Is Mars getting more and more unfriendly to ever having life?

Question

What is the point of spending so much money on Mars when we have yet to colonize the Moon?

Is the quest for life a gimmick to keep the NASA money coming in?

Does NASA pretty know already that there is none and hasn't been any life on Mars and very slim chance of finding any.

Is the Mars life search really just so NASA can keep in the media spotlight and so it's government funding will keep it in existance.

Oh I know they want to know more about Mars and it's composition and stuff and learn about it but the 'life' search is just to keep the investment going.

Answer 1

I think you're missing the point of NASA....

NASA is designed as a research & analysis tool, to develop new technologies, create new materials, and to push back the frontiers of science.  

America's technological edge (which has slipped dramatically, by the way) gained incredible ground in the Early to mid 60's with the advent of the lunar exploratoin project.  When it was terminated, our edge slipped almost immediately.

Without NASA, we'd have to rely on companies that depend on their bottom-line for any research & advance in technology - and, as you know, any company taking bold steps (especially in today's economy) is risking not only it's profit, but it's very existence.

NASA personnel are probably d**n proud to present the discoveries they're making, and it probably *does* influence their funding - but, having worked for an aerospace and with NASA directly, the people I met do so because they're driven to it - they don't care about the press,or even about their funding - they just want to discover.  Most wanted to be astronauts, and wound up among the 1000's of support personnel.   But they continue to work, for the love  of exploration.  Mars is most likely the first body outside the moon Man will set foot on; learning how to survive on the mission there and back can (like the lunar missions before) impact and benefit life here on Earth...

Setting foot on Mars won't be the benefit of the journey... the new materials, the new processes, the new technologies *needed* to put a man there will be the benefit - and that will translate to the now almost 7 *billion* people here on Earth.  

Answer 2

The search for life, or at least water, certainly is exciting.  It's not the only science taking place on Mars.  NASA has noticed that publicity about what they are doing improves their chances for funding.  But in my opinion, it would be criminal if they kept what was learned from the public.  Public education is therefore a mission that NASA must have. Again, in my opinion, if that improves NASA's funding, so much the better.

When a significant chunk of Mars was first imaged, it looked like a barren and unlikely place for life.  And the Viking missions were so disappointing that no new missions to Mars took place for a long time.  But the current missions are discovering  better places to look, and are using more sophisticated tools.  None of these missions are set to 'explore'.  The all have science goals.  Often, like the search for water, it's not that we need to prove water exists - that has been known for decades, it's to characterize where it is and what dynamics take place.  You can only ask questions that were raised by the previous missions.  You can stumble on new things while your there, but only if you are lucky enough to ask the right questions.

<edit>

Perchlorate is highly reactive.  But so is oxygen.  I'd be amazed if at least some Earth life, exposed to large amounts of perchlorate, didn't find some way to exploit it, given time. So, while perhaps not a good sign, it's not fatal.  It's more that your asparagus won't be happy with the soil after all, contrary to the previous story.

I'd wait maybe 6 months after the mission is over for the real science papers to come out.  These findings are preliminary.

Answer 3

Each time we venture out of our collective cradle (the Earth) and explore other worlds, we enrich our own.

The spinoffs from NASA are mind boggling.http://nasajobs.nasa.gov/astronauts/defa...

Going to the moon parodoxically was less about beating the Russians, first steps, planting flags, or collecting rocks.

It was much more about turning around and looking back at the earth, a beautiful blue marble, oasis hanging vulnerably in the infinate cosmos.

When man stops exploring, we surrender.

* Note to Suitti: Wonderful wonderful answers to the last few questions....my hats off to you!-Mark K

Answer 4

Colonizing the moon is a silly idea.  What purpose would be served for so expensive an endeavor?  The moon is deadly.  Its gravity is too weak for humans to live on it safely.  It has no resources that could be exploited economically.  The most worthless real estate on Earth is a thousand times better than the Moon.  The air is free and the gravity is correct.  

We are no spending "so much money" on Mars. The robotic landers and probes we have sent are rather cheap for the results they yield.  Manned space flight is what is expensive.  

Very few individuals believe Mars has life.  NASA is not manned by idiots.  It is understood that Mars, once having oceans, may once have had life.  It might still have some if mars has any geologic hotspots surviving that have access to water.  Since the core of Mars seems to be no longer molten, the chances for life are remote.  Life in the past is still a very open question.  

NASA does have PLANS for sending manned expeditions to Mars.  Hopefully they will remain plans.  Most of the push for a Martian expedition comes from aerospace companies who would make large sums of money from such a program.  But Mars is economically useless and going there would cost a great deal of money that the US doesn't have.  Unlike the Apollo program we dont have a political purpose for such an adventure.  The Soviet Union is no more.  We are broke.  We are deep in debt.  We have no business going anywhere.  Maybe China will feel that impressing people is important and launch an expedition..  Or maybe they will realize that other than publicity, such a trip would serve no purpose.  

Answer 5

hey! im a marshon, do you see us saying "is earth getting harder and harder to live in?" no you don't! you meany!!

Answer 6

yes, you are right the 'life' search is just to keep the investment going.

I am surprised why government is investing so much to find life on mars.

knowing composition etc is ok. we will get more information about mars.

but life search, I think waste of time and waste of money.

everyone know that mars has very less oxygen and astronauts have to wear spacesuits there, also there are fierce storms on mars.it is hostile to humans.

I think NASA should develop technology to colonize moon first and then think of mars.

how can you think of colonizing mars reaching which spacecraft will take 8 month by shortest route when you have not even begin something similar in moon which is very near as compare to mars.

NASA should forget  colonizing mars for at least 200 years.

Answer 7

A study of a meteorite on Earth originating from Mars showed the possibility of tracks left by feeding bacteria.  This supports the possibility that at one point Mars was able to support life until it's atmosphere changed.  

Check out http://www.marsnews.com/focus/life/ for more about the search for life on Mars.

Check out http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/mars_world... for factual information about Mars.

Answer 8

Why do people have their sights set on Mars when we haven't colonized the moon?

Why do people want a Ferrari when they can only afford a Ford?

Why do people want to have financial security even though they haven't payed off their debt?

Why do people want to go to college even when they haven't finished high school?

Humans, my friend, can look down the long road and see an ultimate goal. There's no need to do nothing about Mars just because we haven't colonized the moon. It's an inefficient use of resources to just focus on one object.

"Is the quest for life a gimmick to keep the NASA money coming in?" No, the quest for life is a driving force in humanity that drives us to explore those worlds.

"Does NASA pretty know already that there is none and hasn't been any life on Mars and very slim chance of finding any?" Simply put, we don't know if there is life on Mars. NASA doesn't know either. That's WHY they're looking ; ).

"Is Mars life search really just so NASA can keep in the media spotlight and so it's government funding will keep it in existence." No. The search for life is so we all can know if there's life or not. NASA isn't in the business of fraud. Government funding will continue even if NASA announces Mars to be completely dead. The government funds NASA not just for finding life, but for NASA's incredibly large value to society as a whole. Back during the Apollo program, NASA had a goal: Put man on the moon. We didn't have the technology to do that, so a lot of inventions were made for it, and these inventions seep down into society and can be used by us. These technologies are called "Spin-offs", and have had great value in medicine, engineering, and other such places. Simply put, NASA has made the lives of everyone better. Where do you think you get TV from? Satellites, yes. And who put those satellites into orbit? (granted, now days, private companies are gaining the ability to do the same). NASA is about far, far more than finding life on other worlds. They're a technology pioneer, developing new technologies not just for spaceflight, but for aviation and aerospace.

"Oh I know they want to know more about Mars and it's composition and stuff and learn about it but the 'life' search is just to keep the investment going."

False. NASA will continue to be funded regardless of whether they find life or not.