Mars Rover Curiosity Measures Red Planet Radiation

Nothing in science can be 100% confirmed, but the only crowd disputing the geology community's consensus are Electric Universe nutcases. There's no other mechanism that can account for what the current theories already describe in detail. Period. Unless you have some well supported alternative, your dissent is totally meaningless. You're simply disputing a very well supported model for the sake of disputing it.

Furthermore, there's plenty of resources locked up in the asteroid belt that orbitals would be more capable of extracting (since they could be virtually adjacent to them in some areas), and seriously suggesting that the maintaining a large habitat with a minimum of complex parts would be any more difficult than maintaining cities on Earth *is* silly. Indeed, typical cities on Earth would be at a disadvantage in that most are unplanned and built over unideal terrain. New York City, one of the most important metropolises in the world, is built on a swamp that requires constant drainage. A habitat from Mars would not only need to ship items from space or other points on its surface, but also content with day-night cycles and frequent planetwide dust storms. Do keep in mind, too, that you're going to need such populations in orbit anyway if you hope to, "terraform" Mars. The water bearing comets, interplanetary starships and Solar mirrors have to come from somewhere, and robotics will only take you so far.

Creating hardened. greenhouse like areas on an orbital for agriculture is not incredibly difficult, and the abundance of Sunlight available to a station in a reasonable orbit works well for farming. Mind you that Martian regolith is no substitute for terrestrial soil, and creating a farm on Mars would be just as difficult (if not moreso) than creating one in space.

Silly to you many not be silly to science. The prevailing theory that the Earth's core generates the magnetic field could be correct but still remains to be confirmed. The fact that you are convinced doesn't make scientist 100% convinced.
The artificially constructed habitats will be insufficient and expensive to maintain. To feed large populations you need land to grow their food. If the Earth is overpopulated a large number of individuals will compete for the resourses and those who are in these imaginary artificial habitats will be in disadvantage.

Geologists are very certain that the Earth's magnetic field is the result of the outer core's rotation. There's no other mechanism that could readily account for such a phenomenon, and the magnetic fields on other worlds like Ganymede and Jupiter support such a fact.

Though terraforming a planet for the sake of emigration doesn't make much sense. By the time it's even remotely Earth like, you could have easily built thousands upon thousands of better controlled habitats in space with greater living space and better access to resources and Solar energy. That's not to mention that emigrating populations en masse from Earth may never be feasible at any length. Going back down a massive gravity well after getting out of another is pretty silly.

No, I was not criticizing. I was hoping you actually knew something we didn't. I apologize for not knowing it was a simple spelling error. a hshahahahaha

Come on guys! We are deviating the concept of the sentence by criticizing spelling. I won’t make that mistake again. Allow me to apologize

ON would have been a more appropriate word unless he is prescient and has knowledge we are not privy to at this time. Tell us, what do you know Jacob?

I just want to be alive when it happens!

Actually I live for a lot of other stuff, but that is definetely on my bucket list.

You just might live to walk on Mars, Lonely Star. Just keep eating your fruits and veggies, stay away from smokers, and look both ways while crossing the street. Whatever you do, don't text a tweet while walking on a pier.

I get what your saying, but it would be hard to get supplies there and it would be very expensive!☺

the heating phase is intentional & necessary with one of the tests as already stated-by what means did the other tests inappropriately heat their samples-its on a planet colder than earth but your claiming as a fact that all the other 4 tests destroyed their own samples by heat? & youve not answered the other questions -you pretend they werent even asked-its also a shame you couldnt have gotten with the un to tell them they could find out everything by satellite & didnt even need boots on the groung inspectors-they certainly didnt know that -but theres still time for you to get with nsa dia & cia & tell them you have the solution with iran & nor kor-you should offer this superior level of understanding that far exceeds their foolish notion that satellite detection is no where near sufficient & their belief that it has been fooled before -unbelieveable! & lets remember the main point-after decades of looking----no evidence of life beyond earth -none-just exactly as that "primitive" & "mythical"& truly detested bible says !!!!!!!! now you just use statistical analysis all you want & jump up & down as the lack of evidence continues-good luck

I answered all your loaded questions while you have continued to ignore that your entire premise is unscientific from the start. That you are unable to even use a search engine for but a scant minute is on you. What popular media reports as being a controversy is unimportant in scientific discussion. Nevertheless, you've already indicated that you have fundamental problems with science. You can continue to argue about methdology, but your prior supernaturalism alone makes your arguments worthless to begin with.

Again: The hand full of organic chemistry lab results ever collected are invalid because they would have destroyed any organic compounds they would have recovered during the relevant instruments' heating phase. That methodology has since been rectified with the MSL and newer vehicles, which will begin a new generation of more appropriate experiments. It's sort of like how the 'study' that linked vaccinations to autism was invalid because it used a hand full of statistically worthless samples and poor methdology.

Though you once again ignore how statistics works, anyway. There is a difference between combing an entire planet and selecting meaningful samples of that planet, but we haven't even gathered remotely enough samples to conclusively eliminate the possibility of historical or existing life on Mars. Even if you restrict the search to a hand full of promising areas, that leaves much more work to be done which could take many decades and centuries without a manned element (rovers being terribly slow things). We haven't even done a sample return mission yet, and there are also whole underground environments that have evaded detection because of the difficulty involved in their exploration.

It should also go without saying that the Russian space program hasn't had an operational interplantary vehicle since the 80's, and that they *did* try to send a mission to Mars with a return sample element for Phobos just last year. That both the Russian and Indian programs (the latter of which only getting launching its first Lunar probe back in 2008) are quite poor when compared to NASA or even the ESA is a far more important restriction against Mars exploration than lack of scientific interest. One of them did lose a space shuttle underneath its own hanger, mind you.

And again: You're not going to horde chemical or biological weapons underground without someone noticing in a country as poor as Hussein era Iraq. They require climate controlled environments and cannot simply covered by a layer of sand. In fact, ANY weapon being stored for more than a few hours at a time requires constant repair or a well controlled environment. Satellites don't need to look underneath the ground to notice many tons of rock being moved up to the surface, the millions of dollars of equipment moving around the site and the industrial runoff resulting from such an operation. Then, again, they didn't have the capacity to manufacture such weapons or storage facilities at any length.

And one doesn't need to physically see WMDs to get a reasonable estimate on their numbers within a given country. The industries needed to produce them CANNOT be hidden. Period. You cannot hide uranium mines or processing facilities (people would start to talk, at the very least), and it would be trivial to setup mobile neutrino detectors for spotting proliferation violators. Even underground facilities for organizations like the Second Artillery Corps have been detected by AMATEURS via commercial satellite photography. None of the stuff being searched for on Mars is going to be a tenth as obvious, and likening it to paleontology is not at all inaccurate.

You, on the other hand, continue to to dig up yourself a grave by sticking to analogy that is neither accurate or at all relevant.

as for satellites detecting wmds underground -false if that were so wede know the instant iran completes a weapon which is being done underground wede also know chinas & nor kors status or # of weapons -we dont- if an active weapon gives off an infrared signature below groung level such as a tank then detection is possible in very shallow settings & newer technologies can give some ideas of certain elements but thats not the same as detecting a wmd-as for iraqs capabilities -now you know more than un inspecters did -they were kicked out-& obviously thought that such production must have been possible-then husseins son in law gamal said his father in law had them-then an air force gen defected & said he had them-so its you once again who doesnt know what your talking about-ther were traces of mdx & rdx at one storage location & both are used in implosion detonation of fission weapons