Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs

[KellySt@aol.com]

In a message dated 10/19/98 8:35:00 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:

>[...]
>> >I thought several of the tests carried out on the Mars soil samples were
>> >"dubious" at best - I remember some controversy over the tests to decide
>> >whether there were traces of bacteria in the soil - some of the tests
>> >succeeded, some failed, but some were in direct contradiction of the 
>> > others..
>> 
>> The contradictino was that the soil did react rapidly to the "food"
samples,
>> and the presence of sunlight which passed the criteria for bacterial and
>> photosynthetic life.  But no organic mater.  So after a lot of heated
debate
>> they decided the only thing that would explain it was a very chemically
>> reactive oxidizing substance in the soil that broke down even trace orgaic
>> mater.  Of course others have suggested that it could be life and the
organic
>> detector wasn't sensative enough to detect it.  More fearce debate.---
>> 
>That shows clearly the superiority of manned exploration 
>over a robotic one.
>A run-of-the-mill geologist with a hammer and a few chemicals
>in his suitcase field lab can settle the problem in ten minutes,
>and in several hours he can produce a wealth of data on the Martian
>conditions larger than all robotic crafts ever sent to Mars.
>
>-- Zenon

Very very true.

Kelly