On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
Making this argument (seriously) requires a lot of hand-waving. That is
the point of much of my discussion about forms of life. We can't
assume RNA, DNA or even anything close to those molecules without
being very Earth-centric.
We have
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Eugen Leitl wrote:
It's one big petri dish. If there's life, it's closely related. If it
isn't, it's a giant data blip that life emerges rather effortlessly, and
that crosscontamination is way harder than we think despite ample material
transport.
Eugen's points are
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, CHRIS CANTRELL wrote:
No matter how simple the organisms are, it would be nice to get a DNA
(or RNA) sequence just to compare to life here on Earth. That assumes,
of course, that RNA will be the genetic mechanism for Europa too.
Making this argument (seriously) requires
Could someone please elaborate on what they mean by nanotech in these
discussions? If you just mean miniaturization, then fine, lets use it
as such. If the definition includes nanobots and the like, I really
think we need to start looking at a really LONG time before we can send
packages like
Thank you.This help a lot!
I still see issues with what I will call volume of scale. The smaller
you make your craft, the more area it has to cover the farther (scale
wise) is larger etc. I see the advantages of having probes that are 1/3
current size and having three of them travel to
Joe,
I still see issues with what I will call volume of scale.
Agreed. Does one want a larger number of smaller craft with a fair
amount of redundancy or a smaller number of larger craft with perhaps
greater capabilities? And does one deal with the volume of the
Europa ocean better with a
