[X] My Assistant

[Redstone]

The Chair's report from the November meeting of the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group is now online at http://mepag.jpl.nasa.gov/meeting/nov-05/index.html.

Here are some features on their draft exploration plan after MSL in 2009.

• 2011/2013 Scout and Mars Science Orbiter with telecommunications capability
• 2016 Mid-rovers or Astrobiology Field Laboratory
• 2018 Scout
• 2020 Planetary Evolution and Meteorology Network
• 2022 MSR Orbiter with Telecom
• 2024 Mobile MSR

I'm not sure how fixed this is, or how much it dovetails with NASA HQ's plans, (pretty close, I'd guess) but it gives us something to chew on until Bruce's Astronomy article comes out.

Note that the 2011 window is now shared with a new orbiter with "telecom capability" This sounds like the return of MTO, with science instruments added. Any ideas what instruments are at the top of the wish list for such an orbiter? If it launched in 2011, it could still play a big part in the MSL mission and be ready for the next rover in 2016. Remember by 2011 MRO will be six years old.

The Astrobio lab is an MSL scale rover, while the "Mid-rover" is intermediate between MER and MSL.

Mars Sample Return has been pushed out to 2022/24. This seems a pessimistic "who knows?" timeframe to me. A manned mission could be on the way by 2030, if the Vision for Space Exploration pans out. (A BIG "if", I know.) Sample return will have to be completed before humans go, I would imagine.

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Bruce, I think that once we do diversify beyond Earth we as a species will be unkillable because we'll soon cover the Solar System like a fungus, and shortly thereafter also the systems of nearby stars. The human population of the Earth will undoubtedly be decimated or wiped out at some point by wars or a bio-catastrophe as you predict, as will other colonies at different times and perhaps for different reasons...but it won't matter. Once the genie is truly out of the bottle there will still be healthy colonies not affected by such localized catastrophes continuing technological development and territorial expansion. Eventually, we'll be so widespread that we will have mutated (or altered ourselves) into biologically distinct species in different parts of the Galaxy...the "Borg" scenario is also likely to happen for some groups. But, the whole point is that we, or what we will become, will not disappear.

Every one of those colonies will be just as capable of having a tiny fraction of its population whip up doomsday plagues, accidentally or deliberately -- and most of them will also be capable of constructing nuclear weapons. It's possible, though, that if humanity gets so far as to spread colonies all over the Solar System (which I very much doubt it will do, for the reasons I've already given), a very SMALL number of humans may continue to be alive at any given time. Thrillsville.

[nprev]

  It's possible, though, that if humanity gets so far as to spread colonies all over the Solar System (which I very much doubt it will do, for the reasons I've already given), a very SMALL number of humans may continue to be alive at any given time.  Thrillsville.

"It ain't much, but it's all we got"...

Mass extinctions work exactly the same way; the whole reason that life on Earth has survived as long as it has is that it's colonized every possible environment, and a very small number of survivors make it through the catastrophe through sheer luck. Nihilistic though it may be, widespread colonization is a proven survival strategy, and we would be wise to emulate it...

[Stephen]

"It ain't much, but it's all we got"...

Mass extinctions work exactly the same way; the whole reason that life on Earth has survived as long as it has is that it's colonized every possible environment, and a very small number of survivors make it through the catastrophe through sheer luck. Nihilistic though it may be, widespread colonization is a proven survival strategy, and we would be wise to emulate it...

Um, when you talk about "mass extinctions" are you including bacteria & other single-celled life as well or only multi-celled organisms like vertebrates, arthopods, etc? That is, the sort that tend to leave fossils versus the sort which do not (but on the other hand are more the sort which truly have "colonized every possible environment", including places of a more extreme sort such as hot springs, nuclear reactors, & deep inside the Earth).

I mention that because if, as you suggest, "the whole reason that life on Earth has survived as long as it has is that it's colonized every possible environment", then that statement surely only applies if you're either talking about life as a whole or only about the kind of life which truly has "colonized every possible environment"--namely, single-celled organisms. It does not really apply to the rest of us; for the rest of us, especially vertebrates, have been much more selective in the kinds of environments we inhabit.

For example, only a small proportion of mammal & bird species live in the sea; and of those which do, none at all (AFAIK) live permanently underwater (unlike, say, fish). All must come to the surface periodically to at least breathe.

[nprev]

Um, when you talk about "mass extinctions" are you including bacteria & other single-celled life as well or only multi-celled organisms like vertebrates, arthopods, etc? That is, the sort that tend to leave fossils versus the sort which do not (but on the other hand are more the sort which truly have "colonized every possible environment", including places of a more extreme sort such as hot springs, nuclear reactors, & deep inside the Earth).

I mention that because if, as you suggest, "the whole reason that life on Earth has survived as long as it has is that it's colonized every possible environment", then that statement surely only applies if you're either talking about life as a whole or only about the kind of life which truly has "colonized every possible environment"--namely, single-celled organisms. It does not really apply to the rest of us; for the rest of us, especially vertebrates, have been much more selective in the kinds of environments we inhabit.

For example, only a small proportion of mammal & bird species live in the sea; and of those which do, none at all (AFAIK) live permanently underwater (unlike, say, fish). All must come to the surface periodically to at least breathe.

I did mean all life, Stephen, but I was using the example of life's ability to survive Earth's mass extinctions as a model for the strategic dispersion, if you will, of humanity throughout the Solar System and eventually throughout the Galaxy as insurance against the demise of the species.

I did not mean to suggest that humans can and should adapt themselves to radically new environments--although I suspect that some of that will ultimately occur through both natural selection and artificial means over the ages in many different locales. Generally, I would expect us to develop very reliable and efficient technologies that will allow us to exist and thrive on uninhabitable worlds like Mars and the Moon, probably terraform planets when practical, and colonize Earth-like worlds opportunistically.

The other thing I would expect is complete anarchy at the megascale. I don't ever see a Galactic Empire coming into being; in fact, I doubt that any given world would even know about more than the nearest two or three hundred of its neighbors, assuming that it was at a cultural and technological peak and not in a Dark Age. Wars will still happen, and some places will blow themselves up or overpopulate, etc., etc...but humanity as a species will survive, and as cultures ascend technologically more and more colonization will occur.

Maybe some day one of these vigorous new cultures will rediscover the Solar System and make the archeological breakthrough from studying ruins throughout the system and what's left of Earth that here was the birthplace of it all...