ME:<<Your speculation on life in comets is at odds with the scientific consensus.

Your idea that comets contain detectable levels of planetary material also sounds ludicrous.

How would you plan to determine that tiny fractions of comets contained elements from planets rather than blow-off from dying stars?>>

You know, that's a really good question, and there's probably a whole lot of folks that could probably answer it a whoooole lot better than I can. But what the hey, y'all could use another easy target.

Okay, let's work this through. Right, how is the heavier stuff coming off the star in the latter stages of a supernova? Is it in successive waves of similar matter, progressively heavier? Is it mixed, forming amalgamations at high temperature and pressure and speed? How many generations of stars do you need to have before there's sufficient heavier stuff to form solid planets? How does the planet break apart under the shock of the nova? Does the crust peel away early on, or does the planet get blown apart in good size chunks? How does that disperse in the supernova remnants? How do those remnants disperse relative to interstellar space?

Couldn't tell you.
Haven't a clue,
and none of my references are sufficiently in-depth astronomically and stellar-evolutionwise to provide a sufficient answer. Half-Price Books may have a title of interest that could preovide a few answers. E-mail me and I'll tell you where to send the check.

What is the shortest time for the evolution of life capable of leaving fossils? What kind of material are they most likely to be found in? How much is sufficient to qualify as a fossil? Can a piece of rock with a fossil in it survive being blasted out into space?

I wouldn't believe anyone who gave me an answer to the first question. I have no problem admitting that I really do not believe we have sufficient knowledge in that regard to make any kind of conclusive answer. (And does Mars provide knowledge in that regard? Maybe is the best answer anyone can give)

For the second question I'd go with limestone, if only because I've had so much luck with it. You should see the beautiful wing fossil that I found outside of Austin. Excellent detail. It's on display on my bookshelf; the scientists are going to have to wait till I die to get their hands on it, but they will get it. No big hurry.

How much qualifies as enough? I couldn't say. If we take ALH84001 as a benchmark, not a whole heck of a lot, plus it would answer question number four. Or is that at odds with the scientific community?

I'm not particularly partial to a comet as the source thereof; an asteroid's fine with me. By the same token, perhaps with impactor remains on a planetary surface. Perhaps even in the body of the planet itself if it underwent insufficient activity to destroy all traces before cooling off (i.e. long stretch - the Moon)

Where are we going to find it if in fact such a thing does exist? I'd put my money first on the Oort Cloud/Kuiper Belt (it's far enough out from our current capabilities that I really don't care about the finer distinctions between the two). Second choice would be the asteroid belt. After that it really doesn't matter, the odds are so far out there as to be highly implausible.

I appreciate that you recognize that I am speculating. It is a spectacular claim, and one that I feel is just plausible enough to be possible. I'm not aware of any science that specifically forbids the possibility of pre-Solar System solar systems developing life (How does one define that?) to a sufficient point to leave a fossil trace post-supernova.

By the way, just how open-ended is this search for life on Mars thing? Is the taxpayer going to be funding this search for thirty years? Fifty? A Hundred? How soon can results be expected?

Just curious.

ME:<<That is not a basis for building consensus in a scientifically inclined community.

Push that boat if you want, but don't claim your primary goal is building consensus.>>

Well, obviously the positions folks have staked out are too intractable to ever really build consensus, barring some kind of major catharsis. The Mars folks seem okay with consensus, so long as that consensus is Mars. Mr. Grondine is okay with a NEO scope, so long as it's on the Moon.

Oh, and by the way Mark, I'm fascinated by your notion that while the Moon may be OF the Earth, it has no value in comparative planetology since the Moon's only 1.22% the mass of Earth. Of the Earth but of no value in studying the Earth.

I'd be more inclined to call it a nice conveniently sized sample of the Earth, and relatively easy to get to. Mmmm. Mummified early Earth crust.

I've suggested a middle ground that serves both ends, and many others besides, and I've been shot down most vigourously from both sides, although I do concede that Mr. Grondine has certainly seemed more receptive to at least entertaining the idea of an EML-1 facility as valuable part of a permanent space infrastructure. No one really seems inclined, though, to study any sort of compromise or middle ground.

Clearly there's no vision of space for humanity for humanity to rally around. This forum is as representative a sample as any other place I've seen. This is what I have to deal with while trying to build the membership levels of the North Texas NSS chapter. Thanks a lot guys. Way to make my job easier.

Yeesh,
Ken