jacob navia wrote on Sun, 24 Jun 2018
23:36:22 +0200:

Le 24/06/2018 à 16:41, Jeff Findley a écrit*:
In article ,
says...

NASA got a bad day some weeks ago.

A microbiologist discovered that Acetinobacter can eat the desinfectant
that NASA sprays in their clean rooms...

A soil bacteria.

Now, NASA is selecting the hardest microbes to send to space... All
other normal microbes are dead, and Actetinobacter has no competition.

Arrived to destination (say Mars) Acetinobacter could be devasting for a
local biota. Since it is extremely resistant, it could spread unchecked.

There is zero proof that Mars has actual living "local biota".


What?


What he said. Go read it again.


NASA has disclosed the presence of organics in Mars.


Which PROVES nothing.


Furthermore the
methane cycle has seasonal variations and points to local biota that is
breathing.


Well, no.


Apparently, mars organics ad life look similar to earth's life. A
microbiologist published comparisons between fossil looking formations
in Mars and earthly, older microbial formations that look VERY similar
to those mars "rocks"...


Another 'no'.


All this evidence points to life in Mars.


COULD point to life. Which part of the word "proof" is it that is
eluding you?


Furthermore, I am unaware of any earth microbes which would "thrive" in
the extremely thin atmosphere and radiation environment of Mars.


NASA selects those bacteria by killing all others and leaving them a
space where they find no competition for nutrients and space. All other
bacteria are dead.


So your argument is that we need to protect a biota that doesn't exist
(because if it did there wouldn't be "no competition")?

Is it a good idea to desinfect spaceships?

If you want the crew on the inside to stay healthy, yes.

There is zero proof that a Mars-able ship is doable with today's
technology. No prototypes have been ever constructed, and Americans
aren't able to return to the moon any more.


But there is better evidence for that than there is for life on Mars.


They speak a lot about Mars, and send regularly machines to that planet.


Yes, they do. If men aren't going, let's stop wasting that money.

Otherwise it's
like locking them inside a dank basement for the duration of the trip
and hoping they don't get sick.


There is the radiation problem. No atmosphere and no planetary magnetic
field leave the crew unshielded in space, that is full of harmful
radiation. The crew is in a suicide mission with today's technology.


False.

Or it would be better to have as much as possible of weak, normal
bacteria that are surely dead if confronted to space?

Or coat the spaceships with very fragile bacteria that would prevent
Acetinobacter to thrive and would be immediately dead in space?

What is important is that in space no earth bacteria survive unchecked.

Inside ISS, where they try to combat microbes for the health of the
crew, is not the same as outside ISS in vacuum. Inside the spacecraft
is also not the same as outside in the very thin atmosphere of Mars.


Of course. I am speaking of unmanned machines, since, as I said above,
no humans have ever attempted to cross that void.


Then you need to learn to formulate your ideas more clearly.


Of course I was trying to discuss from a scientific point of view, and I
know science is not well seen in some american circles, in a country
without a science advisor since more than a year.


Gee, **** you very much, too. You might want to look to where all the
Nobel prizes go, Mr Scientist.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson