Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Back for a limited time - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Submission + - Mars is not the best place to look for life ( 1

EccentricAnomaly writes: A story over at Science News quotes Alan Stern (former head of NASA Science missions) as saying: "The three strongest candidates [for extraterrestrial life] are all in the outer solar system" He's referring to Europa, Titan, and Enceladus. So why is NASA spending $2.5B on the next Mars Rover and planning to spend over $6B more on a Mars sample return when it can't find the money for much cheaper missions to Europa or Enceladus?
This discussion was created for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mars is not the best place to look for life

Comments Filter:
  • ... under the streetlight?

    Because that's where the light was!

    Looking for life on Mars has some of that element. Getting to Mars is cheaper (and a lot faster not requiring any fuel saving, time consuming gravity assists) than the outer solar system. We also know how to land on dirt, drive on dirt and scrape up dirt; we have no idea how to land on ice in vacuum (will it cause the ice to "geyser" or some other phenomenon), drill through (steel hard) ice and then perhaps send an autonomous submersible under k

What this country needs is a dime that will buy a good five-cent bagel.