I think one of the attractions of the exobiology strategy is that you can imagine it as either an infinite source of funding, or a very limited goal with a definite end date.
If you're a scientist who thinks there is life on Mars, deep down you probably have an understanding that finding it will be really really hard (i.e., will take a long time), and of course if we *do* find it, that doing so will be a bonanza, opening up the floodgates to study said life, its history, and environment.
On the other hand, if you're a policy executive, the search for life may sound limited: all these scientists are implying that we might find it with just half a dozen missions or so, and after doing so, we'll have acheieved the goal! Program over! Compared to the project of acheiving a comprehensive understanding of Martian geology followed by human colonization, the astrobiology approach sounds downright speedy, cheap, and limited, in addition to its popular appeal.
Space/Science » in reply to The NASA Public Relations Machine and the Warm-and-Wet fairytale
exobiology -- both infinite and limited
The whole thread (31 posts)
- meteorites show Mars was always frozen
- Nice PR but not much else.
- The freezing point of water is dependent on solutes.
- re: meteorites show Mars was always frozen
- re: While the "always frozen" Mars scenario
- re: While the "always frozen" Mars scenario
- re: Chill
- The NASA Public Relations Machine and the Warm-and-Wet fairytale
- re: While the "always frozen" Mars scenario
- 4 billion versus 3.5 billion years
- Interesting.
- re: Frozen Mars