Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NASA Planetary Protection Policy

planetaryprotection.nasa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 56 posts

Re: NASA Planetary Protection Policy

#11

Post by DanielBMarkham »

Just to be clear, all of you geeks out there watching the space travel develop and dreaming of a science-fiction type future where people can visit multiple planets and space travel is common? Paging Elon Musk?

Guess what? There are factions that are actively moving to make sure that doesn't happen. As it turns out, many believe that we need to be so cautious that even if we could get in a rocket tomorrow and go to Mars for ten bucks that we shouldn't be allowed to do that. At least not without a few committees meeting first and some ever-growing regulations being consulted. Some, I'm willing to believe, already feel very adamantly that mankind is a pestilence and should be prevented from spreading.

And each year those efforts get more and more organized.

In NASA's defense, this looks like something they've set up in order to head this issue off at the pass. So when somebody says "But what about us contaminating the Solar System!" they can point to some processes and rules that makes sure that the matter was considered appropriately.

But when folks ask me what mankind's future is, to me it looks a lot stagnation by our own hand. Pages like this do not do much to persuade me otherwise.

Re: NASA Planetary Protection Policy

#12

Post by rodly »

tarice wrote: post #6

This article brings an interesting question to mind - How will we land humans on Mars without contaminating the planet? I mean, Mars's atmosphere is mostly CO2, and bacteria are well-known for their ability to survive in harsh conditions. There may not be life on Mars now, but who's to say there won't be after all the astronauts leave...?

Is it wrong to contaminate a space that has no life/use otherwise? I'm not saying Mars as it stands has no use, but if we find no life there, surely spreading life to another planet is "good" right?

Re: NASA Planetary Protection Policy

#13

Post by tocomment »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #11

Just to be clear, all of you geeks out there watching the space travel develop and dreaming of a science-fiction type future where people can visit multiple planets and space travel is common? Paging Elon Musk? Guess what? There are factions that are actively moving to make sure that doesn't happen. As it turns out, many believe that we need to be so cautious that even if we could get in a rocket tomorrow and go to M…

I agree with you. This kind of stuff makes me kind of hope we don't find any signs of life on Mars. Hopefully at that point there would be nothing to protect from contamination.

Re: NASA Planetary Protection Policy

#14

Post by DanielBMarkham »

tocomment wrote: post #13
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #11

Just to be clear, all of you geeks out there watching the space travel develop and dreaming of a science-fiction type future where people can visit multiple planets and space travel is common? Paging Elon Musk? Guess what? There are factions that are actively moving to make sure that doesn't happen. As it turns out, many believe that we need to be so cautious that even if we could get in a rocket tomorrow and go to M…

I agree with you. This kind of stuff makes me kind of hope we don't find any signs of life on Mars. Hopefully at that point there would be nothing to protect from contamination.

I agree. But here's the conundrum: how you can you ever be sure there isn't life somewhere? From a logistics and logical standpoint, it's impossible. All you can say is "We haven't found life so far" ADD: And are we saying that separately-evolved strains of life should never have interaction with each other unless we can be sure of all of the consequences? Sure, many of the consequences will be catastrophic, but is it better never to leave home or explore? It makes me very sad to realize than many would say yes, it is.

sigh

Re: NASA Planetary Protection Policy

#15

Post by grecy »

aidenn0 wrote: post #10
grecy wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

uh-huh. To state that another way, some bad-ass aliens come along and decide to terraform Earth to their liking. It turns out they breathe 100% Helium, so they convert Earth's atmosphere to that. How do you feel about terra-forming now?

Helium is an inert gas, so is extremely unlikely to be part of any chemical reaction (much less a bio-chemical reaction like breathing). [edit] Methane or ammonia appear to be much more likely alternative, and no I wouldn't like Earth's atmosphere to be replaced with it. While I'm being a nitpicker Terra-form means roughly "to make like Earth" so it specifically refers to making a planet more like Earth.

OK sure, Helium was a bad choice. Substitute your own.

> While I'm being a nitpicker Terra-form means roughly "to make like Earth"

Substitute whatever word the aliens have that means "to make like home planet" then.

Re: NASA Planetary Protection Policy

#16

Post by pc86 »

fghh45sdfhr3 wrote: post #8
tarice wrote: post #6

This article brings an interesting question to mind - How will we land humans on Mars without contaminating the planet? I mean, Mars's atmosphere is mostly CO2, and bacteria are well-known for their ability to survive in harsh conditions. There may not be life on Mars now, but who's to say there won't be after all the astronauts leave...?

Did we contaminate the moon? I think if we can can put people on Mars, we'll like that more than not contaminating Mars.

The atmosphere of Mars is over 95% CO2[1] which I imagine could support the propagation of bacteria. The Moon doesn't have much of an atmosphere at all (a trillionth of what the Earth has).[2]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_the_Moon

Re: NASA Planetary Protection Policy

#17

Post by alinajaf »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #11

Just to be clear, all of you geeks out there watching the space travel develop and dreaming of a science-fiction type future where people can visit multiple planets and space travel is common? Paging Elon Musk? Guess what? There are factions that are actively moving to make sure that doesn't happen. As it turns out, many believe that we need to be so cautious that even if we could get in a rocket tomorrow and go to M…

Kim Stanley Robisons Mars Trilogy is mostly about this (i.e. 'Mankind is a pestilance' vs. 'We are the consciousness of the universe')

Re: NASA Planetary Protection Policy

#18

Post by politician »

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #4
tocomment wrote: post #2

IMO this kind of stuff is going to be the biggest hurdle to terra-forming someday.

Terraforming is pointless anyway. Space-based habitats are a much more efficient way to expand our living space, and most importantly, when living in one, you don't need to live at the bottom of a gravity well.

To paraphrase someone else, when planet-bound civilizations fall to barbarism, people revert to agrarian societies; when space-based habitats fall to barbarism, everybody dies.

The difference being that maintaining a habitat takes a lot of technology that is constantly kept in working order.

Re: NASA Planetary Protection Policy

#19

Post by wtetzner »

rodly wrote: post #12
tarice wrote: post #6

This article brings an interesting question to mind - How will we land humans on Mars without contaminating the planet? I mean, Mars's atmosphere is mostly CO2, and bacteria are well-known for their ability to survive in harsh conditions. There may not be life on Mars now, but who's to say there won't be after all the astronauts leave...?

Is it wrong to contaminate a space that has no life/use otherwise? I'm not saying Mars as it stands has no use, but if we find no life there, surely spreading life to another planet is "good" right?

Well, we might end up thinking there was life on Mars when we're really the ones that brought it. It might screw with the science.

Re: NASA Planetary Protection Policy

#20

Post by wkdown »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #11

Just to be clear, all of you geeks out there watching the space travel develop and dreaming of a science-fiction type future where people can visit multiple planets and space travel is common? Paging Elon Musk? Guess what? There are factions that are actively moving to make sure that doesn't happen. As it turns out, many believe that we need to be so cautious that even if we could get in a rocket tomorrow and go to M…

I suppose I can understand the argument. I know if/when we find life on another planet or moon (Europa, Titan, etc) that no living matter from Earth should touch that world, for fear of mutating / polluting it. But when it comes to others we either know have no life (Mercury, Jupiter, etc) or most likely don't (Venus, Mars, etc), what is the harm in human exploration or even terraforming attempts?

Even if humans "infected" the whole solar system, how can we spread from there? The Centauri system is the next closest star system [1], most likely without planets there, and is over 4ly away. That's roughly 25 trillion miles away. If we could travel at the same speed as New Horizons (36,373mph) [2], it would still take 77.5 thousand YEARS to get there. [3]

We are not gonna pollute the universe and its a silly to think ourselves capable of such a feat.

[1] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Near-star...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Horizons

[3] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=time+to+travel+24.7+tri...

Post reply on HN