A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Genesis-Wildfire



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 10th 04, 02:54 AM
Gallery Neolithica
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Genesis-Wildfire

"Based on the Genesis experience, the space agency's planetary protection
officer advised, "NASA will gain knowledge that will greatly aid in an
eventual sample return from Mars or some other location that might have more
interest from a potentially biological perspective."
-space.com, 8-30-4

Imagine if this payload contained a viable pathogen from Mars. Would we have
had to nuke the valley in a cheap remake of The Andromeda Strain? Dugway's
containments are useless if the capsule ruptures BEFORE getting there. As a
helicopter pilot I can tell you that entire scenario is UNSAFE for
biopotential sample returns.

What NASA has demonstrated is that biopotential sample return missions
should be delivered NO CLOSER THAN LEO to quarantine in the International
Space Station. We are playing with Wildfire, and this time we dodged the
bullet.



  #2  
Old September 10th 04, 03:12 AM
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Gallery Neolithica" wrote in message
. com...
"Based on the Genesis experience, the space agency's planetary protection
officer advised, "NASA will gain knowledge that will greatly aid in an
eventual sample return from Mars or some other location that might have

more
interest from a potentially biological perspective."
-space.com, 8-30-4

Imagine if this payload contained a viable pathogen from Mars. Would we

have
had to nuke the valley in a cheap remake of The Andromeda Strain? Dugway's
containments are useless if the capsule ruptures BEFORE getting there. As

a
helicopter pilot I can tell you that entire scenario is UNSAFE for
biopotential sample returns.

What NASA has demonstrated is that biopotential sample return missions
should be delivered NO CLOSER THAN LEO to quarantine in the International
Space Station. We are playing with Wildfire, and this time we dodged the
bullet.


This has been considered before.

For one thing, consider lifeforms on earth. Very few infectious agents are
effective outside of their host species. Rabies, the flu and leprosy are
three of the few that come to mind and leprosy isn't lethal (I think) in
armidillos.

And they all have DNA or RNA in common. So far we haven't seen any
lifeforms that don't contain DNA or RNA. So now the big question is... is
RNA/DNA unique to Earth or not? If so, it's doubtful that any other
lifeforms could infect us. If not, then it's more likely. However, as
they've been evolved in the absence of human hosts, it's again unlikely that
they can successfully be infectious to humans.

And as 6 Apollo landing missions have shown, there's most likely nothing on
the Moon or in between.

So, is it possible, but odds are against it and it has been considered.







  #3  
Old September 10th 04, 04:37 AM
G EddieA95
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

What NASA has demonstrated is that biopotential sample return missions
should be delivered NO CLOSER THAN LEO to quarantine in the International
Space Station.


Doesn't make you safer. ISS delivery will require aerobraking, which means
there is a substantial chance the thing will plunge to Earth, anyway.

And would you quarantine the ISS crew up there as well?
  #4  
Old September 10th 04, 07:05 AM
Gallery Neolithica
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Use active braking. No heatshield. Burn it up if it blows the orbital
insertion. No need to quarantine the ISS crew as long as containment is
maintained. Any crewdog worth his/her salt would accept these parameters to
prevent potential disaster. Absolutely safer.


  #5  
Old September 10th 04, 08:20 PM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Gallery Neolithica wrote:
Imagine if this payload contained a viable pathogen from Mars. Would we have
had to nuke the valley in a cheap remake of The Andromeda Strain? Dugway's
containments are useless if the capsule ruptures BEFORE getting there. As a
helicopter pilot I can tell you that entire scenario is UNSAFE for
biopotential sample returns.


This was obvious from the start, and the mission planners don't need you
to tell them so. There was never any intention of using this method for
sample returns in general. Different requirements yield different
solutions.

The recent concepts I've seen for Mars sample capsules simply don't *have*
a parachute. They have relatively high-drag shapes that will have fairly
low terminal velocities, and they just do a hard landing. When you start
with a non-negotiable requirement that the sample container must remain
intact and sealed despite a parachute failure, you quickly conclude that
there's little point in bothering with the parachute at all...
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |
  #6  
Old September 10th 04, 11:10 PM
Gallery Neolithica
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Keep it off my planet, Henry. And as a matter of fact, the mission planners
do need our input. They (Challenger, Columbia, Genesis, Grissom's Mercury,
etc) are quite fallible and in need of supervision by the people that run
this place. THE TAXPAYERS. The ones who might die if they get this one
wrong. Parrotheads need pilots to prevent production of poop.

Henry Spencer wrote:
"When you start
with a non-negotiable requirement that the sample container must remain
intact and sealed despite a parachute failure, you quickly conclude that
there's little point in bothering with the parachute at all..."


  #7  
Old September 11th 04, 02:23 AM
George William Herbert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gallery Neolithica wrote:
Keep it off my planet, Henry. And as a matter of fact, the mission planners
do need our input. They (Challenger, Columbia, Genesis, Grissom's Mercury,
etc) are quite fallible and in need of supervision by the people that run
this place. THE TAXPAYERS. The ones who might die if they get this one
wrong. Parrotheads need pilots to prevent production of poop.


Everyone's input is welcomed. However, the vast majority of the
public are not paranoid loons, and therefore you're almost certainly
going to get outvoted.

Claiming the one true right to stake a position on behalf of all
taxpayers/members of the general public/any large group is always
a sign of fringe extremists.


-george william herbert


  #8  
Old September 11th 04, 07:15 AM
Louis Scheffer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Gallery Neolithica" writes:

Keep it off my planet, Henry. And as a matter of fact, the mission planners
do need our input. They (Challenger, Columbia, Genesis, Grissom's Mercury,
etc) are quite fallible and in need of supervision by the people that run
this place. THE TAXPAYERS. The ones who might die if they get this one
wrong. Parrotheads need pilots to prevent production of poop.


I fully agree that the design, and all calculations, should be fully
public, and the mission should not proceed until it can be shown that
beyond any *reasonable* doubt, the mission will not contaminate Earth.

However, this goal can be achieved in many ways. Ruling out any
sample return to Earth, without doing detailed analysis, is way too
early. If in fact there is no way to do so safely, it should come
out as a result of the analysis, not as an initial condition.

Note that the engineering goal can be approached in many ways. For
example, you could demonstrate that a leak would probably not be catastrophic
by sending a few plants, mice, etc. to Mars and exposing them to a portion
of the samples you intend to send back. If nothing happens to them, then
you can accept a larger chance of a leak upon re-entry. Likewise if
mass spectroscopy shows no large molecules, the odds go down, and so on.

Also, any reasonable analysis has to look at the proposed risk in
relation to existing risks. Given that there are thousands of labs,
all over the world, working with organisms we *know* are infectious, the
background risk is far from negligable. All we can rationally demand
from a Mars sample return is that it be small compared to these known
existing risks.

So, overall, it's way to early to say "Mars sample returns should not
land on Earth".

Lou Scheffer
..

  #9  
Old September 11th 04, 02:46 PM
Dr John Stockton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

JRS: In article , dated Fri, 10 Sep 2004
19:20:09, seen in news:sci.space.policy, Henry Spencer
posted :

The recent concepts I've seen for Mars sample capsules simply don't *have*
a parachute. They have relatively high-drag shapes that will have fairly
low terminal velocities, and they just do a hard landing. When you start
with a non-negotiable requirement that the sample container must remain
intact and sealed despite a parachute failure, you quickly conclude that
there's little point in bothering with the parachute at all...


If the exact state of Genesis' re-entry systems had been known a year or
so in advance, it would I suppose have been possible to make it re-enter
at a choice of location (and angle).

Where, then, should it have been sent?

The sea? A large lake? An area covered by tough yet springy
vegetation? A snowfield? Marshland? White Sands, for capture by a
truck with outriggers all covered in mattresses? Morecambe Bay, at
high/low tide?

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
some Astro stuff via astro.htm, gravity0.htm; quotes.htm; pascal.htm; &c, &c.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
  #10  
Old September 11th 04, 08:42 PM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Dr John Stockton wrote:
If the exact state of Genesis' re-entry systems had been known a year or
so in advance, it would I suppose have been possible to make it re-enter
at a choice of location (and angle).


Some choice of site would have been possible, although the general
direction of its approach to Earth was largely fixed and that limits
the choices.

Where, then, should it have been sent?
The sea? A large lake? An area covered by tough yet springy
vegetation? A snowfield? Marshland? White Sands, for capture by a
truck with outriggers all covered in mattresses? Morecambe Bay, at
high/low tide?


Water can be very hard if you hit it at the wrong angle, plus if the
sample container does get ruptured, water quickly adds severe
contamination, in addition to making it hard to gather up the pieces.
You'd still want to bring it down on dry land.

The truck with mattresses is not a bad idea, except that the reentry
wasn't very precise and it might be hard to get the truck to exactly the
right place in a hurry. (And you wouldn't use mattresses, but rather
something crushable, maybe styrofoam.)

Probably the best choice of location, assuming full freedom to pick a
site, would be dense coniferous forest. (Deciduous forests tend to have
a lot of empty air under their canopy, while conifers are often dense
foliage most of the way down.)
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Genesis Crash - Problem uncovered in '01??? Ted A. Nichols II Amateur Astronomy 0 September 8th 04 10:30 PM
NASA to capture fiery Genesis re-entry with 'eyes in the sky' (Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 0 September 5th 04 07:02 PM
Trajectory Maneuver Brings Genesis Closer To Home Ron Astronomy Misc 0 August 11th 04 09:13 PM
NASA Genesis Spacecraft on Final Lap Toward Home Ron Astronomy Misc 0 May 6th 04 01:39 AM
Here Comes the Sun (Genesis) Ron Astronomy Misc 0 April 2nd 04 01:41 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.