Author Topic: FEATURE: Curiosity confirms organics on Mars; Opportunity’s 10 year anniversary  (Read 81078 times)

Offline Dalhousie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2766
  • Liked: 780
  • Likes Given: 1131
Precisely that was my reading of the situation as well. Not sure where the OP got the idea from that it was shrinking number and would in fact ask them to present some kind of evidence to back up that statement so counter to the actual situation is it.

Just an impression, I will candidly admit that. I spoken with several colleagues about that in some occasions and I got the impression that a lot of professional astronomers, if obliged to bet, would now say there is no life at present on Mars (maybe in the past) after some past bandwagon effect.

There is the problem perhaps.  The issue is no longer one being explored by astronomers but by geobiologists, geochemists, microbiologists, palaeontologists, biochemists.

Singular experiences can be misleading as others have said,  but currently I am in the field in NZ with a half a dozen astrobiologists, all quite convinced of the possibility of life on Mars either now or in the past.  Most are young.  So from where I stand it's not a shrinking field.
Apologies in advance for any lack of civility - it's unintended

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220

Precisely that was my reading of the situation as well. Not sure where the OP got the idea from that it was shrinking number and would in fact ask them to present some kind of evidence to back up that statement so counter to the actual situation is it.

Just an impression, I will candidly admit that. I spoken with several colleagues about that in some occasions and I got the impression that a lot of professional astronomers, if obliged to bet, would now say there is no life at present on Mars (maybe in the past) after some past bandwagon effect.

There is the problem perhaps.  The issue is no longer one being explored by astronomers but by geobiologists, geochemists, microbiologists, palaeontologists, biochemists.

Singular experiences can be misleading as others have said,  but currently I am in the field in NZ with a half a dozen astrobiologists, all quite convinced of the possibility of life on Mars either now or in the past.  Most are young.  So from where I stand it's not a shrinking field.

That's interesting to hear & kind of reassuring speaking personally that I hadn't completely misread the situation. The fact we keep finding life on Earth in the most unexpected places even if not directly applicable to the Martian situation must still raises hopes a little.

Offline Dalhousie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2766
  • Liked: 780
  • Likes Given: 1131

I don't see any impact for the 2020 mission myself, beyond a pointer to the possibility of returning microbial textures.

It could, probably should, be used to weight similar lakes but especially playa environments into the landing ellipse (the survey area in that case). Else it will be more a geological than a biological mission again. (It need to be both for biology's sake, but one can always argue the best balance.)

I assume it is too late to modify the instrument set (to go through Noffke's microanalysis requirements in situ if possible). Especially since it would be speculative based on tentative findings. That would be more an argument against the pushing of planetary missions against each other so that one can't inform the construction of the next.

For a sample collection mission what you need are a set of instruments to 1) select the best samples to return and 2) characterise their context.  Since samples with high astrobiology interest will also be important this means the the following

a) Pancam or similar
b) Microscopic imager of similar.
c) Contact or remote geochemical instrument
d) Contact or remote mineralogy instrument
e) Contact or remote organic instrument
f) sample collection tool (probably drill)

There may be other instruments of course but they are bonus.  I can't see this changing much.

If we look at the 2020 rover we currently have

a) SuperCam, Mastcam-Z
b) SuperCam, Mastcam-Z?
c) SuperCam, PIXL
d) SuperCam, SHERLOC
e) SHERLOC

Bonus: RIMFAX, MEDA, MOXIE

IMHO, what may change is what is consdiered a good site.  Given the high cost, high risk and high return nature of MSR there may well be pressure to go to an already visited site rathwer than risk somewhere new. DSome maybe a return to Gale or peraps the ExoMars site (assuming its flown or successful).





Apologies in advance for any lack of civility - it's unintended

Offline Dalhousie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2766
  • Liked: 780
  • Likes Given: 1131
That's interesting to hear & kind of reassuring speaking personally that I hadn't completely misread the situation. The fact we keep finding life on Earth in the most unexpected places even if not directly applicable to the Martian situation must still raises hopes a little.

Here's a photo I took yesterday of biofilms (dark grey or green) at Paraki stream, a boiling acid-chloride spring (pH 2).  We know there were silica (opal) deposits on Mars, we have seen them on OMEGA and CRISM data.  We have seen one close up at Homeplate.  Similar springs were the earliest habitats for life on Earth.  So the fact we have habitable environments on Mars in the past means we should at least look.  Negative results will be just as important as positive ones, which is why we need to look hard, it being very difficult to demonstrate a negative. 

Which is why positions that say "everyone knows there is no life" are really annoying, they are not based on facts and are poor science.
« Last Edit: 01/19/2015 05:52 pm by Dalhousie »
Apologies in advance for any lack of civility - it's unintended

Offline pagheca

  • Bayesian Pundit. Maybe.
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Lives in Ivory, Tower
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 161
Singular experiences can be misleading as others have said,  but currently I am in the field in NZ with a half a dozen astrobiologists, all quite convinced of the possibility of life on Mars either now or in the past.  Most are young.  So from where I stand it's not a shrinking field.

No problems. I try to feel no attachments to (my) opinions, and I'm very suspicious about "hard" opinions as in the hedgehog and the fox.

Actually I found very interesting what you said and would be interested in knowing why they think that, although I think that astronomers have something to say because the attention is now pointed to exoplanets, not only on Mars.

Also, note I never said "there is no life on Mars" (others use this kind of hard statement, not me). I just tried to clarify what QuantumG was saying based on my experience.

p.s. And I have a very deep attachment to NZ too as I spent a lot of time in the South Island (and got married in Christchurch...). Please let me know where you are. Just curious...

Offline Dalhousie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2766
  • Liked: 780
  • Likes Given: 1131
Singular experiences can be misleading as others have said,  but currently I am in the field in NZ with a half a dozen astrobiologists, all quite convinced of the possibility of life on Mars either now or in the past.  Most are young.  So from where I stand it's not a shrinking field.

No problems. I try to feel no attachments to (my) opinions, and I'm very suspicious about "hard" opinions as in the hedgehog and the fox.

Actually I found very interesting what you said and would be interested in knowing why they think that, although I think that astronomers have something to say because the attention is now pointed to exoplanets, not only on Mars.

Also, note I never said "there is no life on Mars" (others use this kind of hard statement, not me). I just tried to clarify what QuantumG was saying based on my experience.

p.s. And I have a very deep attachment to NZ too as I spent a lot of time in the South Island (and got married in Christchurch...). Please let me know where you are. Just curious...

Sorry, I never meant to imply you were of the "there is no life " school.  Apologies for the confusion!
Apologies in advance for any lack of civility - it's unintended

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3010
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 2191
  • Likes Given: 4620
...positions that say "everyone knows there is no life" are really annoying, they are not based on facts and are poor science.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who takes "what everyone knows" as a set of basic tenets when embarking on scientific research should be dis-embarked.  Though those are not as bad as people who undertake research to "prove what I already know is the truth."

The only way to graduate from one paradigm to a better, more truthful one is by questioning, and sometimes even attacking, "what everyone knows."

It gets very, very frustrating in re Mars because there are large numbers of scientists who seem to continually resist the opening up of pro-life paradigms, either past or present.  For example (and these are generalities, off the top of my head, not presented to start minutae arguments over citing papers where someone said this versus when someone else said that, etc.):

- Mariner 9 sees obvious river valleys -- they say "everyone knows Mars is too arid and has too thin of an atmosphere for liquid water.  These valleys must have been caused by something else."

- The Viking orbiters see well-developed catastrophic flood basins (first recognized, if somewhat preliminarily, in Mariner 9 images) -- they say "everyone knows if Mars ever had liquid water, it couldn't have been enough to have caused catastrophic floods, since there's just not that much water ice in the poles.  These flood plains must have been caused by something else."

- The Viking 1 lander sees some rocks that look suspiciously like water-formed conglomerates -- they say "there can't have been enough water to have promoted the formation of such rocks, that has to be a breccia or an ashflow tuff, or again, something else."

- The Pathfinder lander sees excellent examples of large rock transportation during catastrophic flood events -- they say "those rocks could have been tossed there by impacts.  Or ejected from volcanoes.  Unless you tell me where all the water came from and went to, it can't have been catastrophic floods, it must have been something else."

- Mar Global Surveyor provides tons of detailed images of topographic features that, as far as photo-interpretation can do so, absolutely lock up the case for flowing water on Mars -- they say "it has to have been basal surges from volcanic eruptions and large impacts, they could have carved all of these features without needing to invoke liquid surface water, and everyone knows liquid water can't exist on the surface of Mars."

- Mars Odyssey provides proof of massive amounts of water ice in the polar caps and strong suggestions of massive amounts of subsurface ice and icy regolith, especially under the northern plains -- they say "all you see is hydrogen, that might have some from something else."  (Notice that at this point, "must" starts turning into "might" or "likely" because the missing water has essentially been fund.  dvd)

The MER rovers, MRO and MSL have been nailing the lid on the issue of paleo-waters on Mars.  We have massive data now that prove that liquid water has been present all over Mars -- and some (though in dwindling numbers) still rail against these findings, taking as their bases that since Mars cannot now support liquid surface water, then we cannot without "exceptional proof" accept that water ever flowed there.

And now, we can detect that methane blooms still occur on present-day Mars, in a cyclical pattern.  The methane source could be biological (i.e., coming from present-day Martian life) -- but they say "everyone knows Mars is too cold, has too little air, no liquid water and a hazardous radiation environment.  The methane can't be from biological sources -- it must be caused by something else."

I wonder, will this be the final fallback position of the professional doubters?  They have dwindled, as the data has continued to support the model of an early warm, wet Mars.  But the doubters remain, carping at the heels of the approaching paradigm shifts and clinging desperately to "what everyone knows."
« Last Edit: 01/20/2015 04:40 am by the_other_Doug »
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Offline pagheca

  • Bayesian Pundit. Maybe.
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Lives in Ivory, Tower
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 161
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who takes "what everyone knows" as a set of basic tenets when embarking on scientific research should be dis-embarked.  Though those are not as bad as people who undertake research to "prove what I already know is the truth."

I agree with you but:

(1) there is a rationale behind trusting a poll of experts more than a single one or personal judgment, when evidences are not enough: as you probably know it has been demonstrated by a large number of studies that predictions by groups of experts are usually more accurate than anything else. At the conditions those opinions are independent and not the result of bandwagon effect. This works in politics as well as in a SpaceX yearly number of flights poll, for example, that is a good reason to take them quite seriously (and they usually are a quite good predictor...).

(2) there is also a complementary mistake: extrapolate from the fact that a certain number of theories were contradicted by new evidences that also the next one will be contradicted soon or later.

At the end of the day we all tend to underevaluate the importance of anything that is in contradiction with our current sense of "truth". We should fight this bias and look at evidences, rather than trying to find generic rules to demonstrate this or that. In this case, it is true that Mars maybe (or may have been) a more benign environment to the development of life. However, is also true that there are no indisputable evidences for life on Mars to date, despite our knowledge of the planet increased by several orders of magnitude in the last decade.

Don't take this personally, but just as a general rules: cognitive biases are everywhere. Not only where you (or me) think they are.
« Last Edit: 01/20/2015 02:32 pm by pagheca »

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3010
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 2191
  • Likes Given: 4620
Don't take this personally, but just as a general rules: cognitive biases are everywhere. Not only where you (or me) think they are.

Oh, not taken personally at all.  And I agree with you that, sometimes, radical new theories aren't always the correct new theories.  In some cases, it is very true that extraordinary proof is required to support extraordinary theories.

And, to toss out the devil's advocacy on it, warm & wet early Mars is becoming "what everyone knows," and to an extent those who theorize that much of the surface evidence we see for ancient liquid water could actually be caused by ejecta and pyroclastic flow events are those who are contradicting the popular wisdom.  So, indeed, the biases shift over time (sometimes over very short periods of time), and it is useful to have an aggregate view that cancels out the various biases.

I think we can all agree that there is a difference between caution and pig-headedness, though...  ;)
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Don't take this personally, but just as a general rules: cognitive biases are everywhere. Not only where you (or me) think they are.

Oh, not taken personally at all.  And I agree with you that, sometimes, radical new theories aren't always the correct new theories.  In some cases, it is very true that extraordinary proof is required to support extraordinary theories.

And, to toss out the devil's advocacy on it, warm & wet early Mars is becoming "what everyone knows," and to an extent those who theorize that much of the surface evidence we see for ancient liquid water could actually be caused by ejecta and pyroclastic flow events are those who are contradicting the popular wisdom.  So, indeed, the biases shift over time (sometimes over very short periods of time), and it is useful to have an aggregate view that cancels out the various biases.

I think we can all agree that there is a difference between caution and pig-headedness, though...  ;)
What we think of Mars and its potential for past and existing life seems to change every twenty to thirty years roughly. Going almost from one side to the other on the matter, from the canals of Mars of the late nineteenth century to the dead world of the seventies to current times of stronger belief in life. Unfortunately I don't think a final answer on this is as close at hand as some think, extraordinary claims needing extraordinary evidence something that we probably don't have the tools in situ at this time to deliver to a higher enough standard for a majority of the scientific community to accept.

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who takes "what everyone knows" as a set of basic tenets when embarking on scientific research should be dis-embarked.  Though those are not as bad as people who undertake research to "prove what I already know is the truth."

I agree with you but:

(1) there is a rationale behind trusting a poll of experts more than a single one or personal judgment, when evidences are not enough: as you probably know it has been demonstrated by a large number of studies that predictions by groups of experts are usually more accurate than anything else. At the conditions those opinions are independent and not the result of bandwagon effect. This works in politics as well as in a SpaceX yearly number of flights poll, for example, that is a good reason to take them quite seriously (and they usually are a quite good predictor...).

(2) there is also a complementary mistake: extrapolate from the fact that a certain number of theories were contradicted by new evidences that also the next one will be contradicted soon or later.

At the end of the day we all tend to underevaluate the importance of anything that is in contradiction with our current sense of "truth". We should fight this bias and look at evidences, rather than trying to find generic rules to demonstrate this or that. In this case, it is true that Mars maybe (or may have been) a more benign environment to the development of life. However, is also true that there are no indisputable evidences for life on Mars to date, despite our knowledge of the planet increased by several orders of magnitude in the last decade.

Don't take this personally, but just as a general rules: cognitive biases are everywhere. Not only where you (or me) think they are.

There's an old saying, "If it looks like a Duck, smells like a Duck and acts like a Duck, it's probably a Duck... Except when it's not.

In other words, while all evidence is pointing towards there being life on Mars, we've been fooled too many times by things that made us THINK we'd found life, but in fact, turned out either as a false positive or inconclusive.   So, my guess is, that unless we see something squirming under a microscope, eating and exhaling, no one is going to declare that there is life on Mars.

 Is it probable that there WAS life on Mars?  It certainly looks like there may have been.  Is there currently life on Mars now?  It's pretty certain that there is no life living on the planetary surface of Mars due to the extremely harsh environmental conditions.  Could it survive just below the surface, beneith the dust layer?  It's quite possible.

but no one is going to stretch their neck out across the chopping block without being darned certain that they've found life.  (With our luck, they'll find something, think it's life, and it will turn out to be some sort of microor nanotech robotics from some alien star system and it's a million or more years old).
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline Dalhousie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2766
  • Liked: 780
  • Likes Given: 1131
Don't take this personally, but just as a general rules: cognitive biases are everywhere. Not only where you (or me) think they are.

Oh, not taken personally at all.  And I agree with you that, sometimes, radical new theories aren't always the correct new theories.  In some cases, it is very true that extraordinary proof is required to support extraordinary theories.

And, to toss out the devil's advocacy on it, warm & wet early Mars is becoming "what everyone knows," and to an extent those who theorize that much of the surface evidence we see for ancient liquid water could actually be caused by ejecta and pyroclastic flow events are those who are contradicting the popular wisdom.  So, indeed, the biases shift over time (sometimes over very short periods of time), and it is useful to have an aggregate view that cancels out the various biases.

I think we can all agree that there is a difference between caution and pig-headedness, though...  ;)

Some people seem make a pleasure of contradicting the bleeding obvious.  The dry pyroclastic flow people being a case in point. :)
Apologies in advance for any lack of civility - it's unintended

Offline Dalhousie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2766
  • Liked: 780
  • Likes Given: 1131
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who takes "what everyone knows" as a set of basic tenets when embarking on scientific research should be dis-embarked.  Though those are not as bad as people who undertake research to "prove what I already know is the truth."

I agree with you but:

(1) there is a rationale behind trusting a poll of experts more than a single one or personal judgment, when evidences are not enough: as you probably know it has been demonstrated by a large number of studies that predictions by groups of experts are usually more accurate than anything else. At the conditions those opinions are independent and not the result of bandwagon effect. This works in politics as well as in a SpaceX yearly number of flights poll, for example, that is a good reason to take them quite seriously (and they usually are a quite good predictor...).

(2) there is also a complementary mistake: extrapolate from the fact that a certain number of theories were contradicted by new evidences that also the next one will be contradicted soon or later.

At the end of the day we all tend to underevaluate the importance of anything that is in contradiction with our current sense of "truth". We should fight this bias and look at evidences, rather than trying to find generic rules to demonstrate this or that. In this case, it is true that Mars maybe (or may have been) a more benign environment to the development of life. However, is also true that there are no indisputable evidences for life on Mars to date, despite our knowledge of the planet increased by several orders of magnitude in the last decade.

Don't take this personally, but just as a general rules: cognitive biases are everywhere. Not only where you (or me) think they are.

There's an old saying, "If it looks like a Duck, smells like a Duck and acts like a Duck, it's probably a Duck... Except when it's not.

In other words, while all evidence is pointing towards there being life on Mars, we've been fooled too many times by things that made us THINK we'd found life, but in fact, turned out either as a false positive or inconclusive.   So, my guess is, that unless we see something squirming under a microscope, eating and exhaling, no one is going to declare that there is life on Mars.

 Is it probable that there WAS life on Mars?  It certainly looks like there may have been.  Is there currently life on Mars now?  It's pretty certain that there is no life living on the planetary surface of Mars due to the extremely harsh environmental conditions.  Could it survive just below the surface, beneith the dust layer?  It's quite possible.

but no one is going to stretch their neck out across the chopping block without being darned certain that they've found life.  (With our luck, they'll find something, think it's life, and it will turn out to be some sort of microor nanotech robotics from some alien star system and it's a million or more years old).

Mars was thought be be highly habitable long before the "canals" - which were a red herring to end all red herrings.
Apologies in advance for any lack of civility - it's unintended

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Sometimes, even in the scientific circles, people have a pre-conceived notion, and fall into the pattern of constructing arguments to support that notion - instead of constructing their notions based on the findings.  This is the difference between an argument and a debate.

For example, we all know that there are "Mars-firsters" and "Moon-firsters" out there, but your position on the strategy of solar system exploration should NOT affect your interpretation of Mars surveillance data. And yet, draw a random sample in any conference, and by a wide margin Moon-firsters will argue against (or just belittle) water-on-Mars, and Mars-firsters will do the same for water-on-the-moon.

Not to mention people who are (sub-consciously even) rare-earth advocates.

It is human nature.  Good thing we have enough advocates in both sides that the drive for more evidence does not die, and eventually, the truth emerges.  Flat-earth, for example, is almost completely discredited by now.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline pagheca

  • Bayesian Pundit. Maybe.
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Lives in Ivory, Tower
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 161
There is a logic trap in this.

Discovering life would be much simpler - epistemologically - than demonstrating there isn't and there has never been life on Mars. For the first, you need a single positive, for the second, even scanning the whole planet surface, or at least the most likely areas (basins, etc.) wouldn't be enough as there is always the possibility of a warm cave or an habitat at 100 or 300 m below the surface (or fossils somewhere behind the surface, admitting life evolved at such a point to allow fossilization).

So, I wonder how do we set the threshold to say that there is not and/or there has never been life on Mars.

This is relevant as the interest in Mars rather than in other celestial bodies is driven in part by its relative accessibility, in part by this planet being the most "habitable" in the Solar Planet but, in part, by the popular interest on searching for life past and present, that allow to obtain funding relatively more easily than for other probes.

The risk is to spend a lot of money on this (rather than on other accessible targets, like the very often cited Moon) and still demonstrate nothing.

« Last Edit: 01/22/2015 07:07 am by pagheca »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Those kinds of logic traps are only of interest to philosophers.

We've known for decades that there's essentially no life on the surface of Mars. There could be life teaming under the surface, we haven't looked, but the surface is obviously dead.

It's kinda like how everyone has accepted there's no liquid water on Mars (and very much related). The only exception we know about is brines so concentrated that they essentially don't count.

Why should we care about technicalities?
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220

Those kinds of logic traps are only of interest to philosophers.

We've known for decades that there's essentially no life on the surface of Mars. There could be life teaming under the surface, we haven't looked, but the surface is obviously dead.

It's kinda like how everyone has accepted there's no liquid water on Mars (and very much related). The only exception we know about is brines so concentrated that they essentially don't count.

Why should we care about technicalities?

Such supposed surety of facts is not welcome in science especially in something like this.

Offline pagheca

  • Bayesian Pundit. Maybe.
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Lives in Ivory, Tower
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 161
I was not suggesting any conclusion about life on Mars, I swear :). I just wanted to suggest a someway weird logical problem in this quest.
« Last Edit: 01/22/2015 11:36 am by pagheca »

Online zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11163
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 7392
  • Likes Given: 72421
re: past generations of astronomers and life on Mars

Some astronomers saw canals-as-engineered-features on Mars.  But, there are other examples.

The "waves of darkening" observed advancing across a particular hemisphere's spring, and the recession of the darkening correlating with that hemisphere's autumn.  The darker regions looked greenish because of contrast effects to the regular reddish surface.

I believe this was eventually determined, in the Space Age, to be the movement of dust on the surface, not the growth and withering of plant life.  It was seasonal.

Spectroscopic bands of water vapor in the Martian atmosphere were telescopically observed.  I believe this was later determined to be water in our own atmosphere.

"Sinton bands" were observed in Martian spectroscopy, which were taken as spectroscopic observation of chlorophyll on the surface.  I believe that this was later determined to be a spectral band of deuterated water vapor in the Martian atmosphere (D-O-H instead of H-O-H).  Or maybe the DOH was in our own atmosphere?

These items were all still in the astronomical mix when Mariner 4 flew by Mars in 1965.

The above examples are all IIRC.  Please comment if I have incorrectly recalled.

(I'm not gunning for astronomers, but coming from an astronomy background, I know about some of the discipline's collective goofs over the centuries.)

Regards,
Zubenelgenubi
Support your local planetarium! (COVID-panic and forward: Now more than ever.) My current avatar is saying "i wants to go uppies!" Yes, there are God-given rights. Do you wish to gainsay the Declaration of Independence?

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Finding life on Mars doesn't imply an independent origin.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1