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.

"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.

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
snip
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.

Exactly the same argument could be made as to why nothing can infect
culture mediums.
They have no DNA/RNA, and are just jelly with some sugars and stuff.

The worst case is that we get hit by something so alien that all the
immune responses are simply irrelevant, as it does not have cells based
on the same compounds, and are just bags of impure water with handy trace
elements.

Ian Stirling wrote:
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
snip
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.

Exactly the same argument could be made as to why nothing can infect
culture mediums.
They have no DNA/RNA, and are just jelly with some sugars and stuff.

Like say 'flesh eating bacteria' (with flesh being live human flesh).


The worst case is that we get hit by something so alien that all the
immune responses are simply irrelevant, as it does not have cells based
on the same compounds, and are just bags of impure water with handy trace
elements.

Immune responses can be relevant at least n principle to nearly anything
as nearly anything can be either shredded or accumulated for disposal by it.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Sander Vesik wrote:
Ian Stirling wrote:
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
snip
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.

Exactly the same argument could be made as to why nothing can infect
culture mediums.
They have no DNA/RNA, and are just jelly with some sugars and stuff.

Like say 'flesh eating bacteria' (with flesh being live human flesh).

Flesh eating bacteria is nasty, but it is presumably drastically slowed
by the immune system.

The worst case is that we get hit by something so alien that all the
immune responses are simply irrelevant, as it does not have cells based
on the same compounds, and are just bags of impure water with handy trace
elements.

Immune responses can be relevant at least n principle to nearly anything
as nearly anything can be either shredded or accumulated for disposal by it.

True.
Given time.
But a lot of the rapid response (as I understand it) is pretty much only
going to work on terran stuff.

A lot of the poisons used to attempt to kill the attacking organism,
and the ways that they are recognised as attacking in the first place are
geared to work on earth stuff.

Other responses may work for irritant or just toxic particles, but
for stuff that's actually trying to eat you, it probably won't.
(this is far outside my field)

Ian Stirling wrote:
Sander Vesik wrote:
Ian Stirling wrote:
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
snip
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.

Exactly the same argument could be made as to why nothing can infect
culture mediums.
They have no DNA/RNA, and are just jelly with some sugars and stuff.

Like say 'flesh eating bacteria' (with flesh being live human flesh).

Flesh eating bacteria is nasty, but it is presumably drastically slowed
by the immune system.

Maybe - its just an analogous situation to something pretty much using
parts of humans as culture medium.


The worst case is that we get hit by something so alien that all the
immune responses are simply irrelevant, as it does not have cells based
on the same compounds, and are just bags of impure water with handy trace
elements.

Immune responses can be relevant at least n principle to nearly anything
as nearly anything can be either shredded or accumulated for disposal by it.

True.
Given time.
But a lot of the rapid response (as I understand it) is pretty much only
going to work on terran stuff.

A lot of the poisons used to attempt to kill the attacking organism,
and the ways that they are recognised as attacking in the first place are
geared to work on earth stuff.

Other responses may work for irritant or just toxic particles, but
for stuff that's actually trying to eat you, it probably won't.
(this is far outside my field)

Yes. But wold it necessarily try to eat humans? Especially if
it came from Mars?
--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

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?

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.

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 |

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..."