Russia's Mars Mission Raising Concerns 245
eldavojohn writes "Space.com has a blog on Russia's Phobos-Grunt project designed to explore the planet further. He voices concerns about part of this exploration that is dubbed LIFE (Living Interplanetary Flight Experiment) and backed by The Planetary Society that involves sending several samples of Earth's hardiest microbes to see if they can survive the round trip voyage. Space.com's correspondent Leonard David did some legwork to ensure that The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 was being upheld as it prevents cross-contamination between planets and receives some interesting responses from experts on this mission. The Phobos-Grunt mission will also deploy a Chinese sub-satellite 'Firefly-1,' which will attempt to figure out how water on Mars disappeared. Unfortunately, The United States is not taking part in Phobos-Grunt."
Who cares? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know why we're so concerned about cross-contamination. The only potential downside to it that I can see is if it obscures evidence that life existed on other planets.
I just find it hard to care about balls of rock and their 'pristine environment'.
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only potential downside to it that I can see is if it obscures evidence that life existed on other planets.
And wouldn't you say it's a pretty huge downside?
It's the tiny difference between finding extraterrestial life, or not. In exchange for... Absolutely nothing!
Does't seem like a great deal.
Well a lot of people do care (Score:3, Insightful)
It would also be interesting to ask the young earth creationists on which day God created the Martian life and if Noah really had two of every species how did he get the samples form Mars.
Re:Who cares? (Score:2, Insightful)
Obscuring evidence that life existed on other planets is a huge downside. Once this has been done we can never go back and know whether or not life started only on Earth, or independently on the other planet. Since we only have a very limited number of potential abodes for life in the Solar System, and no realistic hope of ever leaving the Solar System, failing to ensure that there is no cross-contamination could ensure that we will never be able to answer some of the fundamental questions about life.
Re:The "New World" (Score:3, Insightful)
Flying to another planet will never relieve overpopulation. Just think for maybe two seconds about the number of babies born every minute, and the resources required to send a kilogram to Mars, or anywhere else.
Re:Well a lot of people do care (Score:2, Insightful)
>If we did discover native extra-terrestrial microbes it would
>answer a lot of interesting questions. If it had a similar DNA basis
>it would support the idea of panspermia - that life on earth may
>have been seeded by space
It would be consistent with pan-spermia, but it would not be very strong evidence supporting it. Similar DNA could just mean that there is only one way to do DNA that can lead to life.
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
the problem with being concerned with forward contamination is that you can't even step off into the bushes and take a shit.
Are we really able to put a person on the moon but not properly dispose of their waste?
these are real issues, but until we actually go to some other worlds and kill them all off with smallpox blankets we can't really be sure who, if anyone, is actually in danger.
I'm not sure why you brought up smallpox blankets ... I thought those were things designed to destroy the populations of already known indigenous peoples? I think a better analogy would be the rats that were on board the ship from Europe that made it to the New World or maybe even the pigs that escaped and made short work of the squash/tuber/corn plant systems the Native Americans depended so heavily upon? Look around you, there are many species in North America that were 'accidentally' brought here. Look at the Kudzu vine that was in resource contention with plants that didn't stand a chance against it? Smallpox blankets were basically germ warfare ... why would we bring germ warfare to another planet?
we can't really be sure who, if anyone, is actually in danger. the big question (other than, is there life out there not based on ours or that we are not based on) is whether life necessarily follows the same lines, or is different enough to where it won't matter.
Well, I have more faith in our current technologies and I am saddened that you don't think we can learn from our errors. You seem to be resigned to the fact that we will destroy whatever we visit but I disagree. We have the ability to manufacture germ free CPUs here on earth and I think we should do our best to keep our external systems and machines also germ free. I think we have even been fairly successful in that.
Lastly, this outer space treaty was signed by many countries and for good reason: all the scientist thought it an absolute necessity.
competition versus cooperation (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, The United States is not taking part in Phobos-Grunt."
What's unfortunate about this? Why should everyone participate in everything? As I see it competition remains the best form of cooperation. It is good that there are Mars missions that don't involve the US. That means that they can develope their own technology, procedures, etc without US contamination. We are more likely to see new innovations this way.
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
and no realistic hope of ever leaving the Solar System
That's a pretty pessimistic view. Is our knowledge of the universe so complete that you feel safe making that assumption?
Re:Not really a downside. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't really see the "tremendous value" in that knowledge. Or, more accurately, I can't fathom why that knowledge would be more valuable than learning that we can successfully transplant living organisms and watch them thrive.
What is the value of life in the first place? As I see it, it is the culmination of billions of years of evolution. The same goes for native life on Mars with one important exception. It is unlikely that there is any evolution in common with Earth (unless some of the panspermia theories are correct). New biological processes, new knowledge unlike anything seen on Earth. It might even be incorporated into terrestrial life at some point to improve survivability or other properties. That'd be valuable. And if we find evidence of panspermia. Then you have a huge puzzle bigger than merely figuring out how to spread life around.
I don't really care where life came from, I want to know where it can go.
It can go anywhere. So now that you know, can we get back to not erasing important data?
Re:Russia has form (Score:1, Insightful)
Arrogance and stupidity is a bad combination.
Really, such blatant grouping of an entire country under "arrogant and stupid" really speaks volumes of your own arrogance, and most importantly, your stupidity.
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Protecting Earth's Species (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it funny that we are concerned with damaging an extraterrestrial biosphere but are completely ok with trashing our own. I bet those up in arms about some _potential_ mars bacteria being wiped out, give a shrug and a yawn when told of the countless Earth species on the brink of extinction. I'm not saying they aren't worth protecting, but rather, we need to get our priorities straight here on the ground too.
I love the way (Score:5, Insightful)
The 'real estate' value of Mars is always so totally overstated. NOBODY WILL EVER LIVE THERE. You want to know why?
1) Because it will make much more sense to live in free space (IE on an asteroid or space colony) where you avoid the huge energy cost of going up and down a gravity well.
2) Mars provides virtually nothing in the way of resources which are not available in places easier to get to.
3) The environment of Mars is actually MUCH harsher than the environment in space, and probably much harsher than the environment of the Moon. So why exactly would we so desire to live there?
4) If environments as harsh as Mars are desirable real estate for people to live on, then why aren't Antarctica and Green Land, and the Sahara Desert all chock full of people already? They are CERTAINLY much less harsh and much cheaper places to live. Good luck selling those Martian building lots...
5) Even speculating about Terraforming is pretty much beyond science. The time and energy inputs required are probably 1000's and maybe millions or billions of times anything we can deploy today. The time frame could easily range into the millions of years no matter how capable you are. There is certainly no sense at all in planning a space program based on a payoff that somehow relies on a technology that is no more than an idle dream which might exist in 200 or 1000 years, if ever.
This does all tie in to some extent to the OP, Mars' value is not ever going to be economic. Its value is purely scientific and there is no reasonable anticipation that it will ever be otherwise. Spoiling the pristine conditions on Mars would seriously degrade the value of exo-biology work done there in the future. So it IS a bad idea, and it would be a costly mistake.
Now, the question of the actual safety of Phobos-Grunt is a whole other thing. We'll just have to leave that to experts. At least they value the principle of avoiding contamination. Maybe they're a little biased, but the risk doesn't seem super excessive to me. OTOH it also sounds like the experiment itself is mostly a PR stunt, so on that basis I'd give it the thumbs down. Not worth making a huge stink about though.
Re:Spock cares! (Score:3, Insightful)
Good luck with creating that Martian atmosphere.
The solar wind will rip it away as it forms.
Re:A ridiculous interpretation of this treaty. (Score:5, Insightful)
States Parties to the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter and, where necessary, shall adopt appropriate measures for this purpose.
What does "them" refer to in that sentence ?
"And also" is part of the "to avoid" clause.
Surely if "them" or "their" referred to the States party to the Treaty, you wouldn't need the "and also" clause. "Harmful contamination" and "adverse changes in the environment" are almost synonymous. That they phrased it that way implies the separation of the two areas of concern.
Seems pretty clear to me. But then I have comprehension skills.
Re:Protecting Earth's Species (Score:3, Insightful)
Solely looking inward is the key ingredient to stagnation of civilization.
The US and Russia went to space while paved roads were still measured in the thousands of miles.
We go forward to find the 'now' of tomorrow.
Heck, there are still uncontacted people in South America. Should we wait until they have a Wal-mart before we do new science?
Re:Not really a downside. (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't really see the "tremendous value" in that knowledge. Or, more accurately, I can't fathom why that knowledge would be more valuable than learning that we can successfully transplant living organisms and watch them thrive.
If life happened to happen independently in the very same solar system then that says an enormous amount about the probability of life elsewhere in the galaxy.
Re:I love the way (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Because it will make much more sense to live in free space (IE on an asteroid or space colony) where you avoid the huge energy cost of going up and down a gravity well.
Humans need gravity to exist for a prolonged time. Our skeleton, internal organs, muscle etc. all depend on it. Unless you in some way emulate gravity in a satisfactory way, living in free space is impossible.
Re:Which is part of why.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why "unfortunately"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I love the way (Score:5, Insightful)
Wouldn't that gravity well be better on the biology of those living there than the microgravity associated with smaller rocky bodies?
Plus, wouldn't even a thin atmosphere be better for protection and help reduce the need for vacuum-proof structures than near-vacuum conditions?
Wouldn't Mars also be more desirable because it has mostly cleared the neighborhood of other heavenly objects such that the risk of one's home being smashed into by another particularly large rock is massively diminshed?
Wouldn't the fact of working in an environment with an up, a down, and other gravity-based rules like that which we have on Earth be easier for workers who have to do things like maintenance, construction, and the like be better than attempting to work in microgravity where accidently losing a tool means that it's probably gone forever instead of being able to just bend down and pick it up off the ground?
Wouldn't it be fairly practical to bore down into Mars to construct a habitat with significantly less materials (like basically a cap at the top of the bore hole) such that materials from Earth aren't depleted nearly as much for space?
Wouldn't it be fairly easy to distill elements from an atmosphere to come up with that which we need to survive as compared to attempting to find them in the vacuum of space?
There are many good reasons for looking at Mars too, beyond the adventuring spirit.