NASA gets two military spy telescopes for astronomy - The WashingtonPost.

"bob haller" wrote in message
...


airlocks must be opened for ingress egress......

and although operating rooms arent perfectly sterilized they are some
of the cleanest places in the hospital

And how exactly do they do that Bob? Do you have a clue? Now tell me
why
none of that can't be done in an airlock?

Again, we don't have to be perfect, just 'good enough'

Greg D. Moore

since we have no idea what if any type of life may exist on mars we
dont know what we dont know..


We do have a fairly decent idea though.

so if a escaped earth organism replicates on mars we wouldnt know if
its from mars, or a earth transplant..

Well either.. it's DNA will be vastly different, in which case we'll be able
to tell, or it'll be so similar that it really won't matter.


the discover of life on mars will be of cosmic importance.

once mars is contaminated theres no way to uncontaminate it.........


plus a existing mars organism might be wiped out by something from
earth.....

I'd be impressed if it were that easy.

Keep in mind we know that Mars meteorites have made it here and haven't
wiped out life.

And we have reason to believe Earth meteorites have made it there.



either of these situations should be avoided.....



--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

"Wayne Throop" wrote in message ...

: Fred J. McCall
: But the interior (and exterior) of your body are not. So, given that
: you can't sterilize humans, as Bobbert insists, ALL surgical patients
: must die as it is impossible to sterilize the surgical field.

Well, be fair, surgical suites aren't really sterilized perfectly.
That is, indeed, a practical impossibility. It just has to be
sterile *enough* so that the body's immune system, even sometimes when
compromised, can handle the rest.

Yeah, and that's the point I'm hoping Bob can understand.

It can't be prefect, but we can do it on Earth pretty well as is.


You know, sort of like, if you get the outside of the habitat as
sterile as possible, and you can limit outgassing and such, so that
the probability of tropical-conditions-and-inside-humans-adapted bugs
surviving the worse-than-arctic conditions, you'll get in the same
ballpark of probability of probes carrying something to mars.

Or rather, I don't see why they don't end up in the same ballpark,
in practical terms.

Ayup.

Take Jeff's idea of using "suitlocks" when possible and keep the suits in a
chamber you can flood with UV and keep at a near vacuum and you'll eliminate
most Earth life right there.




--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

Take Jeff's idea of using "suitlocks" when possible and keep the suits in a
chamber you can flood with UV and keep at a near vacuum and you'll eliminate
most Earth life right there.

whats the proof mars organizms dont like UV?

as work around ideas develop the weight and size of the mission just
grew again. 90% more fuel for 10% more weight

In article d44eb4f1-91c8-4545-b733-a3a8dbc9f771
@h13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, says...


Take Jeff's idea of using "suitlocks" when possible and keep the suits in a
chamber you can flood with UV and keep at a near vacuum and you'll eliminate
most Earth life right there.

whats the proof mars organizms dont like UV?

What would be the point? I thought you were trying to protect Mars from
earth organisms. It's been known for a long time that UV kills earth
microorganisms.

Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultravi...al_irradiation

as work around ideas develop the weight and size of the mission just
grew again. 90% more fuel for 10% more weight

So what? You've been told repeatedly that added mass is the solution to
the "problems" you're hyper-focused upon. Added mass isn't as much of a
problem as it used to be due to some of the commercial launch market's
current focus on reducing launch costs. As launch costs drop, the
desire to keep the mass of missions to an absolute minimum drops as
well.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

"bob haller" wrote in message
...



Take Jeff's idea of using "suitlocks" when possible and keep the suits in
a
chamber you can flood with UV and keep at a near vacuum and you'll
eliminate
most Earth life right there.

whats the proof mars organizms dont like UV?


None. We're talking about killing off the deadly EARTH germs you're so
paranoid abuot.

as work around ideas develop the weight and size of the mission just
grew again. 90% more fuel for 10% more weight

Really? a suit lock is going to way that much more than an airlock? Please
show your math.

I'm curious how you came to this conclusion.





--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net