Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Orius" data-source="post: 8207215" data-attributes="member: 8863">They haven't all been rovers as other people pointed out.&nbsp; The Viking landers were stationary, as was Phoenix.&nbsp; And the Viking landers had technology that was over 45 years old as well.&nbsp; While the Viking landers returned no evidence of life on Mars, science and technology has advanced since their landings.&nbsp; Possibly the Viking landers were in very lifeless areas of Mars, or as some people have speculated, the crudeness of the instruments used may have destroyed any evidence of life.&nbsp; This current mission not only has much more advanced technology, but it's in a place that would have been conducive to supporting any Martian life that may have existed.&nbsp; Not only does this rover have better instruments to investigate specific scientific questions we have about Mars, but it's also designed to leave behind samples that a future mission can return to Earth that scientists can study directly in ways a rover can't.The point of all of this is to determine if life did exist on Mars in the past and if any sort of life still exists.&nbsp; It's still an open question, and answering it is of fundamental importance to any manned presence on Mars.&nbsp; Beyond that the whole question of whether life exists elsewhere in the universe is one of the most fundamental unanswered questions in science today, one of the top 10 if not top 5 questions.I very strongly disagree with anyone who thinks space exploration is a total waste of money, regardless of where they sit on the political spectrum.While there's always been that anti-intellectualism, it hasn't always been the same as it is today.&nbsp; Early Americans didn't really idealize stupidity, but rather they valued practical learning and education that was more immediately applicable to their daily lives and would help them prosper rather than more theoretical ideas.&nbsp; Modern anti-intellectualism isn't entirely the same, but there's a lot of it that's very political in nature.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Orius, post: 8207215, member: 8863"] They haven't all been rovers as other people pointed out. The Viking landers were stationary, as was Phoenix. And the Viking landers had technology that was over 45 years old as well. While the Viking landers returned no evidence of life on Mars, science and technology has advanced since their landings. Possibly the Viking landers were in very lifeless areas of Mars, or as some people have speculated, the crudeness of the instruments used may have destroyed any evidence of life. This current mission not only has much more advanced technology, but it's in a place that would have been conducive to supporting any Martian life that may have existed. Not only does this rover have better instruments to investigate specific scientific questions we have about Mars, but it's also designed to leave behind samples that a future mission can return to Earth that scientists can study directly in ways a rover can't. The point of all of this is to determine if life did exist on Mars in the past and if any sort of life still exists. It's still an open question, and answering it is of fundamental importance to any manned presence on Mars. Beyond that the whole question of whether life exists elsewhere in the universe is one of the most fundamental unanswered questions in science today, one of the top 10 if not top 5 questions. I very strongly disagree with anyone who thinks space exploration is a total waste of money, regardless of where they sit on the political spectrum. While there's always been that anti-intellectualism, it hasn't always been the same as it is today. Early Americans didn't really idealize stupidity, but rather they valued practical learning and education that was more immediately applicable to their daily lives and would help them prosper rather than more theoretical ideas. Modern anti-intellectualism isn't entirely the same, but there's a lot of it that's very political in nature. [/QUOTE]

Verification