Slashdot Mirror
Mars Exploration Must Consider Contamination
letxa2000 writes: "CNN is reporting that the National Research Council has submitted a report to NASA that recommends certain precautions be taken if NASA is to send astronauts to Mars to guarantee that they don't bring back Mars-based bacteria and contaminate earth; including possibly banning the return vehicle from entering the Earth's atmosphere. What is the likelihood of bacterial life on Mars infecting the earth if we ever get around to visiting Mars in person?"
What about people already on the Earth and causing contamination? Maybe we have already given up on that.
A transplanted organism with no 'predators' would be a bad thing. Just look at what happened to Australia after Bart brought his frog there.
In the end, the Martians that killed off humanity were bacteria...
But, if we take this much care in interplanetary travel, why not spend at least this much effort on intercontinental travel. Influenza accounts for thousands or more deaths across the globe each year, and by isolating the vectors it uses to spread across continents the various strains can be isolated and cause the flu shots to be much more effective.
I guess this is another upside to NASA- the public benefits from newly discovered technology some years down the line.
Martian germs scare
the scientists at NASA
give spacemen Lysol
Another interesting possibility is that we may infect Mars. What if the astronauts get there, and some random bacteria is on their spacesuit? Or some other piece of equiptment for that matter? It 'd be like smallpox in the New World all over again. We could actually see life on Mars destroyed by our visit, before we ever actually get to see much of it.
Man, coincidince! I just finished reading this excellent essay on The Economic Viability of Mars Colonization, which convinced me that Mars missions are not actually wastes of money. They say these things come in threes, I wonder what the next one will be?
Websurfing done right! StumbleUpon
augment your senses: http://sensebridge.net/
Now why havent NASA and the goverment picked up on this. Why fund studies and have spend billions on research, when they could create an account on Slashdot and pose the question there. Then file and submit the discussion that follow their thread.
The bad thing about this post is that given the current goverment in the US they migth take it serious and do it.
It seems these days that everyone want's to have their cske and eat it too. We either want to send a manned misasion to mars or we don't. There are risks involved in any kind of endevor into the unknown. I don't really care about weather they bring something back with them, it couldn't possibly be worse than anything we already have here on earth.
Shouldn't we be more worried about the other way around first - the contamination of Mars by some Earthly micro-organism?
What about contamination of Mars? Although that's probably allready hapened. And it is not really of any great concern.
ps. 3rd post!
Nice Marmot
I think great care should be taken.
If I learned anything from the feature film Mission to Mars, it's that I should not have gone to see that movie. That, plus we have to be careful when we go to Mars. Yeah.
My apologies to real films.
.sig last updated Jan. 14, 2000
there was some dumb outer limits show about that.. guy went to mars came back and started to self replicate. was pretty cool. think of the things that could come out of that.. more identical stupid people just like the brilliant president.
What about the Austronauts contaminating the Mars surface with Earth Bacteria. This sounds much more likely to me!
There once was a germ from the red planet
that had scientists from NASA cursing "Dammit!"
"If we send astronauts there,"
"We'd better take care,"
"And from orbit, this bug, we should ban it."
From the article -
"While the threat to Earth's ecosystem from the release of Martian biological agents is very low, the risk of harmful effects is not zero and cannot be ignored,"
Wouldn't the atomosphere burn off anything that would be on the outside of the ship? And isn't the ship air-tight?
So couldn't we just put the shuttle and crew into some kind of clean space hanger building and just quarantine/clean them?
With minimum risk I think this would be an acceptable alternative, as opposed to impeeding the progress of a mars mission.
Of course the spacesuits would have to be decontaminated.
I know ... why not have the astronauts strip in space, then float over to the awaiting spacecraft ...
Seriously though ... can we prevent it? My bet would be that we can't be 100% guarenteed that we'd get all the bacteria/critters.
Karma? Karma? I don't need no stinkin' karma.
This may sound like a dumb one, but couldn't they plot a return trajectory that gets close enough to the Sun to irradiate or burn stuff off before re-entering Earth orbit? Maybe they would have to slingshot Venus or even Mercury, but I want to think solar radiation is the best guarantee that anything brought back from Mars is sterilized before coming home.
If anyone knows specifics about how close you'd have to get and how long you'd have to stay there and what (if any) effect that'd have on craft and crew, please reply. It seems simple, which is why I think there must be more to it than that.
--
Freeper Logic
It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)
.. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.
Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors
Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "mars" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "mars" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "mars" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!
Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "mars" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the mars", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "mars" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.
Mars could be full of bacteria
Like the cold, meningitis, diptheria
So we'll permit them to land
But only in sand
In some remote place like Liberia
I so thought that I had the first post, but then I got this for two minutes straight!!!
;) Stupid slash bugs :) Kudos the the fp punk who didn't get the 404.
404 File Not Found
The requested URL (science/02/05/02/0011222.shtml?tid=160) was not found.
If you feel like it, mail the url, and where ya came from to pater@slashdot.org.
Was slashdot slashdotted, or could this be our new anti-first post feature?
They'll just disappear before they ever have to
worry about bringing anything back to contaminate
us or them. And even if they DO manage to have
a successful mission NASA's track history
with things deal with Mars just screams ecological
disaster on some level or another.
Yay, we're doomed.
You can see how bad introducing an organism can be. Just look at HIV. It is believed to have originated in western Africa, where it did not affect many people. People didn't move far back then. Europeans then starting colonising the area, and supposedly brought it back to Europe. Now it is a world-wide disease. We have no idea what the effects of bringing something from Mars would be.
Who is to say martian bacteria is bad? For all we know it may 'cure' cancers or attack and kill the HIV.
Better yet, it may rid the world of stupid people. I say bring it back by the truck load.
The battle rages on: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=31987&cid=3448 510
:-P
How long until American consumer trappings infect Mars?
I thought I would post some deep thoughts by Jack Handy, which is probably more reliable than anything you'd find from a Slashdot poster. I mean, who do you want to ask first, the fp guy or the goatse guy? There's people out there who spend their whole lives trying to determine if there's life on mars, and how it should be handled. So I'm willing to trust whatever they say. I just hope they're not on the other end doing their job 8 hours a day by going "Hmmm, I wonder if bacteria would be dangerous, lets ask Slashdot! I trust what SexyMan69 has to say."
Anyway, back to my point, Jack Handy rocks.
Whether they find a life there or not, I think Mars should be called an enemy planet.
(Yeah, it's Jupiter. So sue me.)
bah! isnt the bacteria inside the rocks but not actually living? sounds to me like somebody doesnt like mars and dont want us to visit it. or maybe this is some kinda goverment conspiracy to not even let nasa go to mars.
bah theres my 2 cents, sure there worthless but their mine!
Eric
Sounds alot like the scare about bringing back "moon bacteria" back when we first landed there. Now it seems funny to us, to think that bacteria would have been on the moon. But, you never know, i guess.
We would find some way to send them back where they came from. Launch an unmanned Mars return vehicle (if they were already in Earth orbit - sending Progress-like automated supply vessles up with food and the like in the interim) and then send a trickle of supplies back to Mars on a regular basis to keep them alive, and perhaps reach a level of self-sustainability. (which a Mars base SHOULD and almost certainly would have in the first place)
What might end up being rather interesting is if the contamination poses absolutely no risk to humans but is still too suspect to introduce into Earth's environment, then perhaps the stranded astronauts would live quite a long time, with the constant risk of possible additions to their ranks. Some astronauts might forgo the Depo Provera or Norpland and simply decide to risk it or may not take any birth control medications and find themselves caught up in the heat of the moment. And there is always the chance of birth control failing. (even though Depo Provera has a lower failure rate than ANYTHING - even surgical sterilization of either partner)
So, in a while, you might get a growing colony on Mars of humans that are developed differently (due to the gravity), with radically different life experiences and are also unable to interact directly with humans from Earth.
Quite an interesting concept.
If my years of research in movie watchings has taught my anything, it's that missions to mars result in the return of ridiculously hot naked chics.(1,2) Having a fondess for said items, I am in support of the return of bacteria from martian soil to out small blue planet.
1. Species
2. Species II
If the scientific community wishes to debate the science fact of these fine pieces of cinema, then I hope they're prepared to tear down other projects of pure research such as "Mission to Mars" and "Leprechaun: In Space".
--- Matthew Hill
"To quote the self is an act of the self riteous and uninitiated sub-moronic" - Matthew Hill
What is the likelihood of bacterial life on Mars infecting the earth if we ever get around to visiting Mars in person?
:-)
After carefully weighing all the factors (likelihood of microbial life on Mars, likelihood of said life having a detrimental effect on earth life, likelihood of bacterial vector surviving the trip back to earth, etc.), I have concluded that the answer to this question is...
2.06%
We can end this conversation now; I am never wrong
"I like to wear big boy pants."
Hmm... meteorites from Mars bring bacterial life to Earth -> astronauts form Earth bring bacterial life to Mars -> astronauts return to Earth with fresh bacteria from Mars... ad nauseam. These little guys have been around a lot longer than us and have more than proved their mettle. Perhaps one of the most impressive aspects about life on the small scale(bacteria, virus etc...) is this incredible ability to move between vastly differing environments and be successful in those new environments. Something humans and other higher order animals don't do so well.
Refusing the spacecraft to reenter Earth's atmosphere might work for quarantining hardware, but where do we put the astronauts who return with low level infections? Will we even be able to detect such an infection?
Didn't they say a few years ago that probes sent up by NASA and the Russian space agency contained bacteria and other organic matters that could have potentially contaminated Mars? I think I read somewhere (can't confirm right now) that they found fossilzed earth bacteria in an Martian meteorite.
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
A toxin might kill an astronaut. That would be tragic, but not a disaster. The problem to be worried about is communicable disease, namely an organism (bacteria, virus) that harms the host and can spread. The organisms that work this way on this planet have evolved with us over a very long period of time. An organism that had never encountered a human before, or perhaps even earthly DNA, seems exceedingly unlikely to be communicable -- hasn't had the practice.
Still, I have to admit, this sounds an awful lot like, "this code should work".
You moderators all suck.
As small as the chances of viral lifeforms from Mars existing and infecting earth, it's worth taking the precautions.
Remember H.G. Wells' "War of the Worlds"?
Aliens from Mars were kicking our ass, until they mysteriously died off, for they were not immune to our local 'innocuous' bacterium.
Of course you would hope that an agency like NASA would have the ability to check for the presence of bacteria, and that, in fact, that would be one of the purposes of such a mission, but hey, never question beaurocratic motives.
lol... I'd mod if i could.
The most ironic thing is that if a person is sent to Mars, they will almost innevitably be called a 'Hero'.
Why? Because they were able to see more than any electrical equipment? No - machines would be able to see with much greater clarity without disturbing the environment they are examining. Because they can perform actions that no machine can? No - a machine that was allowed the weight of a human being, and the environmental protection of a human being, then given the budget of a human being would be able to do thousands of times the unique experiments a human would have time to do on the first trip - and it wouldn't need to come back either.
Now admittedly, this is more of a rant - but humans do not have any special reason to take the great pains needed to go into space to explore. Machines can, and do explore much better. Once a plan is made to make an environment outside of earth livable, and a sound plan is made, then it would be beneficial to have humans live in that environment. We do NOT need a human on Mars, nor do we need to spend the overwhelming resources needed to put a human on Mars.
I know, I know - it's not science that drives this, and now mostly, the only way to get the budget is to send a senator or other large source of money where they want to go, and fit science in after the ego. But if we have to go this route, couldn't we just go ahead and put McDonalds and AOL ads on permanant banners on Mars instead of having to send a human? Maybe make little human robots, controlled in a sort of a battletech way by senators and rich people on earth instead.
I'd much rather hear the press worry about the viral influence of children looking through their new high-powered telescope looking for the Pringle's ad on Phobos than the paranoia that would come from a human being sent to mars, and all that involves.
Any other "better than sending a human" ideas?
:^)
Ryan Fenton
I don't think we can be safe enough here. How much do we *really* know about Mars? Not enough..
-- jimmycarter
This is just silly.
Have these people ever taken biology class?
Even if there is living organisms on Mars, how in the world would they be adopted to living on Earth, Our enviroment is just a little bit different from Mars.
But lets say that there are living organisms on Mars, how could they attack us? How in the world
woud it develop pathonicity to humans if it never
seen us before?
There is a better chance that cows will grow wings on Monday and take over the Congress,
so that they can pass anti-milking laws.
What about the Austronauts contaminating the Mars surface with Earth Bacteria. This sounds much more likely to me!
Austronauts? In that case, I'd be much more concerned about invasions like this.
--
Freeper Logic
What is the likelihood of bacterial life on Mars infecting the earth if we ever get around to visiting Mars in person?
I don't know, but I know a sure-fire way to find out!!!
- This isn't the sig you're looking for. Move along, move along..
If the memory of my middle school history class serves me right, weren't a lot of Indians killed by a plague brought along with the settlers that landed in the New World? Wasn't this plague similar to the Cold virus, or perhaps flu? Something that most of the english had immune systems over time built up for, but the Indians immune systems had absolutely no way to deal with it, and it became an epidemic.
If there is even a remotely possiblity of any kind of bacteria/virual form of life existing on mars, we must be extremely careful. The bacteria/virus could potentially be so radically different than any strand here on earth, it could potentially wipe out entire species..
Then again, if not it'll make a good movie, I suggest casting Bruce Willis to lead a team of doctors to mars to attempt to find a "counter-virus."
..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
I think that taking reasonable precautions is prudent.
But let's be serious. I enjoyed "The Andromeda Strain" as much as the next guy, but I don't think this is very realistic. A chimp can't catch a cold from me. I can only play host to a limited number of bacteria that a lizard is susceptible to. And they want me to believe that there may be some man-killer bacteria on Mars? Even if you're one of these nutters who thinks that big headed grey dudes seeded our solar system with their DNA, why would you think a flesh-eating bacterium would evolve on a planted WITH NO FLESHY BEINGS?
I think we're all just a bit too eager to see Data dork Yar.
-Peter
What is the possibility that an ELE sized asteroid (facts) hits the earth during your lifetime (75 years). If you could win $42 000 000 000 in a lottery at such rate, would you bet? ;))
Ofcourse they try to do precautions for everything they can think of. Many of you must have some experience on IT risk management, and you know the calculus - if avoidable mass destruction is on other side, then a few million dollars on other side is not bad risk management.
This idea is actually laughable. Earth's bacteria and plagues have been evolving for billions of years just to kill Earth organisms. Anything that comes into our ecosystem will quickly be outcompeted and outclassed. It's like putting Bambi in a Terminator movie. There is absolutely nothing to worry about from Mars organisms.
Sinclair Lewis goes into this topic in the biology classic 'Life of the Cell' Or a cell, I can't remember.
Sorry..but that is a rather dumb solution.
Remember that the distance between planets and the sun is exceptionally large. It's not like you say you go to the local pizza store on your way home from school. Whenever they try to get something close to Mars, there is a rather small window in which the planets are aligned correctly (mind you, not in a straight line, but in an orbital curve) That is the shortest distance between earth and mars. Now, what you are saying is to burn fuel so that it gets close to the sun, then turn around and burn more fuel to get away from the gravitational pull of the sun back to earth. Meanwhile doing this so that the orbit from mars, around the sun, back to earth is lined up. (Remember that nike's commercial? Over the garage, through the window, nothing but net!)
In addition, you mention a crew. The farthest that manned space missions have gone is to the moon and back. We barely have the resources nor the technology to get to Mars, nonetheless the sun. Anything that can kill bacteria will kill humans first. So exposing the entire ship to the gamma radiations of the sun is near suicide. Secondly, you would need a huge amount of life support system to keep the humans alive for the duration of the entire trip (earth to mars, mars to sun, sun to earth)
Now the thing here is this. You have the right idea. All in all, solar radiation can sterilize just about any bacteria that we know of. Just having a probe fly through the emptiness of space will sterilize the exterior. The part that they are concerned with is the cargo (ie, Martian rocks and stuff).
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
I bet that they discover that humankind originated on Mars and dug all those canals and stuff. But they had a catastrophic atomic war, but their space program allowed them to settle on the promising planet of earth, where environmental differences caused them to de-evolve into apes, whereupon, it took millions of years to evolve to near their former selves. :)
but i thought thier probes said there was no life, so why worry about it
*spoiler* In War of The Worlds the Martians were stopped dead in their tracks because they became infected with Earth's native bacteria. Now how is that going to stop them... if the Martians are bacteria! ::: Dum dum duummmmm! (scream) :::
This makes me wonder what, if anything, we left on the moon.... growing.... breeding... multiplying in the lunar dust...
Uh... isn't this the Andromeda Strain argument, earily coming back. If you haven't seen it, a Martian virus comes back to earth on a fallen probe and then starts to spread and kill everything it's path. An old sci-fi flick, but an awesome one. The key is that the martian virus has a structure unlike any that is seen on earth, and thus is a total mystery. Therefore, nearly impossible to stop.
Vital Idea
Shouldn't you at least mention that you are not the author of that passage, and that you merely changed occurrences of "moon" to read "mars"? Seems every time this comment is re-posted, it's never given credit, and it's always a +5 Funny. Oi.
The streets shall flow with the blood of the Guberminky.
What happened to that 2600 story about Turner exce calling PVR users theives??
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
While we don't want to bring contamination back to earth, NASA planned to contaminate the Mars to create an artificial greenhouse effect so that it's warm enough to grow algea to produce oxygen.
:)
Life isn't fair isn't it?
they were all covered in mould!
What stand out in this article is how limited we humans are in our thinking. Here we are, exploring the great unknown, and the biggest threat we can come up with is a little green man with a red nose sneezing at us. You can imagine the sequence of events that took place at NASA HQ that lead to this initiative: 1) Some middle manager's secretary comes in with a sore throat. 2) The middle manager, having designs on the secretary, orders some poor geek to relinquish his supply of Ramen noodles, since that's the closest thing in sight to chicken soup. 3) The geek throws a hissy fit. 4) The manager backs down, realizing that if he puts up a big stink someone higher up might notice his job is totally redundant. 5) Totally emasculated, the manager tries to redeem himself by circulating the "Clear and Present Danger of Bio-Agent Vectors in Space" memorandum.
26d6173bbc9af7cfdb7ce60600e6aded518bfe51acca9a84a
Dant da-dant da-da-da-da-dant.
Even if a virus or bacteria is alive on Mars, it's not likely to interact with the human biology. Even if it is capable of interacting with our bodies, it may not survive in Earth's conditions. Even if it can survive, it may not be harmful.
But let's throw these assumptions out the window and assume there is a nasty bug on Mars ready to wipe out the human race.
Don't you think the astronauts would notice each other dying during the months it takes to get back to Earth?
sending people is more expensive but it gets you more funding as well.
I say, if astronauts meet extraterrestrial lifeforms on Mars they should take precautions. It would be truly stupid not to. Therefore, I think they should play it safe(r) and wear a condom. I mean, it's not just them who could get infected: they could contaminate the EARTH! DUH!
We lost several Ranger missions because of steps people took so we wouldn't contaminate the moon. Now we're going to make the already extremely difficult task of getting to Mars harder just so that we don't cross contaminate with a few specs of dust? Well guess what, there's already a huge amount of material that goes between Earth and Mars. Those Mars meteorites? Their interiors never got hot enough to kill bacteria, and tons of it falls on the Earth every year (and conversly tons of Earth material falls onto Mars every year)
Rabbits have taken over Australia in much the same way. Rabbits are a serious problem for Australia. At least they're good eatin' though...
My hunch (and one that has gotten a little more popular over the years) is that Earth life was originally seeded by a comet.
Altho that may not affect contamination concerns. Should we worry about parasitic contamination from alien microlife? I don't think so. For example, viruses attack specific parts of cells. Maybe resource exploitation or toxic metabolizations would be more of a concern.
If you need text styles to communicate then you don't have a message.
We can safely dispose of contaminating bacteria by rubbing handfuls of goo over half-naked chicks in a hot room illuminated by blue lights, and then having them do the same to us.
... !
Stop pushing, I'm going first!
penis
Does this mean no GPL infected OSes allowed outside Earth?
Yes, some precautions are justified, but I'm not losing too much sleep over the risk.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
... those bacteria have already been killed off by now by the plutonium that all those probes have already transported there?
Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
By the time NASA has the funding to send astronauts to Mars, decontaminating them after they return will probably not be a concern. In my opinion, the best shot NASA has of a mars mission anytime in the near future is in fact sending astronauts there on military funding, with the hope that they do bring back some martian bacteria for use in biological warfare "research." Sure it wouldnt be the "reason" that the mission takes place, but im sure the military would be quite certain that they got whatever they could out of the mission... Just cause we boo hoo bio warfare, doesnt mean we dont do plenty of research on it...
There used to be reptiles on Antarctica, but the penguins ate them.
Things you'd probably do would include sterilizing drilling equipment (if there's life on Mars, it could well be in subsurface acquifers, and Terran bacteria *might* conceivably survive in one) and heat any waste that's been kept in an atmosphere to kill any bugs that might be on it.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
"It seems these days that everyone want's to have their cske [sic] and eat it too"
Every time I see someone say this they use it in this way, and it annoys me just a little more. What the hell is wrong with you. It's like you tried to translate what Mrs. Antoinette really said from french to german to chinese and then to english; then you took the resulting jumble out of context. Once again, I hate you.
To quote the site: "Maybe Marie Antoinette did not say it at all."
Now go hang your head in shame.
(note: this is the culmination of much frustration over this. I realize this is a bit of an over-reaction, and also I need a nap. And yes, I do feel it necessary to point out the sic.)
Once we know one way or another what kind of life exists on mars, then we can start thinking about sending humans. But that will invariably and irrevocably change mars.
Even let's for one second suppose that there are extraterrestrial bacterias on mars. (which seems to be rather unlikely), how well do you think they are equipped to survive on earth? Not much, they are specialized for a life on mars. How well do you think they understand to use terrestrial life as hosts? Not at all, where should thay have learned?
It's the same on earth, take a lion from the steppe and put him on the south pole and look how well he survives there. Then take a pinguin from south pole and put him into the steppe where the lion was, how many days would you give this poor fellow?
Okay I think there might even be some bacterias on mars, but they are terrestrial and plug in stasis on our probes and landers, and well we're used and well suited for this kind of. Extraterrestrial are very unlikely, and even if existend far more unlikely to be able to infect a human or any life on our planet.
--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
"determine the size, shape and abrasiveness at potential landing sites"
"study the adhesiveness"
"design filters to protect"
Is it me or is it the late night coffee ?
(BTW, I did mean hocky, not hockey. Now on to my post...)
To build a spacecraft to go to Mars and back would require an incredible amount of resources. Abandoning it (or in the interests of safety, they'd probably skuttle it) would waste all those resources, especially considering that the craft could probably recieve a tune-up and be reused for further manned missions.
While I highly doubt that there's anything on Mars that would require decontamination, I've heard (from the usual suspects, and the peanut gallery) that there might be such things. Why not have some souped up lunar lander type craft to go between the larger vessel leading to Mars and the planet itself? It should cost quite a bit less, and would be easier on the chequebooks to abandon and destroy.
Oh, and not only would the abandoning and destruction of the vessel be a waste of money, but also of resources that could be reused planetside. Of course, if we harvest the Martian surface, then we don't have to worry too much about any iron shortages.
Chris 'coldacid' Charabaruk Meldstar Entertainment
we're worried about bacteria from Mars destroying all life on earth. Yeah, I think we'd best focus our attention on GW's posse before we worry about aliens. NEWS FLASH folks, by the time a man sets foot on Mars we'll all be driving H2 vehicles.
-Perception is reality-
Sapere Aude - Homer
Yes, I know that was well before we were around, but there were certainly plenty of bacteria around back then.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
The other way around doesn't seen that important.
How about earth lifeforms contaminating Mars? What will happen to Mars lifeforms when they cone in contact with our bacteria or worse like violent and dangerous intelligent lifeforms known as humans?
Privacy is terrorism.
We all remember the Mir with it's space growths in weird areas, right?
And the jury's still out on "life on mars" past or present, single cell, or bug-eyed and tripedal.
Now wrap your imagination round this scenario.
A virus that kills algae indiscriminately. dump that in one of our oceans, and kill the base of the food chain.
Let's ship cheap, light electronics up there that can do analysis and beam back data that won't sink our ship.
There's nothing alive on mars, and if there was, something killed it off like those 99% of all known species that we've identified that share a single attribute: extinction.
Peace, fellow plankton.
STOP. You're being farmed.
But flesh-eating bacteria, or even something humans are succeptable to isn't the risk. The risk is that a bacteria from Mars might find an environment on earth it finds hospitable and spread and impact anything. Humans, dogs, pigs, chickens, beef, wheat, rice, algae, oranges... What are the chances? Nobody knows. We don't know enough about Mars. It is a good idea to start thinking about it now.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
I'm not talking about ALH84001 or whatever that asteroid was called. It is quite possible that the most basic postulate of biology (that terrestrial life originated here on Earth) is false. There isn't any convincing evidence that it HAD to have started here, certainly. The panspermia movement has some interesting things to say about this.
visit the hwky website for a lyrical genius infusion.
just a few things I have noticed on this topic
:)
#1 We are all assuming that life on mars will be based on the same processes that life here on earth are based on. What other planets have we found life on to think that our case is the norm? Can we afford to be so arrogant.
#2 We are all assuming that that because of #1, any potential for earthly contamination is negated. Considering that the ONLY planet in the entire universe that we have had the chance to study up close is earth, shouldn't we be at least a little bit careful? Regardless of what many of us may think is a non threat, it is based on absolutely NO concrete knowledge.
Anywho, the entire mars subject is definitely going to be entertaining for quite some time!
-Plappy
are a million to one, they said.
The chances of anything coming from Mars
are a million to one. But still - they come!
- HG Wells, War of the worlds.
I think that the discovery of an alien life form on another planet, even so simple as bacteria, is far more interesting and important than being overly cautious about the slim possibility that bacteria that have a slim chance of existing might be able to somehow make it back to earth and, along with all of that, be able to infect or damage life on earth in some way.
Most of even Earth's native bacteria are innocuous. This is just being paranoid.
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
Although we're aware only of life based on DNA/RNA/protein as paradigm, there may well be many other possible life paradigms elsewhere, including Mars, and most of them would be so at variance in structure that infection would be unlikely (a silicon based chemistry wouldn't likely be able to infect most conceivable carbon based lifeforms), but as an ecology another planet may successfully supplant ours: look at how oxygen-using organisms supplanted anaerobic lifeforms that had ruled the Earth for much of its existence. I don't think it hurts to be cautious.
The idea that a Martian microbe could be pathogenic to earthly life is basically dumb. NASA doesn't believe this for a second.
So what's the bottom line of this red herring? Easy. NASA is now way too much of a fat, incompetent organization to dream of sending a man to Mars. They can barely get a simple Low Earth Orbit space station going for billions over an already bloated budget. Fearmongering is one (very low) way that they can produce classic FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) about the very idea to let them off of the hook for not being able to produce such a mission.
What about us contaminating mars? Those aliens won't be happy if they all start catching colds.
Roadkill is yummy.
Could we please focus on solving the problems that already exsist on our OWN PLANET? Hmmm....fanatical terrorism, religious wars, corrupt governments, horny priests, crashing economies......nahh lets debate the possibility of being infected by alien bacteria from Mars.
True that we ourselves may bring foriegn elements onto Mars which may kill existing life. To think though that they would wipe out all life or even all of a specific class would be nieve. One thing we have learned is that life expecially life with short lifespans, and low cell counts is adept at reacting to a changing enviroment. If any form of life we bring to Mars begins to kill off existing life I will bet that it will adapt and change itself to ward off the attacker.
What is the likelihood of bacterial life on Mars infecting the earth if we ever get around to visiting Mars in person?
Are you willing to take that chance?
Anataka suki desu. Itsumo. Itsumademo.
Here are some instruments that NASA uses for inspecting Mars: "Mars Orbital Camera" (MOC) High-resolution camera on the Mars Global Surveyor Spacecraft. "Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter" (MOLA) An instrument on the Mars Global Surveyor Spacecraft that uses range measurements to construct a precise topographical map of Mars for studies in geophysics, geology, and atmospheric circulation. "Thermal Emission Spectrometer" (TES) An instrument for measuring the thermal infrared energy (heat) emitted from Mars, which will provide informtion about the geology, composition, and atmosphere of Mars.
http://www.palmzone.net
"Gamma Ray Spectrometer": An instrument provided by the University of Arizona's Lunar and Planetary Laboratory that will determine the composition of the Martian surface and the distribution of water. "MARIE": An instrument provided by Johnson Space Center that will map the radiation environment on Mars. "THEMIS": An instrument provided by Arizona State University that will map the distribution of minerals on the surface of Mars.
http://www.palmzone.net
I think that Bob Zubrin said it best when he wrote that this idea is "just plain nuts". Here on Earth, disease organisms have co-evolved with their hosts, and pose little threat to non related species. "It's why humans don't catch dutch elm disease, and why trees do not catch colds".
Anything from Mars would certainly be far more distantly related to us than dutch elm disease or trees, and so the concern that the NRC show towards this issue makes me wonder if they were among the people who find science to be a mystery. The NRC for god's sake!
What do you guys think?
But really, preventing the POSSIBILITY *IS* important, you reckon? I mean, what if there IS a flesh eating bacteria, for whatever strange reason, on Mars and it came back to Earth with the explorers? I think maybe we'd regret it when the entire human population is eaten alive.
I mean, when it comes to spending 100B on a Mars mission, why not throw in 20 bucks for a few cans of Lysol?
Cool! Amazing Toys.
If you found a viable dinosaur egg, would you cook it?
Maybe we already destroyed life there by contamination.
Maybe the first life we detect there turns out to be something that fell from a scientists eyelash.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_c
All right, Mr. Submitter, I'll answer your question: I haven't the foggiest idea. I've learned a little here or there about microorganisms and their possible existence outside of the Earth during my lifetime, and I regard myself as a relatively intelligent person, and tend to have strong opinions about most anything, including stuff I don't know much about. But the awful truth is that I'm not the least bit qualified to speculate on the likelihood of extraterrestrial infections on Earth. That's not an informative answer, I admit, but it's honest, and I daresay a great deal more honest than nearly all of the responses you've received so far.
To be sure, there have been a few replies so far that seem to be thoughtful and well-informed, and perhaps they come from people who really are qualified to answer the question; but like I said, I'm not really qualified to make that evaluation. Almost all of the rest, it seems to me, are comments from people who may be relatively intelligent, may have read a thing or two about the possibility of extraterrestrial life, and have all kinds of strong opinions about anything, and now they are speculating with wild abandon. Which is fun, but they will give you almost no reliable answers to your question, and may lead you completely astray.
You probably wouldn't be having this problem if you had posted this question in a forum about "News for Molecular Biologists, Stuff That Matters to Astrophysicists". Why did you expect you expect to get any useful answers here?
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
To sugest that the ship that will lead man to mars will reenter earth is inconsistent (to say the least).
The ship that will transport people from earth to mark will never enter any planet because it won't be designed to do it.
Probably, the ship will be assembled in orbit and the shuttle will transport the astronauts to/from. The ship will be reusable and will dock in ISS.
I've huge doubts about it's engine... more probably it will be nuclear powered...
As for contaminations... well... i think the major danger will be earth bugs that change in mars and come back... but they won't be better or worst then the current ones... just new ones...
Should we be carefull? Sure... Should we be paranoid about it? Certainly not! Just be pratical and efficient.
Let's give those astronauts some condoms.
Our astronauts will be on Mars being careful so they don't bring back anything harmful then they'll sneak a few beers before they leave. Where do you think the trash will go? Thats right folks, theres going to be Marsians(?) that get stuck in those plastic six pack rings and suffocate!
People seem much brighter once you light them on fire.
Couldn't an asteroid impact into mars shoot out debris and possibly bacteria, on that debris. The earth has been hit by many an asteroid, although not as evident due to weathering. Perhaps some of the bacteria currently around was shipped here through Fed-Asteroid-Ex. Of course, I could be wrong, because bacteria might not be able to survive something like this, but if it could attach to a shuttle and be carried back to earth, then I don't see why the previous wouldn't be possible.
... what about contaminating mars? does nasa not care about contaminating mars? I mean the bacteria may have just been a reaction from the stuff that we sent to mars. if ever there is going to be a form of life on mars should we not stay away not influence them and learn what they learn. (if we do not interfere with thier evolution then they theroretically would evolve completly different then us, they would develop a whole different set of physics (more than likely breaking some of our laws of physics, allowing us to refine them)).
the bullfrog taking over really happened in France (not australia). As far as rabbit, I think Australian farmers imported them to take care of some other vermin.
Why does everyone seem to swallow the idea that there is/was life on Mars?
I am not the betting kind, but I wouldn't call anyone stupid if he wagered a lot of money that there won't be found traces of life on Mars.
Since BEFORE the viking sondes we _knew_ that life on Mars was bloody unlikely. We could see that from the atmosphere. After viking, we also got a really strong indication that there never was. And there is more evidence piling up with every Mars mission...
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
I've never understood why they are so paranoid about bringing back bacteria from a Mars exploration mission when rock samples have already been found in some places on Earth (e.g. Antarctica I think) that have travelled here due to an asteroid hitting Mars and breaking off rock samples which have ended up here.
So whats the deal?
Also, surely from the 70's (or 80's?) missions where they bought back Mars rock samples would have been enough to contaminate the Earth already?
Wasn't there a controversy over a test on Viking?
Anyone who has read Michael Crichton's Andromeda Strain should understand the concepts already explored in science fiction with respect to alien bacteria/viruses/etc. On a side note I am currently reading Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson which is less concerened about contamination then with much more broader changes man might induce by colonization.
To prevent Earth being "contaminated", the trip to Mars must be a one-way trip.
Then, who to send ?
Here's my suggestion -
1. The candidate must be willing to go for a one-way trip to Mars.
2. The candidate must be smart enough to comprehend the task on hand.
3. The candidate must have a REASON to not coming back to Earth.
4. The candidate must be strong enough to endure the trip to Mars.
So
Why don't NASA start checking on the prisoner list?
The U. S. of A. has a high percentage of its population behind bars, and there shouldn't be any problem in finding someone who fits the criteria above.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
If they're trying so hard to find life on Mars,
maybe they should worry more about taking
contaminants to Mars.
I can just see NASA finding a prolific lifeform
on Mars someday and (eventually, after wasting
all kinds of time & money) discovering:
"Hey, this looks just like John Q. Astronaut's
athletes foot from 15 years ago!"
This same discussion happened re: the moon landings. Gloom and doom, they said. But we are bombarded by Martian particles every day (moon particles too, as it were). The one thing of which we are fairly certain is that bacteria is very resilient, including surviving on meteors from Mars. It's, if you'll pardon the cavalier attitude, a non-issue.
Banning the reentry vehicle? Wouldn't it just be more melodramatic to consign the exlporers to Mars forever? NASA people get enough real drama already.
Amateurs discuss tactics. Professionals discuss logistics.
How many exobiologists & extraterrestrial infectious disease specialists read slashdot?
I think that all hardware and software used on such a mission should have open specs or be open source. That way, we can claim Mars as an Open Source Planet.
We can set up our own Anti-DMCA stuff and make Windows illegal there. And Bill Gates, and Steve Ballmer and Hillary Rosen and Jack Valenti and Fritz Hollings and anyone else I don't like. ohhhh, what a sweet thought.
And we can write our own drivers which would be far superior because there's less gravity.
And everyone there would have a 19" LCD and get 500 FPS on Doom 4 at 1900x1600 at 64 bit colour with 64x anti aliasing and no latency at all. It would be paradise.
Resistant bacteria and virii form in hospital environments where every precaution is taken to ensure sterility. These are the hardy survivors of attempts to kill them with disinfectants etc. They (NASA) do have a point, even if very remote that if there is some form of (possibly dormant) life on Mars that it will be extremely hardy and resistant considering that they would have survived billions of years in a near vacuum and high UV radiation environment. I think the chance that these theoretical bacteria or virii being compatible with humans is extremely small, but possible. Considering that lately there has been evidence of both water and possible life (the /. article on the green images seen on photos) perhaps even caused by earth bacteria contamination by the Viking landers and Mars Rover, there is good reason to take at least some precautions.
This is complete speculation, but compare a martian bacteria to an earth bacteria. It's probably highly optimized to survive the harsh martian climate, and not much used to competition.
On the other hand, organisms on earth are quite used to potentially hostile bacteria, and are quite good at defending themselves. I don't believe for one second a martian bacteria would survive more than 5 minutes against my immune system.
Ok, I'm just a simple geek. I'm not biologist by any stretch of the imagination. But, this seems a little odd to me. If we were to take bacteria from Earth to Mars, I would imagine it would die in a matter of minutes, if not seconds, in the Martian atmosphere. Shouldn't the same hold true if we were to bring back some bacteria from Mars?
This seems more like a NASA troll. First any 'vehicle' that can make a round trip to Mars is *not* going to be landing on the the surface. What will go down are land & retrieval vehicles (e.g. the Moon), and Astronauts in spacesuits. What will have to be screened is the retrieval vehicle (which will probably be left there), the spacesuits and the Astronauts themselves. Note that the Mars vehicle won't need an 'Earth return vehicles' as we'll have the ISS and the Space Shuttle. In fact, by using a 'disposable', airtight, pressurised tube between the Mars land&retrieve vehicle all that would be needed would be to leave the space suits and decontam the astronauts!
Shouldn't we be worried about something we'd refer to as simply: "The Mars Death"?
Talking about bacteria and Earthly DNA and communicability doesn't seem broad enough to me. I mean, it's another freakin' planet for heaven's sakes. Suppose there's a Mars organism that simply likes to consume something that's rare on Mars but plentiful here and we need that whatever-it-is to live. Uh oh.
But... this is only if we are going to talk about it and try to do something about it. Personally, I'm not worried about the issue.
cygnuhchur
NASA can let the ESA worry about it, they already announced their intention to send Europeans to mars first, first to ever set foot on another planet. I for one believe the future of space exploration and mars colonization rests mainly with joint Euro-Asian undertakings.
What is the likelihood of bacterial life on Mars infecting the earth if we ever get around to visiting Mars in person?"
42...
Nah, guess not.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
NASA should be more concerned with actually getting the exploring vehicle back rather than what they might bring back with it. They have a hard enough time getting something there...please.
-- Probability does not dismiss possibility --
If that is your concern then don't send a manned mission to Mars. DUH
You make the mission sound like we have to do it, not because we want to do it to basically entertain ourselves.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
we should definitely bring them back.
Those damn "tree-huggers"! How dare they let things like ethics get in the way of manifest destiny! Your right-thinking has certainly cleared up any doubts in my mind. Screw the consequences of your actions someone will figure out a fix, any good 5 year old can tell you that.
I like how you not only have written off an entire planet but the moon too, nice catch.
I think the first test flight to Mars should be Slashdot trolls with tattered space suits.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
After the first moon trip, they all had to live
in a decontaimination residence for a while.
there's also that funny little thing about how bacteria and other forms of life REQUIRE OXYGEN TO SURVIVE. Mars, lacking an atomosphere for quite some time now, doesn't have any. Now, unless there are some super cyanobacteria that can live without O2, surely they aren't going to survive when exposed to earthly air which completely different from the martian surface they are used to.
Given a very few places on Earth that emulates Mars, this likely press scenario could play out:
"MT. EVEREST GOES RED"
Exo-Aresteria, newly deployed Martian-based bacteria, infects the Himalayas region, leaving deep red tints throughout the mountain snow cap surface, inflaming all mountaineers and sherpas' lung with TB-like bleeding breaths. Barring any genetic permutation, the epidemic is contained within the thin atmosphere of the barren range.
Does anyone have any idea what it will do if it reaches the Yukon territory of Canada?
- This article from space.com about the flu virus is brought into the environment via space debris, space dust, etc.
- According to this story germs can survive and even thrive and mutate in outer space.
I'd say that someone should be concerned....
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
That's a bogus argument.
If something like a T-Rex were imported here from another planet, it would just as surely be top doggie here as it was back home.
Why?
Because it's fucking huge and has giant spiky teeth.
Case closed.
Suddenly, there's life on Mars we might bring back? How is it that we all missed the revelation of exterrestial life? Isn't that sort of a significant finding?
Welcome to the net of 1000 lies. Upgrades are scheduled soon that should bring us to the 10,000 lies mark.
Of all the comments on this topic, only one person mentions that Earth has been "infected" over and over by Mars meteorites over the past billion years. And vice versa. What we are more likely to find there are variants of earth organisms that could adapt to the conditions. And most puzzling of all is that the other person's comments are given a score of 1.
Michael Crichton already wrote this story. Get a more original idea if you want to do science fiction, NRC.
tektites and comets and meteorites have been visiting the earth on and off. perhaps tsome of them have been seeding the earth with "new" exotic organisms like viruses and primitive bacteria. It is possible exobacterial DNA has shifted to other organisms ( dont ask me how)and sudden evolutionary changes were the result. neednt be dinosaurs or mammals appearing overnight--it could be a simple but subtle change in vegetation over a million years which leads to large scale changes. Intersting to see what would really happen if marsobacter infects us.
What about other microbes anf fungi they carry in their equipment that gets mutated ? One other thing NASA downplays these days is contamination from space based mutant fungi and other micro organisms.
The NRC urged NASA to establish "zones of minimal biological risk" by sending automated probes to test for organic chemicals or other life forms.
How do we know what to look for? We have a pretty narrow conception of life.
Doesn't everyone need cute cudly pets?
Windows.....just another pane in the glass.....
... for offworld bacteria or virii to be of any harm to life on this planet? I mean we are talking about organisms that were not designed to infect anything here. Bacteria and virii are very specific in what they can infect and how they infect. Would Martian organisms have the capability to live here when they were not designed to be able to infect organisms that they have never been in contact with. Yes adaptation is possible, but quickly enough for said organisms to survive?
Depending on what you choose to believe, we've already been exposed to contamination. Researchers collecting meteorites in the Antarctic claim that they detect on and in the stones the fossil remains of Martian bacteria. They don't claim to have found any living ones, but think of this; if we can find fossil life inside earth rocks, and also related live life growing all over said rocks, then why not the same with Martian rocks, including meteorites? Maybe we were "contaminate" a long time ago, and it either worked ('We walk amoung you') or it didn't and would not in any case. So I guess I'm not worried, either way. Later contamination would just be a family reunion of sorts.
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
The record for indurance form space is just over 200 days. When he returned, he was carried out on a streacher due to the sudden "Gravity". Based on that and that a mission to mars would take x days to get there (and then x again to get back) and x to stay on the planet to actually do somthing, wouldn't it not be possible with today's technology, to even attempt a mars mission?
Hate to bust your bubble but space isn't all that inhospitable to micro-organisms. NASA was able to find viable Staph on a piece of equipment left on the lunar surface for a while and the bug Deinoccocus radiodurans can survive doses of radiation that could kill humans. Just think how hard it's been to knock out all of the anthrax spores in DC.
The contamination didn't actually come from off planet in that story. You missed a MAJOR portion of the plot.
AKA OniOid...
Now that you mention it;
I've been rolling around this idea in my head- since the eighties for goodness sake- of a sci-fi novel- worthy of a Hollywood Screenplay!- whereby an international Martian research-base contingent of Scientists all decide that they've had enough of earth and its bullshit- (such as its closed source proprietary software and corporate greed environmental waste, etc....) and love Mars so much they decide to take it over- claim it- and prevent any subsequent turd-festering Terran from landing.
Now, with any good story plot, it has its twists and turns, and one of them is that a few of the scientists are, of course, none too happy with the idea, so attempts are made to off them by a conveniently-discovered and obliging little Martian organism.
If it is the case, contamination on mars has already begin, remember the PathFinder ?
As for the trip from mars to earth. It's been made too, hasn't it? You know, all those rocks from Mars that you can find in Antartica? There are various theories about how live might survive such a jouney. Has anyone proved it yet?
Me too for the person who correctly noted that it's more important to protect human life from potential harm than it is to protect bacteria on Mars from harm. Live competes, that's the story of microbes. Tough luck to them and anti-biotics for those in you and me.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Bacteria arrive on earth all the time from extra-terrestrial objects that enter our atmosphere (and land on the earth's surface). Read a few journals, and become informed. Many bacteria lie dormant indefinately without the support of what we consider a "hospitable" environment. And to the person who said we don't need to make a manned mission to mars yet? Get a clue, the earth is (culturally) due for over-population, and all we can seem to do is whine about how much longer people should live without addressing birth rates vs. death rates!
-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-
following my instincts not a trend...
THis is a very good point - a tough carbon based bug scrapping a living off Oxygen deposits and atmosphere born Hydrocarbons on Mars would consider earth a Smorgass Board.
Many bacteria produce toxic substances as a metabolic byproduct. This is what makes you sick when you get an infection. Imagine a simple celled critter secreting Nitric Acid spreading over every surface on the planet!
Assuming that there are even bacteria on Mars, there's no reason to suppose they could survive in Earth's environment, or if they could, that they would be able to infect life on Earth. I mean, you're talking about life in a completely different form. Even most terrestrial bacteria can only infect a relatively small number of plant and animal species.
Nonexistent.
'I am not the lord of cherry pies.'
If i read Disney correctly. Ducks can talk. In other words comic books are not your best resource.