MARS - There's water in that there crater !

[snoopy369]

And whomever said that ESA doesn't spend like no tomorrow compared to NASA ... they both should spend more. Our future lies in space, not in our deeper oceans (of which we know enough to know that we'll never build bases down there, nor gain massive amounts of raw elements and/or harness fusion energy beyond our wildest imaginations ...)

Even a couple of medium-sized asteroids, depending on their content, would either kill the iron markets, or provide some really great material for molecular biologists/chemists... not to mention the possibility of building bigger and better machines in null-gee (or, even better, in low-gee, enough to keep the machines holding together but low enough to reduce tension wear).

[FrostyBoy]

Originally posted by Seeker
the warmest areas WOULD have to be the driest

Actually the driest place on Earth is found in Antarctica.

I think its so dry you have to take your own oxygen tank. (and its not that far from sea-level)


Also, I think NASA is aware of what technology they need to get to Mars (and build something there permanantly). It's just that it is not developed yet, or still in development.

I am talking about things like Nano-tubes, I can see that nano-tubes would be essential for Mars/Space exploration.

Then of course there is the DNA and stem cell research which would help greatly.

So NASA thinks to themselves: "Why spend so much money to achieve what might not be achievable now? Let's wait until we have the technology that can assure us success".

[child of Thor]

Mars most likely does have water, but now it looks like Titan doesn't?:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4745009.stm

still the best way to know for sure is to go there and dig around