|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why not contaminate the Moon/mars??
Why are we so concerned with taking bilogical material in sapce. I really
dont understand. Why shouldnt we be taking biological material into space.. Surely the sooner we get started doing this the sooner it cleans the planet or moon etc. I ask after reading the following:- "The permit process took more than two years and twenty centimeters of paperwork to complete. TransOrbital had to prove it would not contaminate the Moon with biological material, pollute the surface, or disturb any historical landing sites. " http://www.nature.com/nsu/020902/020902-8.html Perhaps Im being thick but I see spreading life as a good thing.. What is the logic? Regards Mick |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Why not contaminate the Moon/mars??
Yeah but we went to the moon 30 years ago and still don't know. Why not just
take life there and start changing the planet in a colonisation attempt. Mars is going to take hundreds of years to develop why worry so much about it... I think we shoudnt worry so much about it...... "Micky Fin" wrote in message ... Why are we so concerned with taking bilogical material in sapce. I really dont understand. Why shouldnt we be taking biological material into space.. Surely the sooner we get started doing this the sooner it cleans the planet or moon etc. I ask after reading the following:- "The permit process took more than two years and twenty centimeters of paperwork to complete. TransOrbital had to prove it would not contaminate the Moon with biological material, pollute the surface, or disturb any historical landing sites. " http://www.nature.com/nsu/020902/020902-8.html Perhaps Im being thick but I see spreading life as a good thing.. What is the logic? Regards Mick |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Why not contaminate the Moon/mars??
John Savard wrote: There may be life already on Mars, and contaminating Mars could forever deprive us of the ability to study it and learn about it. Which makes this news story rather troubling: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994812 Pat |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Why not contaminate the Moon/mars??
Micky Fin wrote:
|Yeah but we went to the moon 30 years ago and still don't know. Why |not just take life there and start changing the planet in a colonisation |attempt. Intercourse between the planets almost guarantees that Martian life forms might even be brought to Earth, and made to flourish. |Mars is going to take hundreds of years to develop why worry so much about |it... I think we shoudnt worry so much about it...... Mars may seem to be years from Earth, and protected by a solar wind that tends to drive Martian molecules away from Earth, but in that respect, Mars has been subject to 'contamination' from the Earth for millions of years, and the life forms there may not be so unique after all, especially if the only places they are still making it, are near hot springs that are ever so gradually cooling off. It may well be that God wants us to go to Mars to rescue the poor things. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Why not contaminate the Moon/mars??
In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote: There may be life already on Mars, and contaminating Mars could forever deprive us of the ability to study it and learn about it. Which makes this news story rather troubling: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994812 A somewhat misleading story, because most recent landers have *not* been sterilized. Efforts have been made to reduce their bacterial load, especially on exterior surfaces, to *minimize* local contamination, but no attempt was made to get them completely bacteria-free. (The underlying theory is that the surface of Mars is so hostile that it's very unlikely for Earth life to grow and spread, so full sterilization -- which is costly and hurts equipment reliability -- is unnecessary. Except, obviously, on spacecraft carrying life-detection experiments. But it remains worth minimizing local contamination, which might confuse later life-detection experiments.) In any case, there is some doubt that early Russian Mars landers were properly sterilized... and there is no question at all that the remains of Mars Climate Orbiter were not. -- MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Why not contaminate the Moon/mars??
Matthew Montchalin ) wrote:
: Micky Fin wrote: : |Yeah but we went to the moon 30 years ago and still don't know. Why : |not just take life there and start changing the planet in a colonisation : |attempt. : Intercourse between the planets almost guarantees that Martian life forms : might even be brought to Earth, and made to flourish. : |Mars is going to take hundreds of years to develop why worry so much about : |it... I think we shoudnt worry so much about it...... : Mars may seem to be years from Earth, and protected by a solar wind that : tends to drive Martian molecules away from Earth, but in that respect, : Mars has been subject to 'contamination' from the Earth for millions : of years, and the life forms there may not be so unique after all, : especially if the only places they are still making it, are near hot : springs that are ever so gradually cooling off. : It may well be that God wants us to go to Mars to rescue the poor things. God does not play dice with the Universe! Oops, sorry, that line is already taken... Eric |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Why not contaminate the Moon/mars??
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Why not contaminate the Moon/mars??
Henry Spencer wrote: (The underlying theory is that the surface of Mars is so hostile that it's very unlikely for Earth life to grow and spread, so full sterilization -- which is costly and hurts equipment reliability -- is unnecessary. Except, obviously, on spacecraft carrying life-detection experiments. But it remains worth minimizing local contamination, which might confuse later life-detection experiments.) In an odd related twist, regarding Earth lifeforms surviving on Mars: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992844 In any case, there is some doubt that early Russian Mars landers were properly sterilized... and there is no question at all that the remains of Mars Climate Orbiter were not. IIRC the Soviet Mars landers incorporated a thermite bomb for self-destruct at the end of their data transmission from the surface... their lander design was a lot more enclosed than our Vikings were, in that they were pressurized capsules- which may have made the exterior surfaces of them fairly easy to sterilize. It would be interesting to speculate on whether the self-destruct system worked or not given their bad landings...we criticized them for sloppiness at the time. Pat |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Why not contaminate the Moon/mars??
Pat Flannery wrote in message ...
Henry Spencer wrote: (The underlying theory is that the surface of Mars is so hostile that it's very unlikely for Earth life to grow and spread, so full sterilization -- which is costly and hurts equipment reliability -- is unnecessary. Except, obviously, on spacecraft carrying life-detection experiments. But it remains worth minimizing local contamination, which might confuse later life-detection experiments.) In an odd related twist, regarding Earth lifeforms surviving on Mars: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992844 This one is about an Earth lifeform (Deinococcus radiodurans) that some people believe has arrived here *from* Mars: || A hardy microbe that can withstand huge doses || of radiation could have evolved this ability on || Mars. || That is the conclusion of Russian scientists who || say it would take far longer than life || has existed here for the bug to evolve || that ability in Earth's clement conditions.[...] || The hardy bugs could have travelled to Earth || on pieces of rock that were blasted into || space by an impacting asteroid and fell to || Earth as meteorites. Here, however, is a refutation: http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/publi...-96/10bugs.htm || "That journey would subject the organism to tremendous || temperature extremes, and Deinococcus does not tolerate heat || at all," says Battista. "We can inactivate it || at temperatures as low as 45 degrees Centigrade. || It seems unlikely that this bug could survive || a trip through interstellar space and our atmosphere." This creature, however, can withstand almost everything *except* heat, including poisonous chemicals and extreme dryness: it is what they call a "polyextremophile". So here is a rare candidate for contamination via spaceship: can't make the trip on its own but can survive there. There are ideas about using it to help colonize Mars: http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...bacterium.html. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
An avenue to real funding for Bush's moon/Mars "space vision" | Greg Kuperberg | Policy | 47 | April 10th 04 03:41 PM |
Dubya's Moon/Mars space proposal | lyon_wonder | Policy | 2 | January 18th 04 06:24 PM |