Denial or Ignorance Amongst NASA Scientists?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by metamars</i>
<br />what percentage of scientists working on Mars projects and affiliated with NASA actually know about the glassy tubes? Do they perhaps refer to them as something else? And if that percentage is less than 100%, why would that be the case? The tubes are by far the most striking objects I've seen on Mars...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">An early analysis by Dave Pieri at JPL declared the features we call "glassy tubes" to be sand dunes. See metaresearch.org/home/viewpoint/archive/...ta-in-News010313.asp

The "sand dunes" idea remains the official explanation, so very few scientists have ever bothered to take a closer look. Those few who have realize the official explanation is far-fetched. But it is the best they can do without opening Pandora's Box and getting into possibilities that JPL does not want to see discussed in any serious forum. -|Tom|-

Please elaborate. What would one happen if the more curious JPL scientists (I thought all scientists worthy of the name were curious...) were to open that Pandora's box? NASA scientists? What about after they retire? Has any JPL or NASA scientists suffered negative repercussions from voicing a belief in artificiality?
What about taking a poll of non-NASA, non-JPL geologists? Probably this would best be done anonymously.
Furthermore, I'd be curious to know what the biologists might have to say. Since the tubes are between 100-200 yards wide, that argues (IMHO) against them being biological. Even the biggest, fattest anaconda doesn't come close to that size.
An ideal poll design might be as follows. Q: Which explanation of the pitured structure do you feel is most likely 1) geological 2) biological 3) artificial? Respondents characterized by a grid:
Biologist OR Geologist
VS.
JPL Scientist OR NASA Scientist OR non-JPL, non-NASA Scientist

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by metamars</i>
<br />Please elaborate.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">JPL controls robotic missions, NASA controls manned missions. So JPL wants to keep the space program robotic. They only hire and contract with people who support their philosophy, that manned missions are too expensive and too dangerous. They have scheduled missions to Mars, two per launch window every 2.2 years from now through 2016. The justifications for these missions has already been approved, although funding for the lab is approved on a 5-year basis. According to that schedule, the present landers were supposed to find evidence for past water on Mars. They carried no instrument that could find present water because that would undercut the purpose of future missions. And you see JPL scientists aggressively disputing ESA's claims to have found a frozen lake on Mars.

It is similar for biology. By 2016, we are supposed to have the answer to the question of whether Mars could have ever supported life in the distant past. If we found artifacts today, the entire schedule would have to be scrapped. Worse yet for JPL, there would be increased support for manned missions. Once the Moon changed from a robotic spacecraft target to a manned spacecraft target in 1969, no further robotic lunar missions were approved for JPL. They fear the same will happen for Mars, which is their primary mission for the coming decade.

No JPL scientist would be willing to participate in the survey you propose, and anyone who did would quickly find him/herself unemployed. JPL does not even want such topics discussed in any serious public venue, and any scientist or media person who did so would be ridiculed and his organization boycotted. I worked as an independent contractor at the lab in 1971, and saw how quickly the ax can fall on people inside or outside the lab who do not tow the company line. Remember, JPL is not part of NASA and is not government. It is a private, independent lab owned and operated for profit by Caltech. JPL is an independent contractor that runs the robotic space program for NASA. -|Tom|-

OK, I understand their motivations better, even if I appreciate their ethics less. However, I also strongly suspect they have miscalculated, at least in this regard: researching artifacts is not only cheaper robotically, but the alternative is so expensive it may not be worth doing. Furthermore, if the anomalies are indeed artificial, that should increase the amount of money going into exploration, not the opposite. Of course, even increased total revenue could end up going into a manned program, but again, is this even affordable, much less optimal? The correct answers to these questions are "just barely, if at all", and "no", IMHO.

Furthermore, they run the risk of being upstaged by foreign space programs. Even India is getting into the act. Now, if the Chinese, for example, should be the first to conclusively show that some Martian anomalies are artificial, and thus JPL blew the opportunity, all the while sitting on the amazing photographic evidence gathered by American probes, that would be quite humiliating. Where is their national pride?

Finally, researching artifacts and researching scientific questions such as "was there water on Mars in the past" are in no way incompatible. For all we know, the artifacts were made by non-indigenous ET's who used Mars for a rest stop or gas station. And even if the artifacts are from an indigenous race, we would still be interested in their planetary history. Indeed, even more so.

Perhaps the best way to get the kind of Rover missions we want in our lifetime is to appeal to non-JPL scientists, and the public, to put pressure on Congress to increase funding for just these sorts of missions. These appeals (petitions, I suppose) would specifically request robotic missions. Perhaps scientific and engineering student societies would be willing to pass around such petitions.

If it's not too much trouble, would you please post what a manned expedition to Mars is projected to cost? The cost of the 2 Rover missions was about $850 million.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by metamars</i>
<br />if the anomalies are indeed artificial, that should increase the amount of money going into exploration, not the opposite.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The 2006 NASA budget recommended by the President contained funding for either robotic missions or the President's preferred Moon-Mars mission, but not both. To even start up the latter, support for some of the former must be cancelled. And organizations like JPL are not far-sighted.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Where is their national pride?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Job security first, national pride second. That is hardly unique to JPL.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">researching artifacts and researching scientific questions such as "was there water on Mars in the past" are in no way incompatible.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Not scientifically. But so far, they have been incompatible when it comes to funding missions. JPL opposes anything that might increase public support for manned missions because it hurts them immediately in the competition for funds.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">would you please post what a manned expedition to Mars is projected to cost?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If I recall correctly, NASA's esimate was $35 billion. The European Space Agency plans call for a small fraction of that much funding. -|Tom|-

tvanflandern posted:

"According to that schedule, the present landers were supposed to find evidence for past water on Mars. They carried no instrument that could find present water because that would undercut the purpose of future missions."

I guess that explains why what obviously appeared to be mud in some of the Rover images was referred to as "cohesive material".

Concerning Martian surface water I have always been curious how there can be obvious clouds in the sky in some of the images and dew on the Rover in other images if there is no surface water.

The 35 billion dollar price tag for a manned mission to Mars sounds very high to me, especially in light of the info presented in Zubrin's excellent book, "The Case for Mars". Zubrin mentions a figure that is just a fraction of the suggested 35 billion dollar price tag.