I'd agree with you on colonization being the only way we're likely to turn over that many rocks. I like the "twenty questions" analogy, too. If there is anything to find we'll be in a much better position to know where to look once we have a better handle on the big picture.
Good point on Beagle. If they'd pulled off their miracle, it would have been a waste that much of their payload was looking for surface life. Pretty damn unlikely!!
For now, I'd rather see somone try to design a miniature, automated rock dating package than to put more money into biological experiments a la Viking or Beagle (it was worth doing on Viking given how little we knew, but not worth it in the 2009 monster rover). Knowing that the basalt at Gusev is 4 billion, 3 billion, or less than a billion years old -- or a mix of ages! -- would tell us a lot, for example. No idea if that's feasible but I think you get my point.
Space/Science » in reply to Future Mars exploration
re: Future Mars exploration
The whole thread (51 posts)
- Will Life Be Found On Mars? Your opinions and guesses:
- Dear friends, thanks for the vigorous discussion. I love it when I start a thread and there are many differing responses. David. (n/t)
- hmmm
- The Martian Race by Greg Benford
- For former life, I'd bet on Venus first
- 50-50
- Yes
- Well
- I follow Lovelock: Equilibrium = Death
- Possibly extremophiles under the surface
- re: Will Life Be Found On Mars? Your opinions and guesses: