Group Plans to Bring Martian Sample to Earth

sm62704 (mcgrew) writes "New Scientist has a story about IMARS (the International Mars Architecture for Return Samples) planning to bring samples of Martian soil to earth. The robotic mission would be a needed precursor to manned trips to the red planet. Also, international cooperation is necessary since the US has already nixed bankrolling manned Mars missions."

Comments

I wonder if we should.

[AltGrendel]

With all the movies and sci-fi books out there that have reasons why we shouldn't, maybe we should leave well enough alone.

Re:I wonder if we should.

[CRCulver]

Agreed. I fear Earth will soon face an epidemic of The Andromeda Strain . After all Crichton was a doctor, he should know.

Re:I wonder if we should.

[morgan_greywolf]

Agreed. I fear Earth will soon face an epidemic of The Andromeda Strain . After all Crichton was a doctor, he should know. A lot of what's in Crichton's work is pseudoscience at best. Take Jurassic Park. None of the DNA that has been captured from dinosaur fossils is in good enough condition to produce a clone ... and all likelihood no sample will ever be found that could be used for cloning. It's also mentioned that all life is inherently female and that it's only the introduction of the Y chromosome that makes a zygote male. Not quite. What really happens is that there are X sperm and Y sperm. So, from conception, a zygote already carries the sex chromosome. Now it is true that the Y chromosome doesn't get activated until sometime after development when a certain hormone gets introduced. The failure of the Y chromosome to activate is actually the cause of a rare but serious disease.

I've been reading Crichton's Next and I have to say that it's got some good science in there -- but there's a lot of pseudoscience in there too.

So, I wouldn't take The Andromeda Strain as gospel for what might happen. Samples taken from the moon obviously haven't wiped out life on Earth, why should we believe that samples taken from Mars would?

Re:I wonder if we should.

[SilentBob0727]

What really happens is that there are X sperm and Y sperm. Actually, XY is only what happens in most mammals. There are at least three other prominent sex-determination systems among biological organisms, including X0 (females have two X's, males have one), ZW (W encodes femaleness), and Haplodiploidy (gametes develop into males, zygotes into females): See here for more information.

Reptilian gender is environmentally, not genetically, determined. Of course, dinosaurs weren't strictly reptilian. Nevertheless, Crichton was not describing the XY system. He was using his knowledge of exotic sex-determination systems that aren't commonly known among laypeople in order to spin a good yarn.

I do agree his work is rife with pseudoscience. But this one isn't that inaccurate.

Other worth subjects

[Kranfer]

While mars is a worthy subject of return samples, I also believe that more return samples from coments/asteroids would be of more value for figuing out if life is out there. As we all know from previous /. articles, bacteria can survive on space craft, and we are worried about bringing such life to places like mars. However I think Europia and Io would be awesome places to check out for life. But thats just me... if it were up to me, I would say do what the Governor of CA said on the Howard Stern Show a few weeks ago... get a bunch of rocket engines and move the earth a few inches more away from the sun to get rid of global warming... but hey what do I know?

It's Robotic!

[FroBugg]

Also, international cooperation is necessary since the US has already nixed bankrolling manned Mars missions.

This is a robotic mission, so would be perfectly fine under the NASA funding rules. If you're pissed about the rule, go complain in the thread we already had about it. Don't inject it into stories where it has no real bearing.

The actual article itself contains this completely different and more appropriate explanation for the need for international efforts:

International cooperation in the project is important because it is likely to carry a global-size price tag. NASA previously backed away from its own plans for a sample return mission due to budget overruns in the space shuttle programme.

"It's not an inexpensive proposition, and the ability to share the technical challenges and the costs across nations is very important for the success of this," says meeting attendee Lisa May, NASA's lead programme executive for Mars sample return missions.

Send a Mars Rover and pieces to make a catapult

[Thanshin]

With about 0.35g, they may just send a Mars Rover with a mechanical arm and also send pieces to build a catapult. In six months or so, the rover builds the catapult and uses it to throw a piece of ground back.

The only problem could be the rover exceeding his expected lifetime thirteen times and burying us in Mars pieces.

Braaaains.........

[blankoboy]

Watch for slow moving and moaning scientists coming to a neighborhood near you!

ahem

[Martian_Kyo]

I for one welcome our new earthling overlords

Re:Why?

[FroBugg]

The Viking missions sampled soil on-site with the tools that were built into the landers. This mission is planning to bring samples to Earth, where we can perform much more detailed analysis with tools that cannot easily be sent to another planet and operated remotely.

Re:Why?

[petermgreen]

as others have said the viking landers dug up samples and ran some tests on them but didn't bring them back.

The problem is that by the time you have hardened a sensor for space use, got it approved and then got it to mars it will probablly be over a decade behind the technology we have on earth and if you want to retest with better sensors you have to send a whole new mission.

By bringing the sample back here it can be studied with the latest equipment we have and we can retest as new equpiment becomes availible.

Re:Rocket engines

[_Shorty-dammit]

1. Which you could simply repeat.

2. Rocket store.

3. The ground.

4. Yes.

5. Maybe.

6. Says you.

Just plain stupid (proposed) law.

[DougF]

From: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1012/1

The House of Representatives version of HR 3093, the bill that determines NASA's funding for 2008, effectively bans the study of an entire planet:

Provided, That none of the funds under this heading shall be used for any research, development, or demonstration activities related exclusively to the human exploration of Mars.

The House committee report mentions the proposed prohibition: Finally, bill language is included prohibiting funding of any research, development, or demonstration activities related exclusively to the human exploration of Mars.

Now, this leaves a loophole large enough to drive an M-1 Abrams through, but it's still just plain stupidity.

Man on Mars

[DynaSoar]

The US has not "nixed bankrolling" for manned Mars missions. Projects for this are still in progress. For instance http://www.nasa.gov/topics/moonmars/features/troutman-architecture.html

Read NASA's site and NASA watch for the real news.