NRC Recommends NASA Galileo Crash

Autonomous Crowhard writes: "An article on SpaceRef relays information that a National Research Council committee is suggesting that NASA crash Galileo at the end of its mission. The reason for this is to avoid potentially contaminating Europa or Io with a crash there. (As I understand it, Galileo didn't undergo the same stringent decontamination procedures that landers normally have to go through.) Two questions: 1) Would humans constitute too much of a risk of contamination, and 2) Wouldn't you like to be able to put "Planetary Protection Officer" on your resume?"

Comments

NASA's been fairly responsible, unlike most others

[BitMan]

I think people fail to realize that NASA has been fairly responsible in their space endeavors. For example, NASA only uses decaying radioactive materials in spacecraft that do not orbit Earth, and only when the power requirements of the craft deem it absolutely necessary (i.e. it is impossible to power it with solar panels due to solar distance and weight). NASA even went as so far as to worry about the tiny ammount of radioactives on the Lunar Module of Apollo 13, as to plot a much more risky (to the crew) return trajectory (with additional corrections) so as to not have the LIM crash into anything but a remote and deep watery grave (see "From the Earth to the Moon: Episode 8" to hear more on "the Nuke Problem" as the media called it).

This is in stark contrast to numerous Russian Earth orbitals, including even purely scientific ones! Take note of a Russian scientific satellite that contaminated hundreds of square miles (600 mi^2 I believe) of Canadian national forest when its return trajectory was not accomodated correctly. And I need not mention that it is still up in the air whether or not the Russian military, let alone our own, uses radioactives in Earth orbiting platforms.

Give NASA a break guys!

-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith

Open Space

[Ex Machina]

Did anyone else notice the "Open Space" link at the bottom of the page? Apparently its a discussion system modeled on Slashdot.

Open Space [beta] Open Space, a community of like minded people committed to open and informative discussion, making news, sharing knowledge and fostering a growing space community. Before you start you should know that we moderate Open Space. Messages are given a score for their value and users can filter messages by the threshold scores. For instance a -1 score is either off topic or a flame. A +5 is highly useful message. This model was adopted from Slashdot although the code is uniquely ours. You can read messages without being a member, but to post messages to the community you must sign up, it's free.

microbes in space

[jeff_bond]

There is a real risk of microbes on Galileo contaminating any planet or moon that it lands/crashes on.

See this link to read how microbes survived on the moon after a lunar missions.

Jeff

This is a government coverup.

[Donald Kerr]

It is a well-documented fact that the only organism capable of surviving the extreme conditions (low temperature, radiation, lack of oxygen and water) that Galileo has experienced are cockroaches. The real reason that NASA want to crash land Galileo is to kill off any cockroaches that had stowed away on Galileo, because they are afraid that the cockroaches will colonize Io and Europa. If the cockroaches were allowed to colonize these moons freely, there is a significant danger that they could develop spacecraft and weapons of mass destruction, and then come back to conquer Earth. The US Government realises the superiority of cockroaches and is so scared about the threat of a Space Cockroach invasion that they are willing to resort to these drastic measures. Remeber, cockroaches are everywhere... they're constantly plotting to overthrow mankind and take control of Earth. Be scared.

--

What about contaminating Jupiter?

[Money__]

I know that our little Galileo will burn up fast in the gargantuan planets atmosphere, But it's still contamination isn't it? If one's goal is to not unknowingly alter another planet, shouldn't another form of disposal be pursued?

Consider if Galileo is placed on a trajectory to exit our solar system. Eventially, someday, in some way our little Galileo will impact something in the inuverse and contaminate it. We're just as much a part of the galaxy as everything else in it and we will "contaminate" no matter how carefull.

In a way this reminds me of animal right activist trying to save only the really cute animals. Cute little io?! noo! ! noo!! ! don't club that little baby seal . .but big nasty mean ol jupiter?? let the hammer fall! !
___

And this is a bad thing?

[Wellspring]

OK, maybe I am missing something here, but isn't our highest duty to the Schizmatrix to bring another world up to the next Prigogenic Level of Complexity?

Humor aside, I think that NASA is overreacting. Either Europa has life or it doesn't. If it doesn't, we should hope that it is 'contaminated'. If it does, I would put my money on a planetful of life specially evolved for that planet's conditions over a couple dozen carpet-bagging bacteria from a warm and comfy inner-system world like Earth.

It is pathetic that the government's retreat from space is so complete that we are now trying to eradicating any evidence that we were even there.

When I get my asteroid-mining operation off the ground, I'm throwing all the profits into expansion and terraforming research. ;)

It's about money...

[cybrpnk]

Here we go again...crashing spacecraft, but on purpose for a change. In this case, Europa is surely a concern, but NASA and others have crashed plenty of spacecraft just to clear the slate and start on another project. Its about money, just check out this quote from the linked report: "The Io plus Amalthea option is not consistent with Galileo's current budget plan." There are many other examples. NASA allowed a functioning solar observing satellite to be destroyed in a Star Wars test even tho the satellite was observing a whole new category of sun-grazing comets it had discovered. The Magellan Venus orbiter was sent in an "aerobrake test" that burned it up - but what if it had detected changes on the surface of Venus on a second mapping run, which would have meant the HUGE discovery of active volcanism there. The recent Lunar Polar Orbiter was crashed on the day its money ran out, and while sending up a plume of steam after hitting an icepack (it didn't) would have been a spectacular home run, a better plan would have been to fund it long enough to drop the orbit and skim the supposed ice crater at close range as many times as possible. Motorola is ready to let the Iridium system become a $3 billion fireworks display. Back in the 80s NASA seriously considered shutting down Voyager 2 before it got to Uranus and Neptune as a cost cutting measure - the primary mission was only Jupiter and Saturn. Somehow an effort needs to be organized where functioning spacecraft get turned over to interested third parties when the Big Boys get tired of playing with them...

Re:Why Jupiter?

[Elvii]

Disclaimer: I'm not an astronomer, thou I do have a bit of a background in physics, thou not a great memory.

If my memory serves, IO doesn't have enough of an atmosphere to make sure it burn itself to a crisp. Europa may, I don't live there so I can't say for sure. :) Same logic applies to the other moons/natural sats around Jupiter. But Jupiter, say what you will about it, but it's got atmosphere. Virtually guarenteed to destroy any contaminates coming in, along with the craft before it hits anything solid, IMHO.

bash: ispell: command not found

Different environment.

[lonely]

I think the theory is that both IO and Eurpoa have environments that are similar to ones on earth where we have found life.

Jupiter is a better bet as we can pretty much guarentee that Galileo with be totally burn up if dropped on Jupiter. Also the extreme pressures mean that there are no environments that are similar to those on earth.

But for those who have read 2001/2010/2061 stories, I can say I am worried we will splat some of those gase sac creature things!