Subject: Giant "Twisters" in the Lagoon Nebula
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Date: 22 Jan 1997 19:05 UT
FOR RELEASE: January 22, 1997
PHOTO NO.: STScI-PRC96-38a
GIANT "TWISTERS", STAR WISPS AND HATS IN THE LAGOON NEBULA
This NASA Hubble Space Telescope (HST) image reveals a pair of one-half
light-year long interstellar "twisters" -- eerie funnels and twisted-rope
structures (upper left) -- in the heart of the Lagoon Nebula (Messier 8)
which lies 5,000 light-years away in the direction of the constellation
Sagittarius.
The central hot star, O Herschel 36 (upper left), is the primary source of the
ionizing radiation for the brightest region in the nebula, called the
Hourglass. Other hot stars, also present in the nebula, are ionizing the
extended optical nebulosity. The ionizing radiation induces photo-evaporation
of the surfaces of the clouds (seen as a blue "mist" at the right of the
image), and drives away violent stellar winds tearing into the cool clouds.
Analogous to the spectacular phenomena of Earth tornadoes, the large
difference in temperature between the hot surface and cold interior of the
clouds, combined with the pressure of starlight, may produce strong
horizontal shear to twist the clouds into their tornado-like appearance.
Though the spiral shapes suggest the clouds are "twisting", future
observations will be needed, perhaps with Hubble's next generation
instruments, with the spectroscopic capabilities of the Space Telescope
Imaging Spectrograph (STIS) or the Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object
Spectrometer (NICMOS), to actually measure velocities.
This Hubble picture reveals a variety of small scale structures in the
interstellar medium, small dark clouds called Bok globules, bow shocks around
stars, ionized wisps, rings, knots and jets.
The Lagoon Nebula and nebulae in other galaxies are sites where new stars are
being born from dusty molecular clouds. These regions are the "space
laboratories" for the astronomers to study how stars form and the interactions
between the winds from stars and the gas nearby. By studying the wealth of
data revealed by HST, astronomers will understand better how stars form in the
nebulae.
These color-coded images are the combination of individual exposures taken in
July and September, 1995 with Hubble's Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2
(WFPC2) through three narrow-band filters (red light -- ionized sulphur atoms,
blue light -- double ionized oxygen atoms, green light -- ionized hydrogen).
This work is based on public data retrieved from the HST Archive, cosmic-ray
cleaned, calibrated and combined by Adeline Caulet (Space Telescope European
Coordinating Facility, European Space Agency). The data were collected as
part of a scientific HST program by the WFPC2 Science Team.
Credit: A. Caulet (ST-ECF, ESA) and NASA
Image files in GIF and JPEG format and captions may be accessed on the
Internet via anonymous ftp from ftp.stsci.edu in /pubinfo.
GIF JPEG
PRC96-38a Lagoon Nebula gif/m8wide.gif jpeg/m8wide.jpg
Higher resolution digital versions (300 dpi JPEG) of the release photograph
are available in /pubinfo/hrtemp: 96-38a.jpg and 96-38b.jpg (color) and
96-38abw.jpg and 96-38bbw.jpg (black/white).
GIF and JPEG images, captions and press release text are available via World
Wide Web at
http://www.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/96/38.html and via links in:
http://www.stsci.edu/pubinfo/Latest.html or
http://www.stsci.edu/pubinfo/Pictures.html.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR RELEASE: January 22, 1997
PHOTO NO.: STScI-PRC96-38b
GIANT "TWISTERS" IN THE LAGOON NEBULA
This NASA Hubble Space Telescope (HST) image reveals a pair of one-half
light-year long interstellar "twisters" -- eerie funnels and twisted-rope
structures -- in the heart of the Lagoon Nebula (Messier 8) which lies 5,000
light-years away in the direction of the constellation Sagittarius.
The central hot star, O Herschel 36 (lower right), is the primary source of
the ionizing radiation for the brightest region in the nebula, called the
Hourglass. Other hot stars, also present in the nebula, are ionizing the
extended optical nebulosity. The ionizing radiation induces photo-evaporation
of the surfaces of the clouds and drives away violent stellar winds tearing
into the cool clouds.
Analogous to the spectacular phenomena of Earth tornadoes, the large
difference in temperature between the hot surface and cold interior of the
clouds, combined with the pressure of starlight, may produce strong horizontal
shear to twist the clouds into their tornado-like appearance. Though the
spiral shapes suggest the clouds are "twisting", future observations will be
needed, perhaps with Hubble's next generation instruments, with the
spectroscopic capabilities of the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS)
or the Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer (NICMOS), to
actually measure velocities.
The Lagoon Nebula and nebulae in other galaxies are sites where new stars are
being born from dusty molecular clouds. These regions are the "space
laboratories" for the astronomers to study how stars form and the interactions
between the winds from stars and the gas nearby. By studying the wealth of
data revealed by HST, astronomers will understand better how stars form in the
nebulae.
These color-coded images are the combination of individual exposures taken in
July and September, 1995 with Hubble's Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2
(WFPC2) through three narrow-band filters (red light -- ionized sulphur atoms,
blue light -- double ionized oxygen atoms, green light -- ionized hydrogen).
This work is based on public data retrieved from the HST Archive, cosmic-ray
cleaned, calibrated and combined by Adeline Caulet (Space Telescope European
Coordinating Facility, European Space Agency). The data were collected
as part of a scientific HST program by the WFPC2 Science Team.
Credit: A. Caulet (ST-ECF, ESA) and NASA
Image files in GIF and JPEG format and captions may be accessed on the
Internet via anonymous ftp from ftp.stsci.edu in /pubinfo.
GIF JPEG
PRC96-38b Lagoon Nebula Detail gif/m8detail.gif jpeg/m8detail.jpg
Higher resolution digital versions (300 dpi JPEG) of the release photograph
are available in /pubinfo/hrtemp: 96-38a.jpg and 96-38b.jpg (color) and
96-38abw.jpg and 96-38bbw.jpg (black/white).
GIF and JPEG images, captions and press release text are available via World
Wide Web at
http://www.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/96/38.html and via links in:
http://www.stsci.edu/pubinfo/Latest.html or
http://www.stsci.edu/pubinfo/Pictures.html.
Subject: Abrams Skywatcher's Diary: Jan 23-31
From: pon@pa.msu.edu
Date: 22 Jan 1997 20:54:55 GMT
******************************************************
Abrams Planetarium SKYWATCHER'S DIARY Jan 23-31, 1997
******************************************************
The Skywatcher's Diary has been prepared by
Robert C. Victor. Credit to Abrams Planetarium, Department of Physics
and Astronomy at Michigan State University, together with mention of
our Sky Calendar, would be appreciated.
A sample back issue of Sky Calendar is available over the Internet. It
can be viewed via a World-Wide Web browser such as Netscape or
Mosaic, directly at URL:
http://www.pa.msu.edu/abrams/skycal.html
If you would like a printed sample, send a long, self-addressed stamped
envelope to:
February Sky Calendar
Abrams Planetarium
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
Each month, the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Michigan
State University also makes Skywatcher's Diary available over the
Internet. It can be accessed via a World-Wide Web browser such as
Netscape or Mosaic, directly at URL:
http://www.pa.msu.edu/abrams/diary.html
The Skywatcher's Diary is also available via anonymous ftp at:
www.pa.msu.edu in the directory /pub/swd
******************************************************
SKYWATCHER'S DIARY: January 23-31, 1997
Thursday, January 23
The Moon, now just past Full, rises in ENE 20 to 30 minutes after
sunset for most of the contiguous 48 United States. The Full Moon of
January is called the Moon after Yule, according to astronomy author
Guy Ottewell. For the rest of January, the waning gibbous Moon
brightens the morning sky, affecting comet viewing somewhat, but by
Feb. 1 the Moon will be less than half full.
An hour before sunrise on Friday, Mercury appears farthest from the
Sun this time around, 25 degrees. Look very low, between ESE and
SE. Wait about 15 minutes, then watch for the rising of Venus, 8
degrees to Mercury's lower left. Venus is now in the background, on
the far side of its orbit, farther from us than Mercury is.
Friday, January 24
The Moon, just past Full, rises about 15 degrees N of due east shortly
before the end of evening twilight and brightens the sky for the rest of
the night. By three hours after sunset, the Moon is high enough in the
east to allow you to see Regulus, heart of Leo, 9 degrees to its lower
left. By 1-1/2 hours before sunup on Saturday, Moon is in west with
Regulus 6 degrees above. Bright, steady orange Mars is in SW 40
degrees to Moon's upper left. Spica is in SSW, 19 degrees to Mars'
lower left. High in south 33 degrees from both Mars and Spica, and
marking the pinnacle of an isoceles triangle it forms with them, is bright
orange Arcturus.
Can you see Comet Hale-Bopp in the moonlight? Look for the first-
magnitude star Altair nearly due east, low above horizon. H-B is 7
degrees above Altair and slightly right, or almost directly above Altair
from southern U.S.
Tonight From Stardust to Life: A Cosmic Journey returns to Abrams
Planetarium. For show times and ticket prices, call (517) 355-4672.
Saturday, January 25
Now that Moon rises 2 hours (southern U.S.) to nearly 2-1/2 hours
after sunset, there's a brief "window" of very dark skies right at
nightfall. From a very dark place with no sizeable source of light
pollution to the west of you, try for something most North Americans
never see. Tonight through February 8, and again February 24-March
9, starting about 1-1/4 to 1-1/2 hours after sunset, look for a tall, softly
luminous cone of light tapering upward from the WSW horizon: the
Zodiacal Light! The base of the cone is just above the thickest horizon
haze, and the axis near the ecliptic, or pathway of the Moon and planets.
From southernmost U.S. at this time of year, the cone of light will be
nearly vertical; from northern U.S. it is tilted left, or south of vertical.
Can you follow the Zodiacal Light as far as Saturn, 57 degrees from the
Sun tonight? The Zodiacal Light is sunlight reflected by dust in the plane
of the solar system.
*****
Light pollution from the proliferation of poorly designed outdoor
lighting can render the beauty of the Milky Way, Comet Hale-Bopp, and
the Zodiacal Light completely unobservable to the majority of our
population. The International Dark-Sky Association is a non-profit,
membership-based organization whose goal is to be effective -- through
education about (a) the value and effectiveness of quality nighttime
lighting and (b) solutions to the problems -- in stopping the adverse
environmental impact of light pollution and space debris. They are
making a difference and are worthy of your support!
The IDA can be reached by postal mail at 3545 N. Stewart Ave.,
Tucson, AZ 85716, USA. The IDA homepage on the World Wide Web
is:
http://www.darksky.org/~ida/
Another excellent website is Fred Schaaf's Light-Pollution Notes, at:
http://www.skypub.com/lpnotes/lpnotes.html
To find out the locations of the best and worst viewing sites in your part
of the country, follow IDA's links to images and satellite imagery.
Through these links you can call up an image of your own state at night
showing the areas of light pollution. As an example, in lower Michigan,
satellite photos reveal the darkest skies to be in the northeastern Lower
Peninsula, not far from Alpena. Each year, a loosely-knit group of
amateur astronomy enthusiasts that calls itself SMURFS (the Southern
Michigan Unorganized Regional Federation of Stargazers) has a
summer stargazing weekend there.
Here are some quotes from Fact Sheet on the International Dark-Sky
Association:
"The human experience of the inspiring beauty of the cosmos is at risk
for all people, not just scientists, as light pollution destroys our view of
the beautiful dark sky.
"Quality lighting is the key to overcoming light pollution. It means better
visibility at night, freedom from glare, and also a great deal of energy
savings. Everyone wins".
**********
Continuing with the night of Saturday, January 25, once the Moon has
risen (after end of evening twilight) look for Regulus, heart of Leo,
about 5 degrees to Moon's upper left. By 1-1/2 hours before sunup on
Sunday, Moon is in WSW with Regulus 8 degrees to right.
Comet Hale-Bopp is then low in east, passing 7 degrees directly above
Altair as seen from northern U.S. early in the week. For rest of month,
comet is moving 0.7 degree per day, staying within 7 degrees of Altair
and ending to the star's upper left. (The field of view of 7-power
binoculars is about 6 or 7 degrees wide.) Comet viewing will improve
as scattered light from the Moon decreases daily. Moon will wane to
less than half full by Feb. 1.
Sunday, January 26
One-and-a-half hours before sunrise on Monday, bright Mars is in SW,
17 degrees to Moon's upper left. Note Spica 19 degrees to Mars' lower
left. Follow the Moon's motion past Mars and Spica through Thursday
morning. At the same time ahead of sunrise on Monday, Comet Hale-
Bopp is in east 7 degrees directly above Altair as seen near latitude 43
degrees north. From southern U.S. the comet now appears to the upper
left of star.
An hour before sunup, Mercury has risen between ESE and SE.
Another 15 minutes later, watch for the rising of Venus 8 degrees to
Mercury's lower left. Venus is especially difficult to observe from
northern states as its rising time moves ever closer to sunrise.
Monday, January 27
About 5 hours after sunset, Mars is rising nearly due east, about 8
degrees to Moon's lower left. About 1-1/2 hours before sunup on
Tuesday, the waning gibbous Moon is in SW, with Mars 6 degrees
upper left. Note Spica 23 degrees to Moon's left. Comet Hale-Bopp is
then low in E, directly above Altair as seen from northernmost
contiguous U.S. (latitude 49 degrees north), and to Altair's upper left as
seen from farther south in U.S., and to the star's upper right as seen
from Alaska and most of Canada.
Tuesday, January 28
Six hours after sunset, the waning gibbous Moon, about three-quarters
full, is low in E to ESE with Mars about 5 degrees above. About 1-1/2
hours before sunrise on Wednesday, Moon is in SSW between bright
reddish Mars and the first-magnitude bluish star Spica.
Wednesday, January 29
On Thursday and mornings, about 1-1/2 hours before sunrise (before
any significant dawn brightening is visible), locate the Summer Triangle
in NE to E. The highest and brightest of its stars is zero-magnitude
bluish Vega, high in ENE. First-magnitude Deneb is in NE, 24 degrees
to Vega's lower left. First-magnitude Altair is low in E, 34 degrees to
Vega's lower right. Comet Hale-Bopp these two mornings is located
along one side of the Triangle, 7 degrees to upper left of Altair and one-
fifth of the way toward Vega.
At the same time on Thursday morning, the waning gibbous Moon is in
SSW with Spica 3 or 4 degrees to its lower right. Bright Mars is with
20 degrees to their upper right.
Thursday, January 30
One-and-a-half hours before sunup on Friday, the Moon is in the south.
Look for three bright reddish objects, each just over 30 degrees from the
Moon: Mars in SW, zero-magnitude Arcturus high above the Moon, and
first-magnitude Antares low in SSE. Which of the three reddish objects
is the brightest?
Friday, January 31
If you're at a very clear, dark site in the middle of the night before the
Moon rises, try for the Gegenschein (German for Counterglow), or
faint oval patch of light reflected from comet and asteroid dust in the
direction 180 degrees from the Sun. At this time of year, the
Gegenschein is ideally placed in the faint constellation Cancer, the Crab,
which contains no bright star, planets, or Milky Way whose brilliance
would make the faint glow impossible to detect. Look for an oval cloud
some 10 degrees long, inside the triangle formed by Pollux, Procyon,
and Regulus. Use averted vision: Look to one side of the cloud to place
its image on a more light-sensitive part of your retina than if you looked
directly at it.
On Saturday and all next week, in east 1-1/2 hours before sunrise,
Comet Hale-Bopp passes through the lower right corner of the Summer
Triangle 7 to 11 degrees upper left of Altair. The Moon on Saturday is
just a fat crescent, getting thinner each morning and allowing darker
skies for viewing Comet Hale-Bopp. By Feb. 5 the Moon will be just a
thin crescent on ESE horizon as morning twilight begins. During Feb 6-
19, there will be no Moon in sky at all during comet's predawn viewing
time. Astronomers expect Comet Hale-Bopp to brighten and its tail to
lengthen dramatically in February as the comet closes in on Earth and
Sun.
***** end of Skywatcher's Diary for Jan 23-31, 1997 *****
Subject: Re: Mars Rock Crock!
From: =eat-me@regular-mealtimes= (»Word Warrior«)
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 23:40:47 GMT
Anthony Potts wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Jan 1997, =Word Warrior= wrote:
>> Pollution's definition includes the terms "man made"
>> in my dictionary. Get someone to show you how to
>> use one of those, eh?
>The thing is, Sheila, that from all the evidence so far,
On what would you base your claim to possession of "all the evidence" ?
>your dictionary
>is something which only makes sense to you.
Inaccurate/inapplicable; fallacious regardless.
>For example, you seem to have made a rather large error in your use of the
>word fallacious.
I apply it only to fallacy, your incomprehension of that notwithstanding.
>Sure, it must be nice when you learn a new word,
You seem all too uncertain of that.
>but you ought to only
>apply it when it fits the bill.
Irrelevant.
>For example, it cannot accurately be applied to a question.
False: for example: "Have you stopped getting gerbilled by other nazis?"
is fallacious, as are all such loaded questions.
>If you have any more linguistic problems,
Inaccurate/inapplicable; fallacious regardless.
> please feel free to come to me
>for advice.
Sorry, but I only want valid advice, and you've none to show for yourself here.
_____________________________________________________________________________
|Respectfully, Sheila ~~~Word Warrior~~~ green@pipeline.com|
|Obligatory tribute to the founding fathers of the United States of America:|
| This is not to be read by anyone under 18 years of age, who should read up|
| on history and the First Amendment to the Constitution, as an alternative.|
| *Animals, including humans, fart, piss, shit, masturbate, fuck and abort.*|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Subject: Re: Formation of Planetray systems
From: throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:57:22 GMT
: mc9350@mclink.it (Stefano Bianchi)
: The other day my dad asked me a 'simple' question : how did our solar
: system ( and, in general all those that may exist ) forme? Where did
: it get all those heavy elements? I answered that all I knew was that
: some events, like supernovae's explosions, reach temperatures so high
: that allow formation of heavier elements through thermonuclear
: reactions. But he told me : that's ok. But how did those elements
: reach this place? I suggested that supernovae's explosions are so
: 'catastrophic' they interact with an enormous radius of space around
: them, an so it wasn't so strange. I knew anything else, I was only
: trying to figure something out.
Pretty good answers, I think.
: Then he asked me : but why our solar system is made so that inner
: planets are made of heavier elements and outer ones are made of gases
: like Jupiter? And why, in general, stars are made of hidrogenum and
: helium, while only the planets contain the other elements? I tried to
: say something ( I'm not even so sure about the inner-heavier
: corrispondence ), but, in a word, I failed. Could anyone help us?
The hydrogen, helium, and other light stuff tends to be "blown away"
from the inner planets towards the outer ones by the solar wind; the
sun's light, heat, and ejected plasma 'n stuff. But this is not
strong enough to lift stuff away from the sun itself, because the
sun has such a steep gravity well. Thus, you end up with the hydrogen
all in the sun and the "gas giants" in the outer solar system.
But this doesn't mean there's nothing *but* hydrogen and helium in the
sun. The sun has lots of heavier elements also, but they sink to the
center, except for convection mixing and other effects. The sun (it is
thought) has the same sort of composition as the general interstellar
gas and dust and such where it formed; it's just that that's
overwhelmingly hydrogen and helium, with a little heavy elements mixed
in from previous generations of stars going supernova. Earth can
be composed mostly of non-hydrogen and non-helium, simply because
it's so puny and insignificantly small, compared to the sun or jupiter.
As the old saying goes,
the solar system consists of the sun, jupiter, saturn, and some debris.
--
Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
throopw@cisco.com
Subject: Re: ABOLISH ACADEMIC TENURE
From: "Arthur E. Sowers"
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:45:11 -0500
On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Michael Dworetsky wrote:
> In article <32E53D4D.5337@ultranet.com> chucksz@scientist.com writes:
> >Lawrence R. Mead wrote:
> >>
> >> Dettol (mikeh@gold.chem.hawaii.edu) wrote:
> >[snip]
>
> In following this mainly American thread, I see that no one has hit upon
> the uniquely British solution incorporated in the 1988 Education Act by
> the Conservative Government of Margaret Thatcher.
>
> Tenure for all new employment contracts was abolished so that academics
> could be dismissed for 'good cause' (I won't go into details, but imagine
> the lengthy and difficult process of setting up tribunals, appeals,
> etc--there have been very few dismissals for this reason) or for reasons
> of 'financial redundancy', e.g., if one's university was no longer going
> to have a department or group teaching and researching one's subject. The
> latter provision has been the subject of some abuse by administrations,
> according to the university staff unions.
>
> The Education Act specifically has protections of free speech written
> into it to counter the claim that tenure is required in order to protect
> freedom to advocate unpopular or unusual ideas. I'm not sure how well
> this works in practice.
>
> What is bizarre, of course, is that being promoted in effect changes
> one's contract, so that ***those who earn promotion*** (mainly through
> research excellence, though teaching also counts) lose tenure, but those
> who are unpromotable (or, at least, unpromoted--even if deserving) retain
> tenure if their contract was dated before 1988.
>
> I understand that in the USA one receives tenure upon promotion.
Not necessarily. Many schools, particularly medical and health science
centers, have been or are planning to separate promotion from tenure
consideration. Many schools (particularly the ones in the limelight) have
also separated the "appointment" from the salary. They have also linked
the salary in many cases to grants, and de-linked the salary either mostly
or completely from institutional resources. This means that if you lose
your grant, you lose your job. I know of many examples where tenure means
that if you lose your grant, then your paycheck goes immediately down to
50% of full salary for one year. After that one year, if you don't get
your grant support back, then your salary goes to zero. Sure, the
appointment is tenured. You have, maybe, an office. But your lab gets
taken away. This is not that common, but on the other hand, I've heard of
it from a good number of people I know.
Art Sowers
-------------------------------------------------------
Written in the public interest, the essays on
"Contemporary Problems in Science Jobs" are located at:
http://www.access.digex.net/~arthures/homepage.htm
Snail mail adr to me: P.O.Box 489, Georgetown, DE 19947
-------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Terraforming thesis research
From: Jim Barron
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:40:35 -0500
sschaper@inlink.com wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Jan 1997 14:14:33 -0500, Jim Barron
> wrote:
>
> >I do not know what the "Oberg proposal" is. But, quite obviously, in
>
> Dumping comets, or perhaps more feasibly, small Saturnian ice moons on
> Mars to increase the amount of water and atmosphere substantially, as
> well as vaporizing the CO2 in the ice caps which would alone give us
> an atmosphere of 100 to 200 mb and be sufficient greenhouse to start
> melting the permafrost, which will not only release water, but also
> oxygen and nitrogen, it is thought.
>
RE: Dumping comets on Mars. Either you have to expend a MASSIVE amount
on energy to change the orbits of these comets OR you have to change
them SLIGHTLY but wait a LONG time for the changes to take effect.
(There aren't going to be that many capable of reaching Mars in a short
time with only a slight change in orbit). And, of course you have to
DETECT them in the first place (again a long range proposal). Any way
you figure it, less than a hundred years **just to achieve
"startup"**(of a self-reinforcing cycle) (much less the actual
terraforming!) is totally unrealistic.
> >order to take place that fast, you are going to have to start a
> >self-reinforcing cycle than increases expotentially. And it's going to
> >take a ***LOT*** of energy and/or other imput to start up any such cycle
> >to the point where it is even self maintaining. Where are you going to
> >get the ***MASSIVE*** inputs to achieve startup? Have you done the
> >MATH? (One recent totally impractical proposal was to use all of our
>
> I haven't. Others have.
>
> >Colonizing the Artic (even the Antartic) would cost FAR FAR less, the
> >environment would be far far friendlier (at least they have the proper
> >atmosphere!), the rewards would be far far greater, it could be self
> >supporting far far sooner, and the cost of interchange of materials,
> >personnel, communications, etc would be many orders of magnitude lower.
> >And how close are we to that? Clearly the idea Mars colonization even
>
> Colonizing the arctic or the Antarctic is something that I would
> strongly oppose for environmental reasons, not to mention the
> likelihood of armed conflict over those regions. The equatorial
> regions of Mars are already warmer, btw, and are more interesting
> scientifically, since we can already examine our own poles
> scientifically and have been doing so for a long time.
>
I also oppose colonizing the Artic and Antartic for the same reasons. I
was trying to point out that if we haven't even begun to do THAT we are
unlikely to go to Mars for reasons that would be easier served by
colonization of the poles of Earth (i.e.: living space, resources,
etc.). Exploration of Mars will first be done for scientific reasons.
> Perhaps you simply are opposed to space exploration?
I am VERY much in FAVOR of it. But I think the notion some seem to
swallow that colonization of Mars will make even a significant impact of
population problems or even supply a useful amount of resources within
the next several generations it totally unrealistic. Believing such
things might distract us from the absolute necessity to come to grips
with the population and ecological problems which threaten our very
survival. (If we survive in the long term we will almost inevitably
colonize Mars (although colonization of the Asteroids might well come
first) but ONLY **IF** and **AFTER** we solve the population and
ecological problems on Earth. Which is NOT to say that we should not
NOW be planning and working toward Mars, the asteroids and beyond. Just
that we MUST not forget that OTHER problems are essential to our
survival and MUST be solved first.
>
> >having a significant effect on our population problem (much less solving
> >it) is absurd! As for the science - many advances must first be made
>
> I never made such a claim.
>
> >(especially in ecological science) BEFORE Mars, not AFTER. Trying to
> >colonize Mars now would roughly be like the Europeans trying to colonize
> >the Americas by paddling across on logs - in terms of the difficulty of
> >the journey, the dangers, the difficulty of taking enough with you, the
> >chances of becoming self supporting, etc. etc.
>
> This is sheer stuff and nonsense. We could have gone to Mars in the
> 1970s, and we certainly know how to send and establish permanent
> Antarctic-style bases on Mars with present technology. What we lack is
> the desire to do so, on a national scale. Cost is actually much less
> than Apollo, when adjusted for inflation. See Zubrin.
Who is Zubrin? ALL of the discussions I've read (in the mainstream
science magazines) clearly indicate that the costs of an Antartic style
base (which is CONSTANTLY occupied, not just a one-time mission and has
MANY more personnel than any Mars proposal so far) would be FAR more
than we could possibly afford at present. The Apollo missions were
simple and cheap compared to ANY of the Mars proposals so far. (And the
Apollo missions were actually implemented! And you can't do THAT
without facing ALL of the economic realities. ALL of the Mars proposals
are unrealisticlly cheap for the simple reason that all of the details
haven't been worked out yet. And our history has very consistently
shown that the expense and complexity of such radically new projects are
always **initially** more complex and exprensive than originally
envisioned.)
>
> >I think that we WILL colonize Mars someday (and I'm all for it) IF we
> >survive. The bad news is that we may not survive. The good news is
> >that we WON'T - unless we DESERVE to! (by bringing the whole earth up to
> >standards - of democracy, freedom, standard of living, of ecological
> >sustainable living, etc. etc. If we can't do that HERE, IMHO, we have
> >no business among the stars.
>
> I guess that I don't see the basis for establishing a religious test
> before going to Mars.
This is NOT religion, it is ETHICS.
> >
> >Mars will not be our salvation. It will be our REWARD if we achieve our
> >own salvation.
>
> Again, this seems to be a religious matter for you. I am of a
> different religion, which values turning the desert, including cold
> ones like Mars, into a garden.
>
I did not mean "salvation" in a *religious* sense, but in the sense of
"solution to our (species and bio-sphere threatening) problems.
I too would like to see Mars turned into a garden. But you've got to
have **live seeds** to plant one and we won't unless OTHER problems are
solved first.
I am very much in favor of
1) actively planning and implementing a long term project to explore
Mars (and the asteroids, etc.) but planning too far beyond our knowledge
and capabilities would be wasteful and possibly even kill the idea if
early expectations were too unrealistic. I also believe that the MAJOR
benefit of such research that is already being done is the increased
understanding of the requirements of sustainable environments (turns out
to be a LOT more complicated than we thought. Surpise surprise! ;^)
2) while studiouly avoiding support to a) the absurdly unrealistic idea
that emmigration from Earth will in any way contribute to the solution
of overpopulation and b) the equally unrealistic idea that we can escape
from and abandon Earth (as too polluted & whatever)and coninue elsewhere
(we have neither the time nor the resources nor the technology for
that).
Clear enough?
jdbarron@cphl.mindspring.com
> >jdbarron@cphl.mindspring.com
> >
