Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

NRC Recommends NASA Galileo Crash 173

Posted by emmett from the the-prime-directive-is-really-boring dept.
Autonomous Crowhard writes: "An article on SpaceRef relays information that a National Research Council committee is suggesting that NASA crash Galileo at the end of its mission. The reason for this is to avoid potentially contaminating Europa or Io with a crash there. (As I understand it, Galileo didn't undergo the same stringent decontamination procedures that landers normally have to go through.) Two questions: 1) Would humans constitute too much of a risk of contamination, and 2) Wouldn't you like to be able to put "Planetary Protection Officer" on your resume?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NRC Recommends NASA Galileo Crash More

NRC Recommends NASA Galileo Crash

Comments Filter:
  • Is the sun a big enough target?
    If they sling shot Galileo towards the sun then they could hit there target.
    And we would not have to wory about pissing off any aliens except those who only live is the plasma state of matter.

    Plus couldn't we learn something by sending a probe to the sun?
    I don't recall anything like it being done before.

    Who agrees that we should target the sun with our contamination probe?

    -----
    If my facts are wrong then tell me. I don't mind.
  • Then why did you bother commenting on me? Anyways, i agree with you about that planetary contamination thingy. It's very obvious that polluting Earth isn't one of humankind's most impressive accomplishments, and we've got to do everything in our power to prevent that from happening on other planets. But humans just don't care...money has always been more important then any other argument, and it will be like this for quite some time to come... I was trying to be sarcastic in my reply; taking my 'why not continue'-argument into the absurd. But obviously, it wasn't as funny as i intended it to be...my apologies for that. I'll try to be more serious about these important subjects next time.
  • I see your point of view, but you will allow me to have a different one.

    I think that this is not "news for nerds" any more than any other ecological/environmental news story (about earth). Just because it is the environment of another planet under threat I do not find it more interesting than the ecology and environment of our planet. Just because we take earth for granted does not mean that there countless mysteries here, which are just as (if not more) interesting than Europa.

    But as I said, you can have your views and I can have mine. This is what Slashdot and freedom of speech is all about.

    Merci.
  • They'll de-orbit the Galeleio into Jupiter more than likely. They could drop in into the dayside so we can check it's spectra as it enters. We may or may not see the chemical makeup of the upper cloud deck.

    Galeleio, Galeleio, Galeleio, Figaro, Magnifico!
    No, no, no, No, no, no, No, no, no, absolutely not!
  • Frankly, we don't know much of anything yet. We have no idea of what is there - and I for one don't want to run around risking death for some indiginous life to stroke our own egos.

    What's the frickin' rush? We've got plenty of time to seed Europa once we know what the hell is there!

    Cheers,
    Brian

  • Hey, what about the probe Galileu dropped to take a few snapshots? Hasn't NASA finished processing the data yet? If they need some extra FLOPS, why not create a new distributed project?

    Yeah, that's it, NASA@Home!!
  • I guess I'm just pissed because I can't take a Pan-Am flight to the moon, and my computer doesn't sing "Daisy".

    "Where is my flying car? Damn it! I was promised flying cars!"

  • This has happened already (The probe contaminating something if it's sent out of the solar system)...
    Didn't you see the original Star Trek movie?!
    V-GER will come, and then the only thing that can save us is a spaceship captain that can't act!
  • This thing has become so radioactive that here on earth nobody would even want to get close to it. Are you saying that you want to bring 10 tons of highly radioactive stuff to crashland on Earth?

    Besides Galileo does not have enough fuel to get back here.
  • It would be a horrible place to overclock, because most of the heat produced wouldn't be radiated. It would need to have some conductive medium transfer it, and space is a vacuum.

    --
  • Not necessarily. You are assuning randomness. A monkey forewer pressing "A" on a typewriter will not create anyting interesting.
  • Yes, dinosaurs had nuclear bombs. You'll find them referred to in their literature as "anti-personnel grenades".
  • Humor aside, I think that NASA is overreacting. Either Europa has life or it doesn't. If it doesn't, we should hope that it is 'contaminated'. If it does, I would put my money on a planetful of life specially evolved for that planet's conditions over a couple dozen carpet-bagging bacteria from a warm and comfy inner-system world like Earth.

    This is a very thoughtless opinion. You're suggesting that we risk wiping out a potentially unique lifeform because if it's not tough enough to beat out our completely alien bacteria, it doesn't deserve to live.

    That's very Darwinist of you, but I doubt you would feel the same way if another, more advanced civilization allowed a craft to crash into our planet carrying contaminants that could destroy us.

    I should really think up a nifty sig line if I'm going to start posting to Slashdot...
  • Now we know. Cockroaches fly to the Indian Ocean during winter.
  • a) It does not have enough fuel to slow down enough. It's orbital velocity is now very fast.

    b)It has thrusters, but it does not have enough fuel for the thrusters. You cannot stop something dead in space. Do you know how much fuel would be needed to stop its orbiting the center of the galaxy?
  • "Water is extracted into a sterile vessel, and shot back up and sent to earth for examination."

    "Mommy, make it put me down! Mommy? Mommy!"

  • I think it's a shame that so many people are saying "why start now? NASA has been doing this for years". Yes, they have and we all know it, but does that make one more incident of "space pollution" any more right than the past? As I've already stated in a reply earlier, it's not about what WAS done, it's about what IS GOING TO BE done now. Using the arguments I've seen so far, it would be perfectly alright for the continued practices of slavery, non-consental human experimentation, unchecked slaughtering of endangered species, etc. After all, all of that stuff was "done before", so what would be the damage of doing it now? I find that to be a ridiculous argument/statement. It's like saying that people and agencies can't and shouldn't change their ways if they realise that they are wrong.

    In this case, NASA wants to do "the right thing" for Europa and its potential and future. Yes, Galileo has basically lived out its usefulness and monetary budget, so it probably needs to be disposed of somehow, but why opt for the unsafe method? After all, Europa's water (or water-like compounds) may end up being used in the future by Earth space travellers in the future. Why take the time to clean it up then when we can just prevent the problem now?

    I'm all for steering Galileo into the sun if everyone is so paranoid about Jupiter and Io also (which they shouldn't be...neither should be able to sustain even basic life on their own, not to mention any that Galileo might be carrying). But, given the options and probably time constraints, I would say Io and Jupiter are probably the best bets for a reasonably safe disposal.

  • Why doesn't NASA build something that lasts instead of producing more and more waste.. Here on earth people are trying to put a halt on disposable materials and in space we just dump right on.

    Would it not be more usefull to build something that returns after a given period of time so that these things can be recycled or something?
  • No problem. I made the point further in another post since more people than I thought were really taking that argument. It's really a shame that people feel the way that they do. It's also a shame that money is such an important factor and everyone who doesn't have a lot of money thinks that there's nothing that they can do about the problem overall. At least the NRC is recommending that NASA do the good thing rather than the idiotic thing. Hopefully, NASA will take the recommendation and run with it.
  • What's this all about? I can't read french, and NASA just crash-landed a satellite on my babelfish(tm)!
  • "... not nuclear winter."

    The dinosaurs had the bomb?

  • ...if they missed the crash target?
    --
    then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel is just a freight train coming your way
  • Well, that's true. OTOH, a microbe that survived launch and months (years, whatever) of vaccuum, radiation, etc., would not be a creampuff. The Europan environment is different from Baltimore, it's true (although right now we're feeling sort of humid and Jovian around here), but it might be less different from the environment in space, and any life on a probe has already demonstrated an ability to survive that.

    In short, I'd figure we'd be exporting our meanest, toughest, and most adaptable critters (not unlike Australia's earliest English colonists, come to think of it).

  • I think we're more interested in life that has evolved on other planets since it would prove that life is not indiginous only to Earth.

    No, it will not "prove" anything. Let me explain.

    I see you are turning this into the old religious argument. If we can prove to those stupid Christians that life exists on other planets, then they will run out of arguments for their creationist theories. However to make such a claim is entirely false. The Christians will find a way to interpret their Bible (as they have done so many times in the past in order to cope with new "realities") so that it does not conflict with their beliefs.

    As for those logical people who do not believe in God, finding life on another planet will not prove anything. We already know that life does not exist only on Earth. How? By the wonderful science of statistics.

    It has been proven that if you take into account:
    a. the number of planets in the Universe.
    b. the likelyhood of life appearing on a specific planet (this is calculated using the age of a planet, the elements present on the surface, temperature etc).
    You will see that the probability of Earth being the only planet with life in the Universe is less than 1E-12.

    Let's let Greenpeace and whatever they're called take care of the environment and let NASA send microbes into space.

    Yes, I agree with you. NASA are doing their job. I just accuse all of those who think it is just a great story of being biased. Here we are spending out time talking about how to protect (probably non-existant) microbes in Europa, when there are human beings being killed right next to us. Did you ever see a mention of them in Slashdot? Are Eupopan microbes "news for nerds, stuff that matters" and human children not worthy of a mention?

    Je vous embrasse,

    Philippe
  • But Europa may already have life on it. The chances are slim perhaps; but Europa's microbes, if they exist, have more rights to Europa than Earth's microbes do.
  • Stop speaking unless you know what is actually happening. ... I also do[nt] see how the satalite was destroyed in an SDI test, since to my knowledge all SDI tests have been on earth and none in space.

    The Anti-Satellite weapon:

    A unique USAF space vehicle is the ASAT (Air-Launched Anti-Satellite Missile). Unlike the other vehicles on display here, this device can be used to destroy orbiting satellites that threaten the U.S.
    http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum /space_flight/sf14.htm [af.mil]

    The target:

    The Space Test Program spacecraft P78-1 was launched on February 24, 1979 and continued operating until September 13, 1985, when it was shot down in orbit during an Air Force ASAT test.
    http://asca.gsfc.nasa .gov/docs/heasarc/missions/alphabet.html [nasa.gov] (Select 'P78-1' from the list.)

    While not strictly part of the SDI program (as development of the ASAT weapon started during the Carter administration), development and successful testing of this anti-satellite weapon losely fell under the "Star Wars" banner of programs that was funded by the Reagan administration.

    Yes, we have been testing weapons in space. So have the Soviets, who have conducted similar tests. And while our ASAT program which produced the F-15 based ASAT weapon was canceled in 1987, we are still conducting on-going ASAT weapons tests today, with both ground-based kenetic ASAT weapons (basically missles which are launched into space from the ground and hit satellites in orbit), and space-based and airplane based laser ASAT weapons.
  • And besides NASA couldn't crash them even if they wanted -- you see, space is big and spacecraft are very small...

    But, NASA is very talented, so anything could happen :)

    Mark Duell

  • If there is something about panspermia [panspermia.org] - and there probably is - we have already contaminated half the System, in typical Earth fashion :-)

    Think about it: If a piece of rock from Mars [nasa.gov] can travel to Antarctica, what prevents a hunk of our continental crust, filled with bacteria - which are very good at surviving in harsh climates - from impacting on Mars? Bacteria have been around for some 100 million years, more than enough time for the occasional dinosaur - killer comet whose impact offers a ride out of the gravity well.

    I for one would not be surprised to find some E. coli look-alikes on Mars (I don't know about the possibility of low - energy trajecories to places in the Outer System, though)

  • know that our little Galileo will burn up fast in the gargantuan planets atmosphere, But it's still contamination isn't it? If one's goal is to not unknowingly alter another planet, shouldn't another form of disposal be pursued?

    But will it matter? Is there going to be some little piece of life down there to contaminate? Probably not. So Jupiter is the lesser of the evils. Even if someday somebody can get down there and find the reckage (however thin a pancake that reckage has been made into), anyone that advanced would be smart enought to take adaquate percautions. And it would be like finding a lost pyramid or something.


    ------

  • 2) Wouldn't you like to be able to put "Planetary Protection Officer" on your resume?"

    No way! Offcourse it may look cool for a moment but I don't like traveling 40 up to 80 years to check up on the crime scene in person. :-)

  • Yep, there is.

    We don't want to send a probe to Europa to try to discover life, only to find out that we contaminated the place a dozen years back with strep, and so have no idea if there was life there or not.

    OTOH, unless you both don't eat, don't breath and don't take a dump, you don't have room to talk: after all, everytime you eat, you take advantage of the death of animals and plants around you. When you breath, you mindlessly kill millions of organisms as they enter your lungs. And the fecal matter you excrete is part of one of the largest sources of environmental contaminants that man, in his presence on this earth, creates.
  • All this talk about possible life on Jupiter reminds me of an old sci-fi short story I once read, but I don't remember who wrote it. Basically, it was told from the perspective of 3 robots, sent to Jupiter from Earth. Seems that several years ago, Earth had begun communicating with aliens on Jupiter, and the conversation did not go well. There was some concern that if the people of Jupiter ever developed space travel (no small feat considering Jupiters immense gravity), they would come and conquor the Earth. So, scientists on Earth decided they'd better send up these robotic probes, to get an idea of the intentions/military strength of the Jupitarians(?).

    Anyway, these 3 incredibly powerful (built to survive Jupiter's environment) robots show up on Jupiter, perform a bunch of feats of strength and endurance that the Jupiterians see as incredible, and at the end reveal they are capable of surviving the absolute zero of space travel. The Jupitarians, mistaking these 3 robots for the common Earth man, immediately disgard their planned invasion of Earth, and request peace.

    One of my first introductions to the realms of sci-fi literature; it was an entertaining, albiet highly improbable, story. Can anyone hook me up with a title/author?
  • All of Nasa's Crafts crash anyway(remember Mars) so why not just say we are crashing it deliberately.
  • I know the present PPO, and I can tell you that he's competent, capable, and professional. He's also a pompous egomaniacal git. Having worked with him for three years I think it's my right to say that.

  • Just like the Spaniards gave the Aztecs flu, (which was aparently rewarded by syphilis).

    Aliens could learn a lot about our immune systems by studying flu.

    Hmmm...
  • Any pathogen that crosses a species barrier is potentially lethal to it's new host. If that is true from avians to mammals (see the flu epeidemic in the post war years that claimed more lives than the war! which came from asian birds) then contamination from humans could, at most, wipe out the entire ecology. Maybe when the meteor crashed in to the earth during dinosaur times it was a pathogen that killed them all and not nuclear winter.
    .oO0Oo.
  • 2) Wouldn't you like to be able to put "Planetary Protection Officer" on your resume?
    (Score: -1, Obvious)

    <Job Interview>

    Interviewer: Which Planet?
    Self: Alderaan
    </Job Interview>

    Needless to say, I didn't get the job...

  • It's Canadian French. It's something somebody seems to have cut and pasted about the history of logging in the Saguenay area of Québec...
  • On behalf of the great federation of social insects and all the ants and bees of the Universe I strongly object to your potrayal of Cockraches as the only race superior to man hence implying that man is superior to us.You shall be hearing from our lawyers unless we see an appology in this space
  • Of course, we can never be sure about Jupiter either, only reasonably sure. We only measure life against what we know here. Who knows what kind of life could evolve on (in) a gas giant. Maybe there are huge gas whales floating around in there, living on the kinetic energy in storms.

    Stephen Baxter, one of my favo SciFi authors, theorised that an alien life could be a complex structure of swirls that evolved in a muddy swamp-like planets surface.

  • This is meant to be a reply to the Government coverup posting about cockroaches Sorryyyyyy!!
  • Unfortunately the fuel required to escape from Jupiter is just not there on Galileo.
    The only option is to crash it into the giant planet! Jupiter just underwent a large alteration when that comet bombarded it a few years back so it should be ok.
  • If my kitchen floor at 3 am is any indication, the cockroaches have ALREADY conquered earth!
    seanmeister

  • Wings clipped, he plummets
    Spirit crushed, he soars no more
    And yet he does move

    ------

  • OT FOLLOWS

    Hint: when you get to the mission where you have unlimited quad-jump permission, jump to the system where the star has collapsed into a black hole. After berzerker jumps in after you, wait a second until he screams "I am slain!" in your comm unit and is sucked in by the black hole. Then jump to solbase and all is well. For the moment.

    The tricky bit is usually when he comes after earth; you have to get on his list personally or the earth goes *boom* in the next mission no matter what you do. Make sure all your weapons hit him or something.

  • The TV program NOVA on the public broadcasting
    network has aired several programs lately about
    archeology. It seems to me Galileo is a
    prime example of an archeological artifact
    and should be preserved by being 'parked'
    in some safe orbit for future generations.
    Hopefully, we humans will survive long enough
    to go out there again, pick up Galileo, and
    bring it back for study.

    NASA is chartered to learn new things.
    Why should NASA deny future generations the
    opportunity to learn new things about us?

  • You're forgetting something important here. When and if we send a probe to Europa it will contain some gadgetry to cut into the ice and run some tests to look for microscopic life. It is likely that the tests will be able to tell if there is life but that's about all.

    If we start smashing possibly contaminated probes into the place we will never be able to quiet the skeptics who will say "well it could have been Earth life that spread from an earlier crash".

    --


  • Humor aside, I think that NASA is overreacting. Either Europa has life or it doesn't. If it doesn't, we should hope that it is 'contaminated'. If it does, I would put my money on a planetful of life specially evolved for that planet's conditions over a couple dozen carpet-bagging bacteria from a warm and comfy inner-system world like Earth.

    I don't know. I think I might wager a few quid on a hardy band of microscopic badasses that could survive a decade in space and the radiation of Jupiter's magnetosphere.
  • Others have already commented on some of the factual inaccuracies in your post, and on the fact that it's frankly impossible to turn any of these space craft over to third parties unless those parties have their own multi-billion dollar deep space communications networks. Beyond that, though, I have to question your basic assumption that it's bad for NASA to end a mission when it runs out of money.

    Sure, it would be great if NASA could fund every mission indefinitely! But heck, it would be nice if people would pay us humble grad students a million bucks a year, too. That's just not going to happen. In the real world of science, with limited funding, you have to balance the potential return of spending $X on some experiment with the potential return of $X on a -different- experiment. Sometimes it makes sense to extend the lifetime of the first experiment - Witness the fact that the Voyager and Pioneer spacecraft are all still returning valuable data today, witness the DS1 extended mission, witness the fact that Galileo is still working today several years after the "end" of its mission. NASA *does* extend missions, when it makes scientific sense to do so But sometimes you really have gotten as much as you can from a mission, or sometimes you have new projects you want to start that need the money. Then in that case it *does* make sense to terminate older missions and start new ones. Do realize that the decision to extend Mission Y for another two years usually means postponing or even cancelling Mission Y+1. It's not nearly as simple or as one-sided as you seem to think it is.

  • Most of the posters here seem to be under the impression that NASA wants to avoid Europa and Io do to some kind of twisted environmentalist ethic. That's not it at all, although the reasoning might be a little distorted by the time it's filtered for public consumption.

    As the article says, NASA wants to "safeguard the scientific integrity of future studies of Europa's biological potential." Good scientists are naturally skeptical, and as any science knows, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." In order to prove the "extraordinary claim" that native life exists on Europa, scientists would have to eliminate any more mundane possibilities. The claim that said life is not native to Europa, but was carried there by Galileo, would be almost impossible to dispute.

    Let me put this another way: Let's say NASA let Galileo crash into Europa. Now it's 2040, and our first Europa lander finds the moon teeming with life. Any good scientist would say, "So what? It was probably left there by Galileo." And they'd be right. On the other hand, if NASA keeps Europa uncontaminated, any life on Europa would indisputably be extraterrestrial.

    Got it?
  • Io does actually have a bit of an atmosphere, mostly sulpher gases and other things you don't really want to breath, but you're correct that it wouldn't be enough to burn up the space craft; it would impact the surface and eventually get buried in one of the frequent lava flows. This is considered acceptable because the conditions on Io are harsh enough that we're pretty damn sure (a) there's no native life there (b) even if some bacteria stowed away on Galileo, they couldn't live there either. Both of these hold true for Jupiter, too. And even if you leave them both aside, the impact velocity with Jupiter will be vastly higher (it's next to impossible to hit Jupiter at anything *less* than 70,000 kph due to our old friend Mr. Humongous Gravity Well.) so the impact heating will be that much greater, moving us into the realm of serious overkill sterilization by heating. Which is, of course, precisely what we want.
  • ...they had better start the Win2K upload ASAP.

    (rimshot)

    (crickets)


    seanmeister

  • There are objects (asteroids, comets, etc) raining down on the various planetary bodies / satellites in our solar system. If there are any living organisms on those objects, they could be considered to be contaminating Europa too (if they land on Europa, that is). Such a situation wouldnt be regarded by us as "contamination".

    Consider the following situation : Very primitive life has evolved on Europa. Along comes an asteroid with a virus / bacteria that is harmful to the life on Europa, and wipes out that life. Natural evolution - is it not? Why wouldnt the introducting of lifeforms from earth be regarded as part of evolution. After all, if we ignore the fact that we are "intelligent" / "concious" and look solely at the bottom line (what we do rather than why we do what we do), the event of humans contaminating another planet is nothing drastically different than an asteroid carrying lifeforms crashing into Europa.

    Admittedly, it would be of great scientific interest to know that if life arose on Europa, it arose by itself, and without any human intervention. But if we discover life on Europa, it doesnt mean that that life originated on Europa, anyway. So why bother?

  • And at one time everyone was sure that earth was the center of the known galaxy. Just because your sure now, who knows what new information we may get about the planets workings, and how life can evolve. Just a couple decades ago, it would be hard to believe that things can live around gas vents at the bottom of the ocean. I'd quess someone getting this thing too fly into the sun would be a safe bet.
  • ...instead of destroying it, wash it with some form of anti-bacterial soap. I know that's what I do, all the time, to make sure that my hands are clean. In fact, I've washed my hands 12 times this morning. You can't be too careful with bacteria! But wait -- there are STILL bacteria there! Dammit, get off my hands, you damn bacteria! I know you've survived the vacuum of space, ultra-low and ultra-high temperatures, steam, solvents, and everything else, just GET OFF MY FILTHY STINKING HANDS! WASH OFF, DAMN YOU! I AM CONTAMINATED! GET AWAY FROM ME - SAVE YOURSELVES! AAAIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
    --
  • Recent data, including that from the Gallileo entry probe suggests that Jupiters atmosphere is highly convective. Anything drifting in the atmoshphere would be regularly sucked down to extreme depths, and thereby VERY thoroughly pressure-cooked, before being pushed back up to the surface again. Anything that could manage to live there (except, perhaps in some small, and unexpectedly stably non-convective corner somewhere) would have to be either very active (to deliberately stay at the top of the convective cycle) or much tougher than any molecule that we can think up. In either case, a few bacteria are unlikely to cause much trouble,
  • Maybe, but the concern is over the possible microorganisms. I would guess that there are some that could survive falling into Jupiter's atmosphere etc? How about simple proteins?

    And can Jupiter be said to have a real surface?
  • Well, I don't have time to translate the whole thing right now, but it's about the exploitation of resources (primarily the forest) by those naughty ole Englishmen after they took over Quebec. Why it is posted to an article about Galileo (the space probe, not the scientist) I have no idea.

    This guy is almost as cool as Mujahideen. [slashdot.org]

  • 2010 (Score:1)

    by suffe ( 72090 )
    As almost everyone knows, we must stay clear of the Europa moon (All these worlds are yours - except Europa. Attempt no landings there), however as Jupiter is about to turn into a minor star in, oh say, 9 years it wouldn't realy matter if we dumped it there.

    Sidenote: If you didn't get this, you probably need to do some catching up on your sci-fi reading ;)



  • We dont want to piss off the natives
  • Stop the ignorance. Start with yourself!

    The puny amount of radiation onboard the Galileo spacecraft pales in comparison to the natural radiation around Jupiter.

    If you were getting sad thinking that you'd need to have a protective suite to survive on Europa with all that plutonium from Galileo there, then I've got some news for you!
  • Galileo carries 49.7 pounds of plutonium as fuel. As it enters Jupiter's atmosphere, Galileo will encounter high levels of pressure and gravitational pull. Is it possible that the plutonium would have a fission reaction, resulting in a small nuclear explosion? If an explosion did occur, a lot of infrared energy would be released. Would that infrared energy be enough to start Jupiter's atmosphere on fire? Would such a fire eventually put itself out? Or would Jupiter's atmosphere fail to combust?

    Isn't Jupiter too small in mass to become a star, even a small star, under any circumstances?

    Thanks to any science types who answer. Even if you aren't sure, please speculate. It will be interesting to see if anyone predicts it correctly.

  • The article and this whole discussion are about how we need to not contaminate Europa, and you go and suggest that we contaminate Earth. I would feel a lot better if the water sample stopped over at a space station for preliminary examination. If those astronauts didn't die or have alien fetuses grow inside them, then we could do further tests down here.

    -B
  • yes, it's interesting that noone else has mentioned this as an option. the only problem i can see with it, is that the spacecraft would have a faster velocity because of it's lower orbit and may preclude the continuation of imagery science on board b/c of the exposure times needed(blurring)? someone mod the above post up so it gets more attention. why CAN'T we do this.
  • I understand your point of view but as a Slashdot account holder of long standing (user 2500) and reader even longer, I feel it would be interesting to know if there are legal issues involved with a Slashdot poster. Slashdot has had trolls and odd people posting since the start and the fact that these are tolerated adds, in some measure, to its charm. These days you can even set your threshold above 0 and miss most of them if you don't like them. For my money, osm is a talented and rarely offensive writer and I'd miss his peculiar brand of humour.

    Regards
  • DSN = the Nasa Deep Space Network [nasa.gov], and it's the reason why 3rd parties don't take over deep space satalites when they're done. If there were other installation similar to these facilities (a compeating interest in another country, perhaps) then your plan makes sence. It is the eyes and ears of people here on earth and without it, the satelites would just be another rock in space.
    ___
  • By PETA standards, this would be a life form not "cute" enough to save.
    Sorry, but in all my reading of animal rights philosophy, the "cuteness" of an animal has never come up.
  • Toss the jar in a containment facility and let bunny suits who bathe in acid poke at the ice cube and I don't see the problem.
  • Galileo has been exposed to huge amounts of radiation from Jupiter. Here's a few hundred articles Google(galileo+radiation) [google.com]. Who has better decontamination equipment, nasa or jupiter?

    Ryan
  • Sure, always possible. But how likely is it that organisms from Earth would survive to contaminate a gas giant? A lot less likely than it is on the more earth-like moons. Bacteria are hardy little things, but even they have their limits.

    --

  • Where to start?

    Litter:OK, the probe is comprised of molecules of metal. To say, as many seem to, that these molecules are "unnatural" because they have been re-shaped by man is ridiculous. Look at your premises=Whatever happens (i.e.:meteor strike) NOT as the result of Mans' volition is good. Whatever happens by our actions is "unnatural".
    WTF is the justification of this? I think this is an example of contamination of peoples thought processes. What happens naturally, whether it is the inexorable result of a clockwork universe or the Will of GOD, should not be elevated to a "morally" superior position in our considerations. (Morality itself being an "unnatural" and somewhat arbitrary product of evil polluting humans.) If you think it should be, MAKE THE F*ING ARGUMENT-otherwise STFU!!

    Biological contamination:To say that because some microbes may have survived the gentle moon landing that some MAY survive the fiery holocaust of a desent into Jovian atmosphere is ridiculous.
    And even IF...

    IF there are life forms adapted to the wildly different conditions of Jupiter, they will not be threatened by microbes not adapted to those conditions. We don't exactly need a St. George to drive the snakes out of Antarctica, do we?

    Time scale: SO WHAT? If you want to consider this probe "pollution" (as opposed to good, "natural" extraplanetary incursions like meteors), what will its' effect be in...2 million years? Because that's the time frame we ought to consider.

    Extrasolar trajectory: Again, SO WHAT? Your advanced "math" shows that "eventually" the probe will run into something if we shoot it out of the Solar System? When? Again, millions of years, and I don't think we've done even a million-year study of microbal survival. Also, of all the places the probe might eventually impact (suns, black holes, dense gas clouds, atmosphereless rocks), what percent do you think have ANY chance of supporting ANY type of life? I'm too lazy to do that math, but I'm guessing...pretty close to zero.

    "But Mr. Science, we can't be SURE can we?"
    "No...not perfectly, exactly, 100% sure, Bobby. "
    "Then why can't we bring back that nasty contaminated old probe and put it in a garbage sack and throw it away?"
    "You're off the show, Bobby."

    I would've expected better than Oprah-level posts from the /. crowd.

    Brad

    "The enemy of science is not religion, but ignorance."- some famous dead guy.

  • Consider if Galileo is placed on a trajectory to exit our solar system. Eventially, someday, in some way our little Galileo will impact something in the inuverse and contaminate it. We're just as much a part of the galaxy as everything else in it and we will "contaminate" no matter how carefull.

    Not likely. Perhaps you forget how empty space really is. Consider that two spiral galaxies such as ours can pass *THROUGH* each other, and very few, if any, collisions between stars occur. Now a couple hundred thousand stars in such close proximity never collide, the chances of a single spacecraft running into something, and even further something capable of sustaining life in any degree, I don't think there's much to worry about.

  • NASA's been fairly responsible, unlike most others (Score:3)

    by BitMan ( 15055 ) on Monday July 03, 2000 @03:16AM (#962146)

    I think people fail to realize that NASA has been fairly responsible in their space endeavors. For example, NASA only uses decaying radioactive materials in spacecraft that do not orbit Earth, and only when the power requirements of the craft deem it absolutely necessary (i.e. it is impossible to power it with solar panels due to solar distance and weight). NASA even went as so far as to worry about the tiny ammount of radioactives on the Lunar Module of Apollo 13, as to plot a much more risky (to the crew) return trajectory (with additional corrections) so as to not have the LIM crash into anything but a remote and deep watery grave (see "From the Earth to the Moon: Episode 8" to hear more on "the Nuke Problem" as the media called it).

    This is in stark contrast to numerous Russian Earth orbitals, including even purely scientific ones! Take note of a Russian scientific satellite that contaminated hundreds of square miles (600 mi^2 I believe) of Canadian national forest when its return trajectory was not accomodated correctly. And I need not mention that it is still up in the air whether or not the Russian military, let alone our own, uses radioactives in Earth orbiting platforms.

    Give NASA a break guys!

    -- Bryan "TheBS" Smith

  • No way - that's not until 2010.

    Seriously, since the environment of Jupiter is much less earthlike than the environments of Europa or Io, it's probably safer to drop Galileo into Jupiter. None of our bugs will be able to hurt anything that has evolved under those conditions, and the space probe will just be another meteorite out of many in the Jovian system.

  • Open Space (Score:3)

    by Ex Machina ( 10710 ) <jonathan.williams @ g m a i l . c om> on Monday July 03, 2000 @03:52AM (#962149) Homepage
    Did anyone else notice the "Open Space [spaceref.com]" link at the bottom of the page? Apparently its a discussion system modeled on Slashdot.
    Open Space [beta] Open Space, a community of like minded people committed to open and informative discussion, making news, sharing knowledge and fostering a growing space community. Before you start you should know that we moderate Open Space. Messages are given a score for their value and users can filter messages by the threshold scores. For instance a -1 score is either off topic or a flame. A +5 is highly useful message. This model was adopted from Slashdot although the code is uniquely ours. You can read messages without being a member, but to post messages to the community you must sign up, it's free.
  • Thay just don't want the Jupiterian to get his hands on our technology.

  • microbes in space (Score:5)

    by jeff_bond ( 135948 ) on Monday July 03, 2000 @01:46AM (#962156) Homepage
    There is a real risk of microbes on Galileo contaminating any planet or moon that it lands/crashes on.

    See this link [nasa.gov] to read how microbes survived on the moon after a lunar missions.

    Jeff

  • This is a government coverup. (Score:3)

    by Donald Kerr ( 207020 ) on Monday July 03, 2000 @01:48AM (#962159) Homepage
    It is a well-documented fact that the only organism capable of surviving the extreme conditions (low temperature, radiation, lack of oxygen and water) that Galileo has experienced are cockroaches. The real reason that NASA want to crash land Galileo is to kill off any cockroaches that had stowed away on Galileo, because they are afraid that the cockroaches will colonize Io and Europa. If the cockroaches were allowed to colonize these moons freely, there is a significant danger that they could develop spacecraft and weapons of mass destruction, and then come back to conquer Earth. The US Government realises the superiority of cockroaches and is so scared about the threat of a Space Cockroach invasion that they are willing to resort to these drastic measures. Remeber, cockroaches are everywhere... they're constantly plotting to overthrow mankind and take control of Earth. Be scared.

    --
  • They are certainly right to be the most concerned about Europa, since the probabilty that life is significantly higher than most places. Think about how cool a mission to Europa would be too.

    A specially designed space probe lands on the surface of ice covering the ocean and drills (or slams through the ice, much more dramatic). Water is extracted into a sterile vessel, and shot back up and sent to earth for examination.

    How cool would a manned mission to space, into another planet, into an artic region, and then underwater be?
  • The article mentions that Galileo wont be destroyed until it takes part in joint observations with Cassini at the end of the year.
    Two Questions

    1> Is it wise to risk Cassini a craft which has not yet started on its main mission alongside a decrepit old craft like Galileo long past its lifetime. What if Galileo collides with Cassini or causes some interference or the like.
    Obviously these craft were not degigned keeping in mind a joint mission and may have interfering control frequencies and like

    2>On a lighter note if NASA can mix up feet and meters what if they mix them up and crash Cassini and send Galileo to Saturn ;)
  • Precisely. Use the word "contamination" and suddenly every Jovian microbe-hugger in the world crawls out and says "Bravo!" Use the word "colonization" or "terraforming", well now that's another story isn't it? I'd imagine every nanotech and biotech nut on Slashdot would have an opinion on how to do it best, wouldn't they? (That's a much better thread too, if you ask me). Really - lets think about this. Yes - I guess we DO want to study extra-terrestial lifeforms if we can. But is it REALLY at all likely that our Terran microbes could live to supplant a Europan ecosystem (if there is one) before we get there to look at it **before** we wipe it out on purpose? No. Not likely and it is not even remotely a real possibility. If it was - then by definition, such lifeform wasn't that different an organism from our native life anyways - and therefore arguably, not so terribly interesting (other than for the critical fact that it IS so similar). So what if there is life there? What if we go there *cough* (which is what this is really all about) *cough* and find out that we could terraform the planet, or at least, seed it for Terran DNA colonization? Don't we mean to do just that? Do you think for ONE MINUTE that our "Official Plan" is REALLY to look for barren rocks to colonize and leave all possible life bearing planets to their native dumn-luck-chances? No. That is NOT the plan and we need to get that clear right NOW. We respect sentient life. But if its Euopropan microbes vs. Terran Algae - the Algae wins every single god-damned time. Same goes for even one Strep Bacillus. Are we clear on this point? Moreover, we only contaminate the planet in some meaningful way if our life-forms supplant native ones. Frankly, the thought that we could get an earthbased microbe to flourish on Europa is the kind of thing that we could justify spending a few generations of our best and brightest minds on together with significant portions of GDP for that VERY EXPRESS PURPOSE. Admittedly - I am not a fan of wiping out a life-form before we can get a chance to study it. But -for the record NASA - Eupropa is NOT for the Europans. That moon is OURS. We clear on that? If you don't agree - find work elsewhere. My honest opinion on this though - it has nothing to do with pollution control, this is SPIN Control. This is about budgets and Congress. Congress won't fund a mission to Mars (or Europa) to go look for rocks. Rocks aren't worth a trillion dollars - not even pretty red ones from Mars. A search for life IS worth that money. Ever since NASA opined that life may be/once was on Mars from some VERY equivocal pictures of a supposed microbial fossil on an old meteorite, NASA has suddenly found itself BACK in the manned space mission game. So. This isn't about saving Europan microbes from a Terran DNA holocaust - its about making people think that NASA reasonably believes there might actually BE microbes there in the first place. And therefore, we all should too. "I WANT TO BELIVE". Nothing more, nothing less. Once people start talking seriously about "saving Europan microbes", its a short hop to persuading them to pay for NASA to go look at them. That's what this whole water/life on Mars slant has been about folks. It's the only hook that NASA knows will get them funding. More power to em. But save Europan microbes from Terran DNA? Puhleeze... .Robert

  • What about contaminating Jupiter? (Score:3)

    by Money__ ( 87045 ) on Monday July 03, 2000 @01:53AM (#962170)
    I know that our little Galileo will burn up fast in the gargantuan planets atmosphere, But it's still contamination isn't it? If one's goal is to not unknowingly alter another planet, shouldn't another form of disposal be pursued?

    Consider if Galileo is placed on a trajectory to exit our solar system. Eventially, someday, in some way our little Galileo will impact something in the inuverse and contaminate it. We're just as much a part of the galaxy as everything else in it and we will "contaminate" no matter how carefull.

    In a way this reminds me of animal right activist trying to save only the really cute animals. Cute little io?! noo! ! noo!! ! don't club that little baby seal . .but big nasty mean ol jupiter?? let the hammer fall! !
    ___

  • Wouldn't they be just a little pissed off about us crashing a probe onto their planet.

    Anyway i'd reckon nasa probably need a bigger target to aim at :)
  • It seems like a good hedge to me, should Earth have a run in with a big meteorite or something and wipe out life, or worse, what happens if a fleet of Volgons destroys the planet because it's in the way of a bypass? Earth life could continue on. I can understand the scientific side of it, it would really suck to find life on another plant and then learn that it was just life we propagated there. It seems inevitable to me though, we will have an accident and it's our nature to spread that sort of stuff around.

    The idea that keeps bothering me is how exactly we're going to terraform Mars when the time comes. We could start trying to produce a strain of plants that can live in that environment. If we found ice caps though, I was thinking that maybe using a nuke or two on them to melt the ice in to water and get some of the green house gases going to make the place a little bit more hospitable.

  • And this is a bad thing? (Score:4)

    by Wellspring ( 111524 ) on Monday July 03, 2000 @03:35AM (#962185)

    OK, maybe I am missing something here, but isn't our highest duty to the Schizmatrix to bring another world up to the next Prigogenic Level of Complexity?

    Humor aside, I think that NASA is overreacting. Either Europa has life or it doesn't. If it doesn't, we should hope that it is 'contaminated'. If it does, I would put my money on a planetful of life specially evolved for that planet's conditions over a couple dozen carpet-bagging bacteria from a warm and comfy inner-system world like Earth.

    It is pathetic that the government's retreat from space is so complete that we are now trying to eradicating any evidence that we were even there.

    When I get my asteroid-mining operation off the ground, I'm throwing all the profits into expansion and terraforming research. ;)

  • And I would have put your money that rabbits from England would never hack the Australian climate and indigenous life.

    I know what you are saying (I live far from the natural habitat of kudzu, but it covers forests, houses, old cars, etc.) But I don't think that that applies here. The better example would be if those rabbits were brought deep beneath the ocean, where they would presumably outcompete the abyssal life.

    Where the environment is largely the same (similar atmosphere, climate, available chemicals for food, etc), and the major difference is simple geographic partitioning, your argument is a good one. Where the environment is radically different, I don't think it holds much water.

  • My Mother wishes to point out that we mitochondria [emile-21.com] are proof that not all life forms which invade another creature are harmful. Thank you.

  • It's about money... (Score:4)

    by cybrpnk ( 94636 ) on Monday July 03, 2000 @01:53AM (#962192)
    Here we go again...crashing spacecraft, but on purpose for a change. In this case, Europa is surely a concern, but NASA and others have crashed plenty of spacecraft just to clear the slate and start on another project. Its about money, just check out this quote from the linked report: "The Io plus Amalthea option is not consistent with Galileo's current budget plan." There are many other examples. NASA allowed a functioning solar observing satellite to be destroyed in a Star Wars test even tho the satellite was observing a whole new category of sun-grazing comets it had discovered. The Magellan Venus orbiter was sent in an "aerobrake test" that burned it up - but what if it had detected changes on the surface of Venus on a second mapping run, which would have meant the HUGE discovery of active volcanism there. The recent Lunar Polar Orbiter was crashed on the day its money ran out, and while sending up a plume of steam after hitting an icepack (it didn't) would have been a spectacular home run, a better plan would have been to fund it long enough to drop the orbit and skim the supposed ice crater at close range as many times as possible. Motorola is ready to let the Iridium system become a $3 billion fireworks display. Back in the 80s NASA seriously considered shutting down Voyager 2 before it got to Uranus and Neptune as a cost cutting measure - the primary mission was only Jupiter and Saturn. Somehow an effort needs to be organized where functioning spacecraft get turned over to interested third parties when the Big Boys get tired of playing with them...
  • If they don't want to contaminate Io/Europa, why are they happy to contaminate Jupiter? I'm not sure I see the difference. Granted, from current evidence life is far more likely to occur on Jupiters moons that on the planet itself, but until we can prove that I don't see why we should think about contaminating anything.
  • NASA are of course doing a fine thing by showing their concern, so hats off to them. It would be a shame to destroy any potential life without even having discovered it first.

    Having said that, it seems a but hypocritical that we as humans, show so much concern about the potential life on a planet so far away (especially when the likelyhood there is life is so small), when we do not give a damn about our own planet. Our waste kills millions of organisms every day, and God knows how many microorganisms (which is what we will find on these planets, if we find anything) are made extinct every day and we don't even know it.

    Are alien organisms more important? To they have a greater right to live than earth organisms?
  • Its a noble gesture to crash Gallileo into Jupiter to prevent contamination of its moons where maybe there is some form of life.

    But, do not allow this act of "space hygiene" to cloud your vision. NASA and all the other space agencies in the world have been leaving tonnes of shit floating round our planet for the past 40 years.

    Why this sudden change of heart?

  • I think space is actually 3 kelvins or something like that. In any case, it would be (aside from the radiation) a great place to overclock.
  • The difference is that a crash on one of the moons would probably involve actual physical impacts with various pieces surviving. Drifting into the atmosphere of Jupiter at orbital speeds would cause incineration of most of the ship and heating the rest past any survival temperature for our life forms.
  • What is this non-sense? Galileo is already dead, and the Earth is flat. NASA should just get over it, and accept that...

  • Re:Why Jupiter? (Score:3)

    by Elvii ( 428 ) <david1975 AT comcast DOT net> on Monday July 03, 2000 @02:04AM (#962211) Homepage
    Disclaimer: I'm not an astronomer, thou I do have a bit of a background in physics, thou not a great memory.

    If my memory serves, IO doesn't have enough of an atmosphere to make sure it burn itself to a crisp. Europa may, I don't live there so I can't say for sure. :) Same logic applies to the other moons/natural sats around Jupiter. But Jupiter, say what you will about it, but it's got atmosphere. Virtually guarenteed to destroy any contaminates coming in, along with the craft before it hits anything solid, IMHO.

    bash: ispell: command not found

  • Different environment. (Score:3)

    by lonely ( 32990 ) on Monday July 03, 2000 @02:11AM (#962212)
    I think the theory is that both IO and Eurpoa have environments that are similar to ones on earth where we have found life.

    Jupiter is a better bet as we can pretty much guarentee that Galileo with be totally burn up if dropped on Jupiter. Also the extreme pressures mean that there are no environments that are similar to those on earth.

    But for those who have read 2001/2010/2061 stories, I can say I am worried we will splat some of those gase sac creature things!
  • A spokesman for NASA today confirmed that the Galileo spacecraft would be crashed at the end of the mission.

    "This marks a complete reversal of policy for NASA", he stated, "Currently we crash our spacecraft at the start of the mission".

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Close