The MECA story, A place for speculation |
The MECA story, A place for speculation |
Jul 31 2008, 10:22 PM
Post
#1
|
|
The Poet Dude Group: Moderator Posts: 5551 Joined: 15-March 04 From: Kendal, Cumbria, UK Member No.: 60 |
Seriously, hasn't anyone else got any thoughts (dismissive or otherwise) on the "Have you briefed the President's Science Advisor?" (re MECA) question by C Covault? I am NOT going all woo-woo here, don't worry, I just thought it was an odd thing to ask... To my ears it sounded like C C was suggesting, subtly, to the panel that he had heard "something" about the MECA analysis and wanted them to comment. The question was brushed aside - rather uncomfortably I thought - and the discussion quickly moved on, but it seemed like a bit of a Moment to me. He actually began, if I remember correctly, by asking where the "MECA guys" were, asking if they had "been hidden under the table"... cue uncomfortable laughs from the panel...
Again, I have to stress, in case anyone thinks I'm 'suggesting' anything, I'm not getting all Muldur here, I was just struck by how out of the blue the question was, and wondered if anyone has any thoughts on it... -------------------- |
|
|
Aug 2 2008, 01:00 AM
Post
#2
|
|
Merciless Robot Group: Admin Posts: 8784 Joined: 8-December 05 From: Los Angeles Member No.: 602 |
I would be extremely cautious about reading more into this than what actually was said at the press conference, though.
Let me put it this way: The Planetary Protection Protocols (PPP) allow a minimal amount of organic contamination even at the highest level (IIRC, something like 300 spores and/or bacteria per sq cm, and please somebody correct me if I'm wrong) because it is literally impossible to avoid it. So, in the worst (or best!)-case scenario, if somebody saw something 'swimming' in front of the optical microscope, it's still not possible to distinguish it from possible, even probable, terrestrial contamination. Bottom line is that we're not gonna hear a positive announcement of what we'd all like to hear very much. Gotta quote my high-school biology teacher again, who was passionately interested in the Vikings back in the day: "There is certainly life on Mars--now." (And actually well beforehand with booster impacts & the early Soviet probes.) -------------------- A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
|
|
|
Aug 2 2008, 01:17 AM
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 101 Joined: 29-January 06 Member No.: 667 |
Bottom line is that we're not gonna hear a positive announcement of what we'd all like to hear very much. If you're referring to evidence of past or current life on Mars, the article says as much: that it's not about that. Covault's article is about habitability. It's about provocative habitability results. Maybe his sources are wrong. Maybe not. Let's focus on what he wrote and what others know or think they know. But, I see no virtue in arbitrarily limiting it to the interaction at the press conference. Emily Lakdawalla spoke of hearing rumors about interesting MECA results. Maybe it's all rumor and no substance. Or not. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 22nd May 2024 - 03:55 AM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |