Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Group Plans to Bring Martian Sample to Earth 84

Posted by samzenpus from the plot-to-a-made-for-tv-movie dept.
sm62704 (mcgrew) writes "New Scientist has a story about IMARS (the International Mars Architecture for Return Samples) planning to bring samples of Martian soil to earth. The robotic mission would be a needed precursor to manned trips to the red planet. Also, international cooperation is necessary since the US has already nixed bankrolling manned Mars missions."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Group Plans to Bring Martian Sample to Earth More

Group Plans to Bring Martian Sample to Earth

Comments Filter:

  • I wonder if we should. (Score:3, Funny)

    by AltGrendel ( 175092 ) <`su.0tixe' `ta' `todhsals-ga'> on Thursday December 13, 2007 @07:58AM (#21682303) Homepage
    With all the movies and sci-fi books out there that have reasons why we shouldn't, maybe we should leave well enough alone.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by morgan_greywolf ( 835522 )

        Agreed. I fear Earth will soon face an epidemic of The Andromeda Strain . After all Crichton was a doctor, he should know.

        A lot of what's in Crichton's work is pseudoscience at best. Take Jurassic Park. None of the DNA that has been captured from dinosaur fossils is in good enough condition to produce a clone ... and all likelihood no sample will ever be found that could be used for cloning. It's also mentioned that all life is inherently female and that it's only the introduction of the Y chromosome that makes a zygote male. Not quite. What really happens is that there are X sperm and Y sperm. So, from conception, a zy

        • Current cloning technique requires a living female of the species to be cloned.
          • Well, technically speaking the dinosaurs weren't "cloned" in the book -- they used transgenic [rcn.com] techniques. I'm not entirely certain if the DNA has to be living, but these techniques are very complicated and often do not succeed until many, many attempts have been made.

        • Samples taken from the moon obviously haven't wiped out life on Earth, why should we believe that samples taken from Mars would?

          That is horrible logic. Even if we ignore the fact that mars and the moon have some radically different environments, what you basically just said is "If I can stick my arm in this cow's mouth and not get bit, then I should be able to stick my arm in any animal's mouth without worry of getting bit.

          There is a lot of stuff out there we haven't seen. And it's entirely possible t

          • Well, here's someone who makes your case for you [acs.org], but the real question is how will we know what will happen unless we find out? There would be, I'm sure, protocols in place to avoid contamination problems. If Jonas Salk hadn't injected himself and his family with his polio vaccine, polio might be quite a bit more rampant today.

            • I'm not saying we should stop exploring and studying. But sticking our head in the sand and ignoring the possibility of finding something that could kill billions of people is not the way of going about it. Thankfully, I'm sure the people working on this are going to try their best to keep it separate from our environment, if for nothing else than to avoid ruining their experiments.
              • I'm trying to imagine how an organism that evolved (or was intelligently designed) for the cold, dry surface of mars would find our warm, wet insides a hospitable environment.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by SilentBob0727 ( 974090 )

          What really happens is that there are X sperm and Y sperm.

          Actually, XY is only what happens in most mammals. There are at least three other prominent sex-determination systems among biological organisms, including X0 (females have two X's, males have one), ZW (W encodes femaleness), and Haplodiploidy (gametes develop into males, zygotes into females): See here [wikipedia.org] for more information.

          Reptilian gender is environmentally, not genetically, determined. Of course, dinosaurs weren't strictly reptilian. Nevertheless, Crichton was not describing the XY system. He was using

    • Why not? Isn't that how the Venom symbiote came to earth?
    • Andromeda Strain?

      I am quite sure man has cooked up more virulent things than Nature will throw at us from space anytime soon.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Tablizer ( 95088 )
        Andromeda Strain? I am quite sure man has cooked up more virulent things than Nature will throw at us from space anytime soon.

        Roughly 99.9% chance you are right. But would you want to be the one taking a 0.1% chance of wiping out large chunks of humanity?

        As Rumsfield would say, we don't know what we don't know.
             
    • no doubt apple will sue over the name, thereby bankrupting the project.....

  • uh? (Score:2)

    by s4m7 ( 519684 )

    Also, international cooperation is necessary since the US has already nixed bankrolling manned Mars missions

    citation please?

    Last I heard this was planned for 2018 or something

    • IANAA, but I understand (sorry I don't have a citation) that the US nixed Nasa research / development into projects solely focused on manned mars missions. If they can work in some other line of research into a manned mars programme then I imagine they can get away with it...
      • From: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1012/1 [thespacereview.com]

        The House of Representatives version of HR 3093, the bill that determines NASA's funding for 2008, effectively bans the study of an entire planet:

        Provided, That none of the funds under this heading shall be used for any research, development, or demonstration activities related exclusively to the human exploration of Mars.

        The House committee report mentions the proposed prohibition: Finally, bill language is included prohibiting funding of any research,

        • What's so stupid about it? We have a long way to go, and a lot of other problems to solve, before it makes sense to spend lots of money on manned missions to Mars. A lot of what we need is going to have to wait for the next generation or two of technological advancement in materials science, nanotechnology, and micro-electronics. If we spent money on manned missions to Mars right now, it would probably all be wasted. New technology would obsolete our prototypes and shift the entire paradigm of the project

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by DougF ( 1117261 )
            Ahh, the old "we can only do one thing at a time" argument. What problems should we solve before doing anything else? How about let's solve poverty first, no wait, let's solve health care and give everyone indefinite lives first, no wait, let's solve the energy crisis and all live at high altitude first. C'mon, the exploration of space has provided many times in return the investments made. Health, technology, safety, weather, archeology, forestry, aviation, farming, and industry have all made tremendou

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sm62704 ( 957197 )
      Dude, there was a front page slashdot article about that just a few days ago! Ty;e "mars" in that little search box thing at the top of th epage.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by s4m7 ( 519684 )

        Since when is it considered a /. party foul to ask someone to back up a contentious claim?

        Ty;e "mars" in that little search box thing at the top of th epage.

        Ok, let's try that... the first relevant result is:

        How To Beat Congress's Ban Of Humans On Mars [slashdot.org] Which references another slashdot story:

        Subcommittee Stops Human Mars Mission Spending [slashdot.org] where the only citation is a press release from the subcommittee... not actually stating whether the bill had passed in both houses or if it had been signed.

        A Thomas search indicates the status of the bill as: Last action: 11/8/2

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sm62704 ( 957197 )
          Since when is it considered a /. party foul to ask someone to back up a contentious claim?

          Never. But you found the references ok.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by s4m7 ( 519684 )

            But you found the references ok.

            Are you OK? I found references that clearly don't support the statement I am asking to be cited. There is vague reference to wording in an appropriations bill that may or may not pass as is, that may or may not allow research into a manned mars mission to go forward.

            Glad to see that the slashdot editors are still busy keeping their Aerons warm.

  • Other worth subjects (Score:4, Funny)

    by Kranfer ( 620510 ) on Thursday December 13, 2007 @08:01AM (#21682313) Homepage Journal
    While mars is a worthy subject of return samples, I also believe that more return samples from coments/asteroids would be of more value for figuing out if life is out there. As we all know from previous /. articles, bacteria can survive on space craft, and we are worried about bringing such life to places like mars. However I think Europia and Io would be awesome places to check out for life. But thats just me... if it were up to me, I would say do what the Governor of CA said on the Howard Stern Show a few weeks ago... get a bunch of rocket engines and move the earth a few inches more away from the sun to get rid of global warming... but hey what do I know?
    • 1. It's a temporary measure

      2. Where are you going to find that sort of power?

      3. Where are you going to fix the engines?

      4. Have you considered the seismic implications?

      5. Are you insane?

      6. It would be cheaper and safer to cut back now...

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by _Shorty-dammit ( 555739 )
        1. Which you could simply repeat.

        2. Rocket store.

        3. The ground.

        4. Yes.

        5. Maybe.

        6. Says you.
        • 1. Yes, we could, until such point as the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere became unhealthy. I supose then we could all wear filters or live underground.

          2. Of course!

          3. Umm, yes, I was more thinking that you'd need to provide a consistent thrust but that the earth is rotating at high speed and it's not so simple as a result.

          4. Ok, good, so pushing on one point on the crust (and of course moving the core) isn't going to cause massive changes to seismic patterns and pressures and drown half the planet in l
          • meh, I don't think there's any point in recycling, either. I mean, it's quite an uplifting proposal, but it does seem to be both overkill and utterly ridiculous to spend so much time, effort, and energy in recycling programs, when a relatively small chunk of land nowhere near any populated areas can have the entire world's garbage dumped in it for 1000 years with much less impact on the Earth, in terms of time, effort, and energy required to do so. But, hey, recycling makes jobs! So, yeah, I'm probably n
            • ...apparently, than creating fresh. That's the point, it's actually cheaper to be efficient than to ship everything to part of the planet you don't like. Not to mention that eventually you run out of new raw material for plastics.

              But you've thrown me a bit there - I wasn't talking about recycling. Dumping rubbish, whilst wasteful, isn't anything much to do with global warming. Though recycling can, through its energy efficiency, reduce our carbon emissions a little.

              If you have the weird idea that more recyc

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Gorimek ( 61128 )
            2. You just burn the rocket for an hour a day or so, when it's facing th Sun. That part is not the weakness of this proposal.

            I'm sure this would work without an atmosphere. But inside one I'm not sure about the physics. Will the opposite force 'get stuck' and disperse in the air rather than result in a net transfer of momentum?

          • 1. Yes, we could, until such point as the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere became unhealthy.
            And then we'd evolve to photosynthesize... I'm liking this idea better and better. All hail the plant people and their new reign of terror!
        • Mod parent for funny, even though I'm answering seriously...

          Wouldn't the power output needed to move 60,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Newtons of mass (maybe I should have used tons ...just knock four zeroes off, that's close enough) just pump so much climate-changing stuff in the air it'd defeat the purpose?

          By the way, a Saturn V rocket weighs around 3,000 tons (30 thousand Netwons, approximately). That's just for comparison.

          If we used enough rockets to make a sizeable difference to Earth's orbit (which we do
          • Obviously we need the Outsiders' reactionless, inertialess drive. It's only a trillion stars, we can pay in installments...

            • Obviously we need the Outsiders' reactionless, inertialess drive. It's only a trillion stars, we can pay in installments...

              Depends on the exchange rate, of course. If we can get a rate of 1 to 1 or better, we can just slap it onto the US deficit. What's another trillion at this stage?

          • I hate to nitpick (*sigh* no I don't), but the Newton is a measure of force, not mass, and doesn't make a whole lot of sense when describing a planet... What would that be, the gravitational force Earth exerts on itself? That would be zero.
            • I was going to use kgs, but then I got to thinking that the mass of the Earth would still make gravity at 9.8 m per second squared. But you're right... that would be the force of the Earth if weighed on, erm, the Earth. Knock off a zero, and pretend I said kilos.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )
      While mars is a worthy subject of return samples, I also believe that more return samples from coments/asteroids would be of more value for figuing out if life is out there.

      If there is life in comets or asteroids, it would probably be deep down in order to hide from cold and radiation. Thus, it would probably require expensive drilling. On Mars, one would only have to dig a few feet at the most.

      But I think a bigger problem is the risk of contamination of Earth with a deadly disease that we have no immunit

  • It's Robotic! (Score:5, Informative)

    by FroBugg ( 24957 ) on Thursday December 13, 2007 @08:02AM (#21682325) Homepage

    Also, international cooperation is necessary since the US has already nixed bankrolling manned Mars missions.


    This is a robotic mission, so would be perfectly fine under the NASA funding rules. If you're pissed about the rule, go complain in the thread we already had about it. Don't inject it into stories where it has no real bearing.

    The actual article itself contains this completely different and more appropriate explanation for the need for international efforts:

    International cooperation in the project is important because it is likely to carry a global-size price tag. NASA previously backed away from its own plans for a sample return mission due to budget overruns in the space shuttle programme.

    "It's not an inexpensive proposition, and the ability to share the technical challenges and the costs across nations is very important for the success of this," says meeting attendee Lisa May, NASA's lead programme executive for Mars sample return missions.
    • NASA didn't just back away because of cost overruns in the Shuttle program, but because the estimates of the costs of the sample return took off like a rocket. Partially because they kept finding new areas to gold plate, partially because they kept making it more complicated, and partially because it is freakishly complicated even when unadorned.

      JPL is no better than the rest of NASA at estimating and controlling costs - they've frequently come under fire from both NASA administrations and Congress
  • Didn't the Viking Landers [wikipedia.org] already do this?

    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)

      by FroBugg ( 24957 ) on Thursday December 13, 2007 @08:09AM (#21682369) Homepage
      The Viking missions sampled soil on-site with the tools that were built into the landers. This mission is planning to bring samples to Earth, where we can perform much more detailed analysis with tools that cannot easily be sent to another planet and operated remotely.
      • The Viking missions sampled soil on-site with the tools that were built into the landers.
        To amplify a little on what you said: the results from the Viking experiments were ambiguous. They set criteria in advance, and said, "If the experiment does X, it means there's life, otherwise there's no evidence for life in the sample." The experiment actually did X, but some other aspects of the results were different than anything that was anticipated, which made the entire thing hard to interpret. At the time, th

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by s4m7 ( 519684 )

      Viking collected samples, but didn't bring them back to earth for human inspection. The popular view of the Viking programs was that the tests performed on the samples were inconclusive.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by petermgreen ( 876956 )
      as others have said the viking landers dug up samples and ran some tests on them but didn't bring them back.

      The problem is that by the time you have hardened a sensor for space use, got it approved and then got it to mars it will probablly be over a decade behind the technology we have on earth and if you want to retest with better sensors you have to send a whole new mission.

      By bringing the sample back here it can be studied with the latest equipment we have and we can retest as new equpiment becomes avail

  • Send a Mars Rover and pieces to make a catapult (Score:5, Funny)

    by Thanshin ( 1188877 ) on Thursday December 13, 2007 @08:04AM (#21682333)
    With about 0.35g, they may just send a Mars Rover with a mechanical arm and also send pieces to build a catapult. In six months or so, the rover builds the catapult and uses it to throw a piece of ground back.

    The only problem could be the rover exceeding his expected lifetime thirteen times and burying us in Mars pieces.

  • Also, international cooperation is necessary since the US has already nixed bankrolling manned Mars missions.
    Thanks for clearing that up submitter! I'd hate to think it was being done in a spirit of international cooperation to advance the sum of human knowledge.

    • Thanks for clearing that up submitter! I'd hate to think it was being done in a spirit of international cooperation to advance the sum of human knowledge.

      Right, we all know it's the US's job to supply the funding, while leaving the actual decision making to "international cooperation." You know, the old "we want to play, we just don't want to pay."

      Hell with it. Let somebody else foot the bill for once.

  • Watch for slow moving and moaning scientists coming to a neighborhood near you!

  • ahem (Score:3, Funny)

    by Martian_Kyo ( 1161137 ) on Thursday December 13, 2007 @08:07AM (#21682361)
    I for one welcome our new earthling overlords
  • the movie, comes to mind ...

    Just have lots of Head & Shoulders cans ready and we'll be fine!
    • Not just Evolution... there are loads of Mars gives us trouble [scifidimensions.com] movies.

      But science fiction isn't meant to be primarily a prediction method for the future. It's a way of showing the contemporary issues in society, but getting away with being close-to-the-bone by wrapping it in sci-fi. Just look at how Star Trek did it through its history. Kirk kissing Uhura, Dax kissing another woman because her symbiant used to be in a male, countless discussions about greed and drug use and equality given in a setting that

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tgd ( 2822 )
      I'd rather face a global pandemic from Martian superbugs than sit through Mission to Mars again.

  • lol (Score:1)

    by wwmedia ( 950346 )
    if there was oil on mars we would be there by now
  • The samples gets stuck on a radio, then it's brought to a decontamination chambers where it actually grows into creatures with several arms hungry for electricity and burning everyone in their path and then we will have to detonate the ship in the atmosphere...

    Mars bacteria on earth= bad idea

  • The robotic mission would be a needed precursor to manned trips to the red planet.

    No, it wouldn't. We know enough about Mars to send a human or three there on a mission now, especially with a plan like Mars Direct [wikipedia.org]. (Short version of plan: send an automated small chemical plant there with a hydrogen cargo. Turn the hydrogen plus martian CO2 into methane + oxygen. When the return vehicle is fully fuelled, send the human crew along on the next ship. They don't launch until they have a confirmed return

  • Using a falcon 9 heavy (available sometime in 2011), combine with medium size armadillo, it should be possible to bring back samples. Falcon 9 shoots it there. uses aero-bracking. Followed by parachutes for landing (probably will require some use of the armadillo for the final descent. Allow a small rover to run around the site and gathter samples. Put it back on the armadillo. It then takes off and shoots for earth. Close to earth, it releases a capsule containing 1-2 tons of various samples, which parachu
  • "...I told them not to go !"

  • Man on Mars (Score:4, Informative)

    by DynaSoar ( 714234 ) on Thursday December 13, 2007 @03:46PM (#21687894) Journal
    The US has not "nixed bankrolling" for manned Mars missions. Projects for this are still in progress. For instance http://www.nasa.gov/topics/moonmars/features/troutman-architecture.html [nasa.gov]

    Read NASA's site and NASA watch for the real news.
  • iMARS? They're running Macs?

Slashdot Top Deals

You know you've landed gear-up when it takes full power to taxi.

Close