🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 20, 11:43 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
<e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:

> We've barely begun to scratch the surface here.  Of course
> you will have to show reasonably good evidence that the
> rovers are somewhere on Mars, as opposed to a perenially
> lit sound stage somewhere in lower Hollywood.
>
> (I'll admit to some curiosity as to how big a ground-based
> telescope would be needed to pick up the signals.)

There's simply not a sufficient amount of salt to behold upon Mars, as
to consider it part of the same solar system that iced and salted down
mother Earth, and of otherwise having impacted our somewhat salty moon
that's causing us so much planetology GW trauma.

Mars salt should be extensively situated upon the surface, because of
its wussy density and of that freeze dried environment insuring that
whatever salts wouldn't have gotten vaporised.

As to being staged, I don't think so, because of others (including
replicated terrestrial established science) as having extracted
similar information about Mars, and of most everything as having thus
far played by those pesky regular laws of physics is a good sign that
we're not being all that snookered about Mars.

However, trillions of hard earned dollars or whatever euros from now,
we'll still not be walking upon Mars, any more so than spending any
amount of time (if any) upon our gamma and xray lethal moon.  The Mars
to/fom passage is just too damn spendy and otherwise potentially
lethal, and the Mars lander is simply demanding of too much fly-by-
rocket and momentum reaction wheels.  Human DNA simply isn't rad-hard
enough for the like of Mars if you're talking about any extended say.

How many of those trillions of dollars/euros and subsequent decades
are you folks willing to spend on Mars?
-
Brad Guth