A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Why we can't go to Mars (yet)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 9th 04, 04:59 PM
R F L Henley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why we can't go to Mars (yet)

According to BBC Online:-

President George W Bush will announce proposals next week to send Americans
to Mars

but . . .

unless and until we have robotically established conclusively that there is
or is not life on Mars, we can't put humans on the planet because they will
inevitably bio-contaminate it.

Anyone agree?



  #2  
Old January 11th 04, 01:35 PM
Nils O. Selåsdal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why we can't go to Mars (yet)

In article , R F L Henley wrote:
According to BBC Online:-

President George W Bush will announce proposals next week to send Americans
to Mars

but . . .

unless and until we have robotically established conclusively that there is
or is not life on Mars, we can't put humans on the planet because they will
inevitably bio-contaminate it.
Anyone agree?

Does it really matter that much if we bio-contaminate it ? Bringing life to mars
isn't a bad idea imho.
  #3  
Old January 11th 04, 02:06 PM
Steen Eiler Jørgensen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why we can't go to Mars (yet)

R F L Henley wrote:

unless and until we have robotically established conclusively that
there is or is not life on Mars, we can't put humans on the planet
because they will inevitably bio-contaminate it.

Anyone agree?


I disagree. Because it is absolutely impossible ever to establish
conclusively, that there is not life on Mars. Even if you send millions of
rovers and probes, and they dig, drill and examine all they can, you can
never *conclusively* rule out the chance that *somewhere*, where we haven't
looked, there might be a couple of bacteria.

Should human activity on Mars bio-contaminate the surface, it should be no
problem for a trained biologist to spot the difference between terrestrial
microbes and organisms never encountered before.

What if, e.g., Spirit found bacteria in a soil sample, that was, with 100%
certainty, E. Coli? What would the most probable explanation be? That
somehow, E. Coli has evolved independently on both Earth and Mars? Or that
E. Coli has survived unchanged since the formation of the Solar System? Or
that somehow, Spirit became contaminated before Earth departure?

--
Steen Eiler Jørgensen
"Time has resumed its shape. All is as it was before.
Many such journeys are possible. Let me be your gateway."


  #4  
Old January 11th 04, 03:25 PM
Andrew Gray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why we can't go to Mars (yet)

In article , R F L Henley wrote:
According to BBC Online:-

President George W Bush will announce proposals next week to send Americans
to Mars

but . . .

unless and until we have robotically established conclusively that there is
or is not life on Mars, we can't put humans on the planet because they will
inevitably bio-contaminate it.


Problem: It is, in theory, easy to prove there is life on Mars - you
find some (although doing this is difficult). It's next thing to
impossible to prove there isn't; even if you manage to examine a
statistically significant amount of the surface (and 'a few square
yards' don't really count...) you have to consider the prospects for
life in deep rifts, caverns, that sort of thing. As someone has pointed
out, since we started sending probes to Mars we've discovered two entire
sets of life we didn't think existed on *this* planet...

[I'm idly reminded of the /Mars/ trilogy; the protagonists find some
very scabby lichen at the bottom of a *probably* isolated deep
drillshaft, and can't tell if it's indigenous or introduced by them...
almost certainly the latter, but they just Can't Prove It. Oops.]

--
-Andrew Gray

  #5  
Old January 11th 04, 05:49 PM
Earl Colby Pottinger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why we can't go to Mars (yet)

"R F L Henley" :

According to BBC Online:-

President George W Bush will announce proposals next week to send Americans
to Mars

but . . .

unless and until we have robotically established conclusively that there is
or is not life on Mars, we can't put humans on the planet because they will
inevitably bio-contaminate it.

Anyone agree?


Why would we? You used the term "can't" to state options. Should or should
not? Is a valid question, making a statement that we can not, is not a valid
one.

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp
  #6  
Old January 11th 04, 05:55 PM
Raven
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why we can't go to Mars (yet)

"R F L Henley" skrev i en meddelelse
...

unless and until we have robotically established conclusively that there
is or is not life on Mars, we can't put humans on the planet because
they will inevitably bio-contaminate it.


To a degree, I agree. The absence of life on Mars can never be
established conclusively, and certainly not by softlanding a number of
robotic probes. There may be subsurface life in a few locations. But a
rather thorough survey by robotic landers may at least conclude that the
surface and near-surface of Mars is very probably without life. Or find it,
of course.

Jon Lennart Beck.

  #7  
Old January 11th 04, 08:52 PM
Herman Rubin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why we can't go to Mars (yet)

In article ,
R F L Henley wrote:
According to BBC Online:-


President George W Bush will announce proposals next week to send Americans
to Mars


but . . .


unless and until we have robotically established conclusively that there is
or is not life on Mars, we can't put humans on the planet because they will
inevitably bio-contaminate it.


Anyone agree?



No. But I suspect that the first men going to Mars might
well stay in orbit and direct rovers more quickly; with a
time lag of seconds instead of many minutes, they can do
a lot more.



--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
  #8  
Old January 11th 04, 10:36 PM
G EddieA95
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why we can't go to Mars (yet)

unless and until we have robotically established conclusively that there is
or is not life on Mars, we can't put humans on the planet because they will
inevitably bio-contaminate it.

Anyone agree?


Since you can't prove a negative (no life on Mars), your belief is essentially
"no humans on Mars, ever."

  #9  
Old January 12th 04, 01:01 AM
Brian Short
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why we can't go to Mars (yet)



R F L Henley wrote:
According to BBC Online:-

President George W Bush will announce proposals next week to send Americans
to Mars

but . . .

unless and until we have robotically established conclusively that there is
or is not life on Mars, we can't put humans on the planet because they will
inevitably bio-contaminate it.

Anyone agree?

No, because I don't think we could ever conclusively establish that with
robots. And even if we should discovery simple life on Mars, why should
that stop us from going?

Brian

  #10  
Old January 12th 04, 06:32 AM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why we can't go to Mars (yet)

In article ,
R F L Henley wrote:
unless and until we have robotically established conclusively that there is
or is not life on Mars, we can't put humans on the planet because they will
inevitably bio-contaminate it.


Yes and no and maybe...

It's virtually certain that the surface itself is sterile, and that
terrestrial organisms released on it will die. (Gil Levin is about the
only remaining holdout on this... and his case took another body blow
recently, when studies of soil from the ultra-dry region of the Atacama
desert revealed that *Earth* soils in such conditions have some sort of
non-biological oxidizing agent in them.)

It's likely that the immediate subsurface is the same way, but that has
not yet been confirmed, and needs to be. Doing that before a manned
landing is reasonable and desirable, I would say.

Testing the surface and immediate subsurface over a wider range of Martian
terrains, notably including near-polar regions, would also be smart.

However, once that's done, a manned landing seems reasonable to me.

The odds are good that any extant Martian life is just about inaccessible,
e.g. underground in geothermal areas. Given a little care, it ought to be
possible to conduct surface activities without contaminating areas like
that. Moreover, it will be almost impossible to study areas like that
with robots, even with short-delay control from Mars orbit; human presence
on the surface is going to be needed.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |
 




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
Delta-Like Fan On Mars Suggests Ancient Rivers Were Persistent Ron Baalke Science 0 November 13th 03 10:06 PM
If You Thought That Was a Close View of Mars, Just Wait (Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter) Ron Baalke Science 0 September 23rd 03 10:25 PM
NASA Seeks Public Suggestions For Mars Photos Ron Baalke Science 0 August 20th 03 08:15 PM
NASA Selects UA 'Phoenix' Mission To Mars Ron Baalke Science 0 August 4th 03 10:48 PM
Students and Teachers to Explore Mars Ron Baalke Science 0 July 18th 03 07:18 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:24 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.