Is the Mars rover program a scam?

I've always been under the impression that the Mars rovers were sent up largely with the intent of seeking to discover if there is or has ever been life on Mars.

Turns out, they're not going to send this 2.5 billion-dollar gizmo that was sent to explore Mars anywhere near where there could conceivably actually be life, i.e. where there's water. Supposedly because of concern over the potential for introducing Earth microbes into the Mars ecosystem.

Say what? Apparently 2.5 billion doesn't buy an explorer that's clean enough?

So under what circumstances would they ever be utterly certain that anything they send up is completely, unquestionably sterile?

So is this rover program another expensive bill of goods just like the shuttle was?

wrote in message
...

I've always been under the impression that the Mars rovers were sent up
largely with the intent of seeking to discover if there is or has ever been
life on Mars.

Close. The goals were actually closer to finding if the conditions for life
ever existed, a big part being "was there ever surface water". Now they've
pretty much found there not only was, but is.


Turns out, they're not going to send this 2.5 billion-dollar gizmo that was
sent to explore Mars anywhere near where there could conceivably actually
be life, i.e. where there's water. Supposedly because of concern over the
potential for introducing Earth microbes into the Mars ecosystem.

Firstly, the current rovers are far away from this location, so even if they
wanted to, it's not practical.
Secondly, even if they could, the rovers really couldn't do much with their
equipment to find signs of life.


Say what? Apparently 2.5 billion doesn't buy an explorer that's clean
enough?

No, not really.


So under what circumstances would they ever be utterly certain that
anything they send up is completely, unquestionably sterile?

They can do it, but it's damn hard so they've done less levels of
cleanliness.

Basically the conditions required to completely sterilize a probe also are
terrible for electronics. High heat/moisture is one way (think autoclave)
and this can melt/damage electronics. Radiation can also be used to
sterilize stuff, but again, bad for most electronics.



So is this rover program another expensive bill of goods just like the
shuttle was?

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

On Sunday, October 11, 2015 at 3:47:42 PM UTC-4, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

So under what circumstances would they ever be utterly certain that
anything they send up is completely, unquestionably sterile?

They can do it, but it's damn hard so they've done less levels of
cleanliness.


I would think that sterilizing the entire final assembled unit isn't the only solution. I'm incredulous that they can't sterilize the components before assembly and put them together in a sterile environment, and put them into sterile containment in the transport vehicle.

Is it going to get any less difficult with future missions?

In article ,
says...

On Sunday, October 11, 2015 at 3:47:42 PM UTC-4, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

So under what circumstances would they ever be utterly certain that
anything they send up is completely, unquestionably sterile?

They can do it, but it's damn hard so they've done less levels of
cleanliness.


I would think that sterilizing the entire final assembled unit isn't the only solution. I'm incredulous that they can't sterilize the components before assembly and put them together in a sterile environment, and put them into sterile containment in the transport vehicle.

Is it going to get any less difficult with future missions?

Even if done on components, you're still risking damage to the
electronics and the like due to the sterilization process. Plus you're
driving up the cost of assembly because that would then have to be done
in a completely sterile environment.

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

In article om,
says...

On 2015-10-12 23:19, Jeff Findley wrote:
e still risking damage to the
electronics and the like due to the sterilization process. Plus you're
driving up the cost of assembly because that would then have to be done
in a completely sterile environment.



Which would require totally sterile white room and everything done via
remotely operated arms. And somehow, the package would have to remain
totally sterile while standing on launch pad with birds ****ting on
rocket, mosquitos finding a way in etc.

For that you have to use a N2 purge for the payload fairing from the
moment the payload leaves the clean room until launch. A dry N2 purge
would provide positive air pressure that would keep microbes (and
mosquitoes) out. Anything that would try to get in, would not survive
long at all in the pure N2 atmosphere.

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

On Monday, October 12, 2015 at 11:19:24 PM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:

I would think that sterilizing the entire final assembled unit isn't the only solution. I'm incredulous that they can't sterilize the components before assembly and put them together in a sterile environment, and put them into sterile containment in the transport vehicle.

Is it going to get any less difficult with future missions?

Even if done on components, you're still risking damage to the
electronics and the like due to the sterilization process. Plus you're
driving up the cost of assembly because that would then have to be done
in a completely sterile environment.

Jeff


Well there you have it, it's impossible to ever determine if there's life on Mars.

In article ,
says...

On Monday, October 12, 2015 at 11:19:24 PM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:

I would think that sterilizing the entire final assembled unit isn't the only solution. I'm incredulous that they can't sterilize the components before assembly and put them together in a sterile environment, and put them into sterile containment in the transport vehicle.

Is it going to get any less difficult with future missions?

Even if done on components, you're still risking damage to the
electronics and the like due to the sterilization process. Plus you're
driving up the cost of assembly because that would then have to be done
in a completely sterile environment.


Well there you have it, it's impossible to ever determine if there's life on Mars.


No one has said that. We're just pointing out that its harder than it
seems if part of the requirements is a *completely* sterile
lander/rover.

Remember the story of Surveyor 3 parts brought back from the moon by the
Apollo 12 mission which had bacteria on them which supposedly survived
the trip to the moon and back despite being exposed to vacuum,
radiation, temperature extremes, and etc? That drove a lot of the hype
that *any* little bit of any probe not sterilized could contaminate
another planet, moon, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_3

But, that finding was challenged. The challengers say it's far more
likely that someone working on the parts after they were brought back
didn't follow the right protocols after using the toilet. In other
words, the fears of interplanetary contamination by a probe that's been
sterilized, to the best of our ability (which we know may not be 100%),
are being over-hyped.

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