61–70 of 116 posts
What the NYT article didn't mention was the lack of sterilization of the ISRO spacecraft. A huge portion of the budget for a probe like MAVEN [1] or JUNO [2] is spent reducing the chance of Earth microbes colonizing Mars or a moon of Jupiter. It would be a huge shame for us to have doubt whether the first extra terrestial microbes we find in the solar system were really alien or simply Space Age Earth based life [1]…
What the NYT article didn't mention was the lack of sterilization of the ISRO spacecraft. A huge portion of the budget for a probe like MAVEN [1] or JUNO [2] is spent reducing the chance of Earth microbes colonizing Mars or a moon of Jupiter. It would be a huge shame for us to have doubt whether the first extra terrestial microbes we find in the solar system were really alien or simply Space Age Earth based life [1]…
No.
Or is there any entity on this planet, that could claim it has legitimate interests (or even ownership) in keeping the atmosphere of Mars clean, which should prevent India from sending people to Mars in a way that we don't like?
Again, im my opinion the answer is no. Why? Because there are enough planets that every human being on earth could have its own.
We could also look at it from the benefits vs risks perspective.
Here I also reach the same conclusion. The risk of having contaminated one planet with organisms is almost non-existent compared to the potential benefits of making another step towards the colonisation of other planets.
Once our technology gets better, and we can reach to more distant places, you can have any amount of pristine and untouched planets you could ever want.
But first we've got to improve our capabilities by actually trying it.
What the NYT article didn't mention was the lack of sterilization of the ISRO spacecraft. A huge portion of the budget for a probe like MAVEN [1] or JUNO [2] is spent reducing the chance of Earth microbes colonizing Mars or a moon of Jupiter. It would be a huge shame for us to have doubt whether the first extra terrestial microbes we find in the solar system were really alien or simply Space Age Earth based life [1]…
Is there even any general moral imperativ, that every or at least most cultures agree with, which says that we should not contaminate other planets? No. Or is there any entity on this planet, that could claim it has legitimate interests (or even ownership) in keeping the atmosphere of Mars clean, which should prevent India from sending people to Mars in a way that we don't like? Again, im my opinion the answer is no.…
Bro, we're never reaching those planets, FTL travel is a fantasy. Are you really willing to bet whatever life is on Mars on the hope that humans will someday be able to travel faster than light? What we could learn from extraterrestrial life, even if it's only microbes, could open vast new areas of biology research - potentially curing diseases or teaching us to survive in a much warmer Earth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't downvote, but I felt a mood-affiliation reason to downvote in that trying our darnedest to never contaminate Mars will stop us from colonizing Mars. Separately: Over the course of billions of years, rocks have moved from Earth to Mars and back. If colonization were a matter of just moving from one to the other, it would have happened already. In fact, answering that question seems very scientifically useful,…
I don't understand why colonizing Mars seems so important and urgent to you (and many other people around these parts, you're not the first one I see taking that approach) that you're willing to risk ruining evidence that could lead us to a better understanding of life itself. I mean, I'm all for space exploration and everything, don't misinterpret what I'm saying, but let's say we manage to get on Mars, establish a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't downvote, but I felt a mood-affiliation reason to downvote in that trying our darnedest to never contaminate Mars will stop us from colonizing Mars. Separately: Over the course of billions of years, rocks have moved from Earth to Mars and back. If colonization were a matter of just moving from one to the other, it would have happened already. In fact, answering that question seems very scientifically useful,…
I don't understand why colonizing Mars seems so important and urgent to you (and many other people around these parts, you're not the first one I see taking that approach) that you're willing to risk ruining evidence that could lead us to a better understanding of life itself. I mean, I'm all for space exploration and everything, don't misinterpret what I'm saying, but let's say we manage to get on Mars, establish a…
We might get new resources. There are many wars happening that are all about resources. Also, we might get space, which could reduce tensions on earth.
> I'm not so sure I'm willing to believe we would be "improving" Mars in the long run.
What could we possibly do to Mars, that in practical terms could make it worse? It's uninhabitable already. If it matters so much to you, then I ask you if the same applies to some planet a billion light years away from us.
> As long as we don't have any reasonable solution for leaving the solar system we're basically stuck with a bunch of rock within reach, let's not ruin everything just so that we can build Disneyland Universe on Mars. That would seem a very selfish thing to do. Think of the Dodos.
Or we could also work with what we can reach. I mean it's obviously bad, that Dodos are extinct now, but was life better a thousand years ago, when we were unable to reach and work with oil and gas, even though Dodos still existed?
What the NYT article didn't mention was the lack of sterilization of the ISRO spacecraft. A huge portion of the budget for a probe like MAVEN [1] or JUNO [2] is spent reducing the chance of Earth microbes colonizing Mars or a moon of Jupiter. It would be a huge shame for us to have doubt whether the first extra terrestial microbes we find in the solar system were really alien or simply Space Age Earth based life [1]…
Its Mars orbiter, not lander.
I would argue that jugaad is not a solution that is not driven by the problem at hand or the pressing need; rather it is driven by an attitude or a way of thinking, that is reinforced by the harsh reality of day-to-day living in India. I once worked for an electronic typewriter company In India which hacked and improved upon cannon's electronic typewriter s/w to support all of India's scripts (27 of them ). My team did not have capability to design stepper motor controls from bottom up like what canon had achieved. We never aspired to build a new electronic typewriter. We looked at the Cannon typewriter and asked why can't this support Telugu and Tamil etc. etc. Once we figured out the why , we worked to overcome it. Canon ended up licensing this hack to support other scripts worldwide.
Please note that I am saying rocket design is same as hacking stepper motor control s/w . However the driving attitude is quite similar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there even any general moral imperativ, that every or at least most cultures agree with, which says that we should not contaminate other planets? No. Or is there any entity on this planet, that could claim it has legitimate interests (or even ownership) in keeping the atmosphere of Mars clean, which should prevent India from sending people to Mars in a way that we don't like? Again, im my opinion the answer is no.…
> Because there are enough planets that every human being on earth could have its own. Bro, we're never reaching those planets, FTL travel is a fantasy. Are you really willing to bet whatever life is on Mars on the hope that humans will someday be able to travel faster than light? What we could learn from extraterrestrial life, even if it's only microbes, could open vast new areas of biology research - potentially cu…