mars I will let experts decide.

Chris wrote: "If I were you I would seriously think about doing the ICAMSR setup you suggest. But, first you need to ask yourself why this model and what human factors engineering would be worthwhile doing at your ICAMSR analog? Can you sustain at least several years of research and would any of it be valid? Who would use the facility and how would you fund it?"

BD wrote: "The point is this kind of stunt gets no one anywhere, not the Mars Society or ICAMSR. Sure ICAMSR could hold mock MSR canister breaches for publicity, but that's not what we are about. We just want people funding the space program to be sure they know both sides of the planetary protection risks and benefits. The Mars Society presents the scenario that microbes from Mars have been on Earth for millions of years and thus no cautions are needed. ICAMSR shows documents that support being extremely cautious.

Chris writes: That is what you believe because you fail to understand engineering and ergonomics. An aside relating to other post and this one as well..you have no engineering abstracts about the possibility of forward and backward contamination do you, Barry?

Chris wrote: I wouldn't use duct tape or canvas suits even if they cost the least amount, because some fool will mistake this as some sort of foolishness and be picking on you for it even after you stop using them.

BD wrote: So you are saying the Mars Society is not using the canvas and duct tape space suits anymore? What are they using? It really doesn't change things though. Think about it Chris, the researchers doing work in Antarctica for the last 50 years are the best example we have of humans living in a harsh environment and doing scientific research. If I were on the board in the Mars Society I would suggest funding and sending selected scientific members to go to Antarctica. This is where the most Mars like simulations would take place. But like I said, it already has been done for fifty years or more. The people who have worked in Antarctica are the ones demonstrating real research can be done in a harsh environment. Why not glorify their work instead of saying Utah and the Arctic research stations are doing "real Mars Research"? Heck, Chris, I did real Mars research in my back yard this summer with my 10" Meade LX5 telescope. You can pose hypothetical concepts from your home office or living room. You don't need to dramatize research by adding cheap space suits or making structures that could never stand up to the environment on Mars.

Chris writes: A minor nit: duct tape isn't part of the suit it attaches things to the canvas which is the outer garment. No, we still are using the cotton and your right it wouldn't matter if we used million dollar spacesuit as far as you are concerned. You don't get it because you don't want to get it and I'm tired of telling you this. Please go back and reread all my posts concerning Antarctica. Anyway, non of what is being done at Antarctica has any bearing on the engineering questions we are asking, Barry.

Human Factors needs props to simulated the work environment. We could have placed the Habitats in many locations. The roughness of the terrain is important for our work and the geology is important to the scientist we use as crew members. The dry desert areas of Antarctica would be an excellent place to have a HAB. But, we could place one in a parking lot and still do good engineering there. That is the part you don't get. We could also just sit down and have scripts and move thru some of the problems that way and have in fact done stuff like that. But, to understand how a rock hammer is best used by a person who can barely hold on to it is not found by giving them it bare handed without a helmet on and asking them to use it. Some theater is needed and there are lots of engineering question to ask and we have just started. Sure better props would help, but they cost money. Non of what we use it meant to withstand Mars' environment. We don't plan to make fiberglass structure for Mars or use canvas as part of the outer garment on Mars suits. A clue our HABs would be fine on Mars, just not airtight. Which to air breathers is kind of important...8-)

If you published the research from your backyard fine...otherwise what was it for?