beecee

20cm Stanley London brass Marine sextant. Antique 10 inch brass & wooden gimbal compass.

? Sorry, I fail to understand. I see. Just curious though, what other possible scientific method for the appearence of life is there other then abiogenesis? Isn't it simply the case that we just don't know the exact pathway? "Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion"? Oliver Heaviside (1850-1925) English physicist. ? I don't see it as a matter of defence or attack. I see it as the result of the evolution of space and time, with life at the apex, and with knowledge waiting to be discovered/learnt.

In my time at science forums, I have always been of the opinion that the "ignore" function is taboo and akin to hiding from your opposition. I have always preferred to continue arguing my postion and stance, but sometimes one runs into someone 5 cans short of a six pack, and you realize that you were wrong. I have now for the first time ever, place a person on ignore!!😜 And it feels good!!

Or those approaching this from a scientific point of view, rather then a fantasy unworkable philosophy. Yes, I know that, but strangely in many ways, we are doing more science in determining the atmospheric content of extra solar planets, then our own planet. If you read the links I have given, you will understand that project Genesis when eventually undertaken, will be under strict protocol, and understanding that any microbrial life 5 kms down, that has been missed on an otherwise sterile planet/Moon, have been evolving their for hundreds of millions of years, and have a low to zero probabilty of becoming anything more substantial, and will probably remain unaffected. Think probability. Do you brush your teeth dimreeper? Hmmm, interesting. So no giants on whose shoulders you can stand and use to see further? I have stated my position often, and more importantly understand that position as a non scientist. What I do try and achieve is a opinion and thoughts, based on already accepted scientific knowledge....hence my many links. I also believe I have no baggage, other then science and the scientific method, my family and friends, and the family and friends are irrelevant as far as this debate goes. As I have said before, I believe your position is tainted by your unworkable life philosophy. I also understand that the topic is probably controversial, but I also understand that Hitler was an arsehole, period, and that sadly prisons are necessary, period. In saying all that, I see project Genesis as a morally acceptable experiment, when done under the stricy protocol mentioned in my links. You have given me no scientific reason to change that stance. Are you doubting abiogenesis? Scientists (as opposed to I) do understand that abiogenesis is the only scientific methodology for the appearence of life. They also accept that at this time, we do not know the exact pathway/methodolgy that gave rise to abiogenesis. No they are not sure. But the probability is low. Your doing it again Peterkin. Making grandeur like exaggerated pretentious statements. It will all be done in a scientific manner, under strict protocol, in a universe which so far has offerred no evidence whatsoever of any life of this fart arse special little blue orb!

A bloated Elvis not long before he died, but no effects on a magnificent voice! Unchained Melody - Elvis Presley

Going back over some of the more intelligent posts, the above of course as stated in all the links given, is the target...a known sterile world, noting that any unknown deep Earth microbes have probably already filled their niche, understanding of course the scientific notion of probabilty over possibities. Good question, probably the experts learned in geology and other life studies. Again also judged on probabilty over possibility. Another reasonable question. Most scientists are reasonably convinced there is no life on Mars at this time, but experiments continue. Noting all the cephalopods, spiders, mice etc etc etc that we have taken to the ISS for low gravity experiments in the main. It is drawing a ridiculous long bow to suggest that they are now space faring entities, and rather humouress to boot. 🤭 Another valid point. While I'm preety well convinced that life off this Earth probably does exist somewhere, sometime, I also understand that we still have zero evidence of any of that life. So yes there is a chance that we are the only advanced form within reasonable distances, and subsequently would be morally, and scientifically bound to spread our seed where and when we are able, aligning with the accepted protocol. Big ticketed scientific projects benefit Earth and our knowledge. How many of the nay sayers, excuse makers and such would vote to live a day without any scientific application. None I suggest. I don't know the projected cost of what the Genesis mission would cost, but I suggest when the time comes when we are ready for it, such costs over the science benefits will be near non existant. I would just differentiate slightly...some form of basic microbrial life should be found within the next decade or two, and probably within our own system.eg: Europa, Titan, Enceledus. Advanced life forms able to undertake space faring adventures will of course be a rarer occurence. The project certainly undoubtedly has merit, as currently detailed uner the strict accepted protocols. The general scientific consensus is that abiogenesis did occur on Earth, I'm sure you agree with that...being the general accepted consensus that is, yes? and of course abiogenesis. yes? At the same time Panspermia hypotheticals are still talked about and there are a number of different types, and even clubs and orginisations for those favouring Panspermia. No I aint a member of any of them but see the type of Panspermia as detailed in Project Genesis as well worth the probablity risk and a certain undertaking in the course of time. Who knows, perhaps one of the Pioneer probes, or Voyager craft, maybe our Panspermia message to some planet or moon. Do you brush your teeth morning and night? 😉

Some of the Panspermia methodologies, suggest seeding planetary accretion disks. I see that as very interesting. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: We should also seriously note the less than honest claim made that NASA was suggesting octopuses were "space faring" . They don't, they aren't and they didn't. What NASA has done, and what the less than honest claim was made from, was that octopuses, squids etc, have been taken to the ISS by (wait for it! ) humans for experimental research. https://jalopnik.com/nasa-to-kick-off-squid-uprising-with-latest-spacex-payl-1847032282 https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/spacex-22-research-highlights So relax Ladies and gentleman, octopuses will not any time soon or ever, be building their own space ship to ferry them to some distant unknown octopus run planet! 🤣

The interesting conclusion of the previous paper, http://astro-ecology.com/PDFAsteroidAstrobiology2002Paper.pdf is as follows. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS: The previously reported studies on carbonaceous chondrites (Mautner, 1997a; Mautner et al., 1997) have been extended here to natural aqueous conditions of high solid/solution ratios. The main experiment-based conclusions are: 1. Planetary microcosms, based on actual extraterrestrial materials in meteorites, are useful tools in experimental astroecology. 2. Based on microcosm studies, the interiors of carbonaceous chondrite meteorites can contain highly concentrated solutions of electrolytes, nutrients, and organics (i.e., 3 mol/L electrolytes, 1–10 mol/L organics). 3. The interiors of asteroids during aqueous alteration, or meteorites landed on aqueous planets, are therefore suitable for potential biogenesis. 4. Microorganisms can grow in the interior solutions of meteorites. 5. The biomass-like ratios of macronutrients in extracts from both meteorites, and the high sulfate content in Murchison, are consistent with past biological activity in carbonaceous chondrite meteorites (i.e., soil fertility properties of Murchison are similar to those of biologically developed soils; organic polymer is similar to coal; ratios of soluble N, P, K, C, Ca, Mg, Na, Cl, and S are comparable to those in bacterial biomass). 6. Complex recycling communities of algae, bacteria, and fungi develop and survive for substantial periods in solutions prepared from extracts of carbonaceous chondrite meteorites (i.e., algal populations of 105 and microbial populations 106 CFU/ml of six species surviving over 8 months on wet Allende and Murchison). The experiments described here provide a means to examine separately the nutrient contents and the microbial populations in the microcosms. In real ecosystems, microbial activity and available nutrients are interdependent and should be monitored simultaneously. Theoretical calculations based on the results of this study suggest: 1. Carbonaceous asteroids containing nutrient solutions could distribute micoorganisms during a period of collision-mediated panspermia in the Solar Nebula and in the early Solar System (i.e., available nutrients allow a biomass of 1018 kg in a population 1032 microorganisms in the asteroid belt). 2. Similarly, comets could be used as vehicles, and protoplanetary nebulae used as targets and incubators in directed panspermia missions for seeding new planetary systems with microbial life (i.e., the nutrients in the Oort belt comets could allow a biomass of 1021 kg containing 1035 microorganisms, sufficient to seed all new solar systems in the galaxy). 3. Carbonaceous chondrites provide suitable soil resources for planetary terraforming and space colonization (i.e., based on the limiting nutrients NO3-N and PO4-P, the total asteroid material could support a population of 1014 humans). In combination, the results of planetary microcosm studies and theoretical considerations have a wide range of applications that include assaying the fertilities of planetary materials; targeting astrobiology exploration; identifying bioresources and estimating sustainable populations in the Solar System; and modeling ecosystems for terraforming, space colonization, and directed panspermia. And I have certainly had your thoughts on "grand space dreams" 😉 You do accept that the reasonable "grand space dreams' I have, all are predicted without any real specific time frame. Where do you believe we will be as space faring entities in say 500 years, a reasonable time frame considering...colony on the Moon? Boots on Mars? Ignoring the ridiculous suggestions of space faring octopuses by lesser folk, we have far more then Gros, championing the idea. And with all due respect, while you suggest that Gros is less then open minded about whether or not it is a good idea, couldn't the same accusation be made about you? I have also if you are interested, and I believe mentioned in my post to you last night, some reputable thoughts by Professor Muatner. The facts are when this is undertaken, ( and I believe it certainly will be, and more then once) it will all be done under some strict protcol as discussed and mentioned. I'm don't in any way shape or form, have any superiority quality opinion re the human race, other then we are certainly the only advanced form of intelligence that is known to be space faring, and in fact the only advanced life form to be known in the universe. That certainly at this time makes us special. What is wrong with accepting that fact? Likewise Earth is the only planet so far known to support any life form at all. Doesn't that make Earth special? Yet the real close minded see that as being meglomaniac. 😊 Yet you certainly know my thoughts as optimistic with regards to other Alien life forms, that as yet we are ignorant of. And I know your own pessimitic thoughts relative to mine with regards to Alien life. Again I see the Genesis project, when undertaken, to be within our moral and scientific rights to do...No qualms about that at all.

Just quickly, if any world conflict did break out ( god forbid!) wouldn't the likes of China and Russia and North Korea be on the same side? First used (I think) by Saddam Hussein. With regards to I recall, bunker busting bombs.

My attitude is OK. I'm sticking with the science, rather then proping up some unworkable sanitised system. Another...... http://astro-ecology.com/PDFAsteroidAstrobiology2002Paper.pdf Research Paper Planetary Resources and Astroecology. Planetary Microcosm Models of Asteroid and Meteorite Interiors: Electrolyte Solutions and Microbial Growth— Implications for Space Populations and Panspermia: MICHAEL N. MAUTNER : ABSTRACT: Planetary microcosms were constructed using extracts from meteorites that simulate solutions in the pores of carbonaceous chondrites. The microcosms were found to support the growth of complex algal and microbial populations. Such astroecology experiments demonstrate how a diverse ecosystem could exist in fluids within asteroids and in meteorites that land on aqueous planets. The microcosm solutions were obtained by extracting nutrient electrolytes under natural conditions from powders of the Allende (CV) and Murchison (CM2) meteorites at low (0.02 g/ml) and high (10.0 g/ml) solid/solution ratios. The latter solutions, which simulate natural extractions of asteroids and meteorites by water during aqueous alteration, were found to contain 3 mol/L electrolytes and 1 mol/L organics, concentrated solutions favorable for prebiotic synthesis. The solutions and wet solids, inoculated with diverse microbial populations from a wetland, were found to support complex self-sustaining microbial communities for long periods (8 months), with steady-state populations on the order of 4 105 CFU/ml algae and 6 106 CFU/ml bacteria and fungi. Planetary microcosm experiments based on meteorite materials can assist in assaying the fertilities of planetary materials and identifying space bioresources, targeting astrobiology exploration, modeling past and future spacebased ecosystems, and evaluating sustainable populations in the Solar System. The results also suggest that protoplanetary nebulae can be effective nurseries for microorganisms and useful targets for directed panspermia. Key Words: Astroecology—Asteroids—Comets—Meteorites—Microorganisms—Panspermia. Astrobiology 2, xxx–xxx.

That's what it is all about, not withstanding your unworkable philosophically sanitised society. Oh and late edit Peterkin, there were many other points to comment on also. Are the big red words supposed to infer something or other? You read the entire paper? 😉 I read the essential bits that relay the guts of it and see it as our duty to seed sterile worlds. Nonsense, and as already mentioned previously and reproduced below, I have read those hypotheticals, as oppossed to scientific theories, which most reputable scientists reject. It is nonsense to suggest that octopuses who have had more then 300 million years of evolution will ever be space faring entities, and we have no evidence to suggest they are Alien, and which most reputable scientists reject. But et pet, I must now ignore you for reasons known by yourself and myself regarding past interactions elsewhere and your reputaion. Hope you understand. Thank you.

As mentioned earlier......a probable variation.... http://astro-ecology.com/PDFDirectedPanspermia3JBIS1997Paper.pdf DIRECTED PANSPERMIA. 3. STRATEGIES AND MOTIVATION FOR SEEDING STAR-FORMING CLOUDS: ABSTRACT: Microbial swarms aimed at star-forming regions of interstellar clouds can seed stellar associations of 10 - 100 young planetary systems. Swarms of millimeter size, milligram packets can be launched by 35 cm solar sails at 5E-4 c, to penetrate interstellar clouds. Selective capture in high-density planetary accretion zones of densities > 1E-17 kg m-3 is achieved by viscous drag. Strategies are evaluated to seed dense cloud cores, or individual protostellar condensations, accretion disks or young planets therein. Targeting the Ophiuchus cloud is described as a model system. The biological content, dispersed in 30 µm, 1E-10 kg capsules of 1E6 freeze-dried microorganisms each, may be captured by new planets or delivered to planets after incorporation first into carbonaceous asteroids and comets. These objects, as modeled by meteorite materials, contain biologically available organic and mineral nutrients that are shown to sustain microbial growth. The program may be driven by panbiotic ethics, predicated on: 1. The unique position of complex organic life amongst the structures of Nature; 2. Self-propagation as the basic propensity of the living pattern; 3. The biophysical unity humans with of the organic, DNA/protein family of life; and 4. Consequently, the primary human purpose to safeguard and propagate our organic life form. To promote this purpose, panspermia missions with diverse biological payloads will maximize survival at the targets and induce evolutionary pressures. In particular, eukaryotes and simple multicellular organisms in the payload will accelerate higher evolution. Based on the geometries and masses of star-forming regions, the 1E24 kg carbon resources of one solar system, applied during its 5E9 yr lifespan, can seed all newly forming planetary systems in the galaxy.

Stop avoiding the issue Peterkin. We don't need to kill, nor should we kill all of them. The point again is that we are obliged to spread life to areas that we see scientifically devoid of it, not withstanding your apparent abhorance to the only known advanced species in all the universe...that be you and me old Son. Here's another interesting paper, and I don't believe I have posted it before, so it should meet with your approval. http://www.astro-ecology.com/Book.pdf Synopsis “It is the human purpose to propagate life” Life is unique in Nature, and for us, it is precious. Life is unique in its complex patterns, and in its purposeful self-continuation. We belong to life and share its drive for self-propagation. Belonging to life then implies a human purpose to secure, expand and propagate our family of gene/protein life. This purpose is best achieved in space, where life has an immense future. We can start now to secure this future, by seeding with life new solar systems. New species can develop there into intelligent beings who will further expand life in the galaxy. Filling the universe with life will give then our human existence a cosmic purpose. Seeding the Universe with Life - Securing Our Cosmological Future: Michael Noah Mautner, Ph.D. Cover Photo: The first extraterrestrial plant, grown on meteorite extracts, rides toward new suns. Life planted in new worlds will flourish on such materials and stellar energy throughout the galaxy. extract: Life is unique because the laws of physics coincide precisely to allow life to exist. Nature came to a unique point in life. Life creates complex patterns, whose effective purpose is selfpropagation. Where there is life, there purpose. We belong to life and share its purpose. It is the human purpose to forever protect and propagate life. The human purpose implies biotic ethics: What promotes life is good, and what harms life is evil. Further, panbiotic ethics seeks to maximize life in the universe. The astro-ecology of meteorites shows that asteroid and comet materials in this Solar System, and others, are fertile. We can now proceed to seed new solar systems with our family of gene/protein life Our seeds in new worlds can advance into intelligent beings who will further expand life. Astro-ecology and cosmology allow an immense future for life. Our remote descendants may then seek to extend life to eternity. Guided by life-centered biotic principles and panbiotic ethics, we can now start to fill the galaxy with life. In our descendants through time and space, our human existence will find a cosmic purpose. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Quite a lengthy summary paper that essentially shows why we (humans) despite our checkered past, and at times violent nature, are still obliged to carry out scientific experiments as we are able, the Genesis project being one of those. Understood, no problems. Most, such as yourself and joigus ( and a couple of others early in the thread) have approached the subject honestly and devoid of baggage. Others have approached it imo, in a pretentiously melodramatic and nonsensical philosophical position, obvious by that passive aggressive approach, and their countless possibility scenarios, while ignoring the scientific probabilites. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

So, as usual nothing but opinions? And we know all about thoughs!🤮 Do you brush your teeth every morning and evening?

https://phys.org/news/2022-01-chemist-extraterrestrial-life.html Have we been looking for extraterrestrials in all the wrong places? San Diego State University chemists are developing methods to find signs of life on other planets by looking for the building blocks of proteins in a place they've never been able to test before: inside rocks. After collaborating with researchers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in La Cañada Flintridge in 2019, Jessica Torres, a doctoral student studying chemistry at SDSU, is experimenting with ways to extract amino acids from porous rocks that could be used on future rovers. Previous research has looked for evidence of other life forms in water and soil, but not from solid materials. MORE AT LINK..................... Supplementary article: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-life-planets.html the paper: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.analchem.6b04338 Enhanced Resolution of Chiral Amino Acids with Capillary Electrophoresis for Biosignature Detection in Extraterrestrial Samples: Abstract Amino acids are fundamental building blocks of terrestrial life as well as ubiquitous byproducts of abiotic reactions. In order to distinguish between amino acids formed by abiotic versus biotic processes it is possible to use chemical distributions to identify patterns unique to life. This article describes two capillary electrophoresis methods capable of resolving 17 amino acids found in high abundance in both biotic and abiotic samples (seven enantiomer pairs d/l-Ala, -Asp, -Glu, -His, -Leu, -Ser, -Val and the three achiral amino acids Gly, β-Ala, and GABA). To resolve the 13 neutral amino acids one method utilizes a background electrolyte containing γ-cyclodextrin and sodium taurocholate micelles. The acidic amino acid enantiomers were resolved with γ-cyclodextrin alone. These methods allow detection limits down to 5 nM for the neutral amino acids and 500 nM for acidic amino acids and were used to analyze samples collected from Mono Lake with minimal sample preparation.

It's certainly not about the highly improbable evolution of space faring octopuses! 😆 Enough of it to know what it is essentially about. All the relevant salient points that would be obvious if you at least attempted to read the paper. If you say so. Essentially there is no concrete evidence to show that octopuses are Alien, and the vast majority of scientists reject that scenario. Yes I read that suggestion also, but prefer facts. Just as essentially, they are evolutionary constrained after 300 million years of evolution. Philosophical nonsense. We are talking about sterile planets/moons. Who is your priest/teacher? I have made mine known, at least three of them. Are you going to shrink away from that question also? If you took the time to read the links, you would understand that the equivelent to Star Trek's prime directive is considered in all aspects, and I support that. You though remained confused over your silly possiblity scenarios over the more scientific application of probabilities. You didn't answer my previous question: Do you brush your teeth morning and evening? Stop being so pretentiously melodramatic. We are talking about sterile planets, decided after research, any probability of microbes existing 5 kms down, have already probably found their evolutionary niche. Thankfully, its the relevant scientific opinion, based on data after research that decides the necessity of the Genesis experiment. I suspect its more about upholding your societal sanitised philosophical agenda. And as most reasonable scientists agree. Facts are we kill bacteria every day, even on Earth. The position being argued by the nay sayers, is essentially pretentiously melodramatic and unworkable. Again, more an argument from them of possibilities over scientific derived probabilities. The silly claim that it is not scientific, was as you say silly, and literally scraping the bottom of the cesspool barrel. In time, and as we develop further into space faring, I'm pretty sure experiments like this will take place...probably more then once. I stand convinced, along with Professor Mautner, (and yourself) and others, that we are morally obliged to attempt such a mission, when we can, and that the pros far outweigh the cons.

Since you fail to address relevant points in the many links I have given, I'll give one more assessment for you to practise your philosophy on in an attempt to discredit it....... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_panspermia#Motivation_and_ethics Directed panspermia scroll down to Motivation and ethics[edit] Directed panspermia aims to secure and expand our family of organic gene/protein life. It may be motivated by the desire to perpetuate the common genetic heritage of all terrestrial life. This motivation was formulated as biotic ethics, that value the common gene/protein patterns of organic life,[9] and as panbiotic ethics that aim to secure and expand life in the universe.[7][8] Molecular biology shows complex patterns common to all cellular life, a common genetic code and a common mechanism to translate it into proteins, which in turn help to reproduce the DNA code. Also, shared are the basic mechanisms of energy use and material transport. These self-propagating patterns and processes are the core of organic gene/protein life. Life is unique because of this complexity, and because of the exact coincidence of the laws of physics that allow life to exist. Also unique to life is the pursuit of self-propagation, which implies a human purpose to secure and expand life. These objectives are best secured in space, suggesting a panbiotic ethics aimed to secure this future.[2][7][8][9] Objections and counterarguments[edit] The main objection to directed panspermia is that it may interfere with local life at the targets.[36] The colonizing microorganisms may out-compete local life for resources, or infect and harm local organisms. However, this probability can be minimized by targeting newly forming planetary systems, accretion discs and star-forming clouds, where local life, and especially advanced life, could not have emerged yet. If there is local life that is fundamentally different, the colonizing microorganisms may not harm it. If there is local organic gene/protein life, it may exchange genes with the colonizing microorganisms, increasing galactic biodiversity.[citation needed] Another objection is that space should be left pristine for scientific studies, a reason for planetary quarantine. However, directed panspermia may reach only a few, at most a few hundred new stars, still leaving a hundred billion pristine for local life and for research. A technical objection is the uncertain survival of the messenger organisms during long interstellar transit. Research by simulations, and the development on hardy colonizers is needed to address this questions. A third argument against engaging in directed panspermia derives from the view that wild animals do not —on the average— have lives worth living, and thus spreading life would be morally wrong. Ng supports this view,[37] and other authors agree or disagree, because it is not possible to measure animal pleasure or pain. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: There we have some pros and cons. I stand convinced, along with Professor Mautner and others, that we are morally obliged to attempt such a mission, when we can, and that the pros far outweigh the cons. You could also address this paper if you like..... https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.02286.pdf

Well Rafael Nadal has done it the hard way! Down two sets, he has clawed his way back to join an elie of players to win every major title twice. https://www.firstpost.com/sports/australian-open-2022-highlights-mens-final-nadal-beats-medvedev-in-five-sets-for-record-21st-major-10332281.html#live-blog-20220130194323 Rafael Nadal beats Daniil Medvedev 2-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4, 6-3 to win the 2022 Australian Open. This is his 21st Grand Slam title, his second in Australia and he has now won all four majors at least twice. No one has come from two sets down to win the Australian Open final in the Open Era. And again, thankfully, no mention of our anti vaxxer ,Djokovic!

Agreed. The main point though is not too many of the nay sayers have actually addressed the links, references, facts and scientific speculations in the many links given. Do you brush your teeth every morning and night?

Or perhaps 177 degrees? and 98 degrees?😉 If we look down on the solar system from above, all the planets revolve counterclockwise, except for Venus and Uranus...177 degrees and 98 degrees is how much we would need to view their poles rotating counterclockwise. On the other hand, Venus is actually only tilted away from the plane of the ecliptic by only 3 degrees so from that perspective is actually almost upside down, and Uranus is laying on its side.

You are mistaken. It's stagnate or do science. (1) It's Science, (2) Because we can, (3) because it's imperitive on the off chance that Earth is truly the only planet where abiogenesis has taken hold, to spread life on another planet (4) Because according to the data, the planet being seeded is sterile, and (5) any possibility of any underground microbes fail when compared to the probability and the already undertaken science to reach the conclusion, the planet is sterile. It's not contaminants. Its life. Science costs plenty, and is justified by the fact none of us can do without it. Ego or no ego,we are the only known advanced space faring lifeform on the only known planet to have had abiogenesis take hold. That same result probably also holds true for any possibility of the underground microbes on the otherwise sterile planet, that our knowledge and science has decreeded to be sterile. Seeding such a planet would have future applications as to a probable new home for humans, when the time nears for the Sun/Earth use by date. If of course we are still around.

Let me be clear, I am fully supportive of protecting places in our solar system and/or beyond, that may harbor life, so that they retain their value for scientific purposes. But again as Professor of chemistry, Michael Mautner, of Virginia Commonwealth University, says, "seeding the universe with life is not just an option, it’s our moral obligation." The mistake I believe is being made (not by all) but by a couple here, is that they are letting the "possibilities" scenario, ( and we can really assume anything is possible) over rule the more scientific options of probabilites. The probable chances of microbes existing, 5 kms below on an otherwise sterile planet are low but "reasonable" to consider...the possibility of such microbes evolving into a multi cell life form or space faring entities, is far far less probable. So much so, that reputable scientist, (and little old nobody me) see experiments such as the Genesis project as worthwhile at worst and obligatory at best. I find it really hard to believe that dimreeper, Peterkin and yourself see the prospect of extending life to where it is apparently non existant as chauvinistic. Hard to believe and unscientific to boot. We know of only one planet where Abiogenesis has taken hold...fact. We are an advanced form of that abiogenesis and evolutionary processes...fact We do science...fact

I was going to say something, but decided to give myself an uppercut and shutup!

Yes, and as has been detailed in previous links, the project Genesis if it prceeds, will take into account, all the data and research known about the intended body to be considered. The probabilty argument over the "possibility" is a reasonable scientific aspect to proceed on imho. Why couldn't we? Why in a few thousand years ( if we are still around) shouldn't we colonise another planet with a star with a predicted lifetime longer then our Sun? Why do you think we should inhibit our knowledge, expertise and know how and not try to do what we are capable of? Why shouldn't we? I'll leave that for you (hopefully) to answer. I don't see that as a bias. Perhaps we all need to ask ourselves, where we would be without science. Under any metric you care to name. The simple facts are that we ARE an advanced species (silly philosophical stances not withstanding) and the only known species to now be space faring entities. Afterall, the simple fact that we are here contemplating this at all says everything. I really can't see our octopuses friends doing similar contemplating. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.02286.pdf Why planetary and exoplanetary protection differ: The case of long duration Genesis missions to habitable but sterile M-dwarf oxygen planets: Abstract: Time is arguably the key limiting factor for interstellar exploration. At high speeds, flyby missions to nearby stars by laser propelled wafersats taking 50-100 years would be feasible. Directed energy launch systems could accelerate on the other side also crafts weighing several tons to cruising speeds of the order of 1000 km/s (c/300). At these speeds, superconducting magnetic sails would be able to decelerate the craft by transferring kinetic energy to the protons of the interstellar medium. A tantalizing perspective, which would allow interstellar probes to stop whenever time is not a limiting factor. Prime candidates are in this respect Genesis probes, that is missions aiming to offer terrestrial life new evolutionary pathways on potentially habitable but hitherto barren exoplanets. Genesis missions raise important ethical issues, in particular with regard to planetary protection. Here we argue that exoplanetary and planetary protection differ qualitatively as a result of the vastly different cruising times for payload delivering probes, which are of the order of millennia for interstellar probes, but only of years for solar system bodies. Furthermore we point out that our galaxy may harbor a large number of habitable exoplanets, M-dwarf planets, which could be sterile due to the presence of massive primordial oxygen atmospheres. We believe that the prospect terrestrial life has in our galaxy would shift on a fundamental level in case that the existence of this type of habitable but sterile oxygen planets will be corroborated by future research. It may also explain why our sun is not a M dwarf, the most common star type, but a medium-sized G-class star. So we sit on our hands and stagnate? So what? We certainly (humans) have a use by date, but we may be able to extend that. Why shouldn't we? Because of the "possibility"of some microbes 5 kms deep inside the planet, as opposed to probablities? Our benefit could very well be a planet where we could move to on the time scales you seem to find abhorent. It could extend our species. Do you find that agreeable?

I stand corrected. And with six roving probes so far having found no signs of life, we are reasonably confident that none now exists on the red planet. So there are other reasons to want to explore Mars, not the least being to one day put boots on the planet...why? as I have told you before, for science, adventure, further exploration, ( probes no matter how sophisticated are essentially a prepariotary tool in preparation for human exploration.) and finally as corny as it may sound to you, because its there. And what pray tell is wrong with national pride? My disagreement with you is denying that we will ever or should ever have a colony on the Moon, and/or Mars. I'm saying that it will happen as sure as the Sun rises tomorrow morning. When? I don't know, but in the course of time, and as long as we don't eliminate oursleves before then. Robotic probes are essential and part and parcel of our efforts to search for ETL, explore, and colonise. They are simply a tool. We will in time, have a colony on the Moon, and in the course of time, probably have one on Mars too. Sure I disagree with you.And you are entitled to disagree with me. Let's simply keep it at that. Admittedly project Genesis is controversial. There are many reputable and knowledgable people that support it as such. I have linked to some of those people and the reasons why it is science, which imo is your biggest mitake in saying it isn't science. You may disagree with it, but it still is science. My beef so far is that essentially no one has addressed the many reasonable points as to why project Genesis should be undertaken in the course of time. The possibility of microbrial and bacterial argument deep within the bowels of some otherwise lifeless planet, is not an argument why it shouldn't happen, and is highlighted by the fact that we kill microbes and bacteria everyday of our lives. Sure you are. So why do you avoid answering questions? ( as you did in the other thread) and instead keep carrying on with your life philosophical agenda? And yes I do read your posts and answer all points you don't make. Shouldn't you do the same? I suggest you read his post again. The position he wisely takes is that, "by no means easy to tell what would be a good decision" and the "Don't get me wrong. I don't have a strong opinion about this one way or the other." In essence ( as dangerous as it can be 😉) he is sitting on the fence. The point he makes about how sure we can really be that any planet is sterile, and the possibility of 5km deep microbes and such, I don't believe is really valid, but at least he has attempted to answer questions, and is taking a position of "not sure" as against your own life philosophically motivated immovable position. I've already answered that. But I don't mind answering again. We are very special, extremely special. Earth is extremely special also. it is the only known planet to have undergone Abiogenesis. We are the only known advanced lifeforms to have evolved from that abiogenesis moment. By the same token, Earth is nothing more than a mote of dust in a sunbeam, amoung countless numbers of other stars and even more countless numbers of planets available for abiogenesis to begin. In fact relative to the known universe irrelevant.