|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 09:06 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 |