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?"
A transplanted organism with no 'predators' would be a bad thing. Just look at what happened to Australia after Bart brought his frog there.
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/
Shouldn't we be more worried about the other way around first - the contamination of Mars by some Earthly micro-organism?
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 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.
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
heh... the only contamination there was from the nuclear war they obviously had that killed off all life on that poor planet.
A completely foreign bacteria that no one here has probably ever had any exposure and therefore, if it causes disease, we would not have antibodies to fight it. Yeahhhh makes a whole lot of sense. Sure worth the risk involved.
What?
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.
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".
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
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
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..."
This makes me wonder what, if anything, we left on the moon.... growing.... breeding... multiplying in the lunar dust...
The chances of that are like the chances that (uncontroled) ionizing radiation is going to cure cancer or cause you to grow wings.
I dont know about the curing cancer but it will definantly increase your chances of growing wings, or maybe an extra eye or two at the very least..
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.
The fact of the matter is that preventing contamination is impossible - we have pieces of Mars rock entering our atmosphere all the time. Most bacteria is incredibly hardy - the vacuum of space and heat of re-entry are certainly survivable. Please see this essay, entitled "Estimated Flux of Rocks Bearing Viable Lifeforms Exchanged Between Earth and Mars". Realistically, our primary concern is with accidentally seeding Mars with Terran bacteria - if that happens, we may never know whether or not Mars had any native life.
sending people is more expensive but it gets you more funding as well.
--
Damn the Emperor!
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?)
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?)
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.
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?)
Yes, well if this were to actuaklly happen there would be much more study of mars before any humans went there, and they would determine if there in fact even was bacteria there. There most likely is not, so this whole question leads me to believe that nasa is simply interested in creating some hype so that they can distract people from the fact that they are a large, slow, tired, and dead organization.
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
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.
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.
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
Wasn't there a controversy over a test on Viking?
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 !
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.
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.
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.
Too bad you were marked as a troll. Because you've a valid concern. :( Must have some of his secret NRA agents snooping around with mod points...
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
The rabbit was/is one problem in Australia, but the cane toad is much worse.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Michael Crichton already wrote this story. Get a more original idea if you want to do science fiction, NRC.
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.