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

21–30 of 56 posts

Re: NASA Planetary Protection Policy

#21

Post by api »

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've come to the deep conviction that both the "right" and the "left" -- in their present forms -- are impediments to virtually all progress and must be destroyed.

Re: NASA Planetary Protection Policy

#22

Post by rodly »

wtetzner wrote: post #19
rodly wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That burden is on us though. Assume we've taken the proper precautions, searched high and low on Mars, and can definitively say no life currently exists in any form on Mars. What does that make Mars?

- A useful resource for studying terrestrial planets - A geologists dream land - A lifeless rock that will likely never host life unless terraformed - A useful resource for spreading life; extending the Human race's finite time in the Universe

I'm not very educated on the ethics of this topic so I'm looking for reasons you would want to leave Mars be indefinitely.

Re: NASA Planetary Protection Policy

#24

Post by pavel_lishin »

wkdown wrote: post #20
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 "inf…

The worry isn't about "polluting the universe", it's about contaminating what's basically a big scientific petri dish - Mars. If we start tossing buckets of sludge out there, determining whether there was ever any native life becomes significantly more difficult.

"There are elements trying to keep us from spreading throughout the universe" sounds incredibly paranoid.

Re: NASA Planetary Protection Policy

#25

Post by pavel_lishin »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #14
tocomment wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

> how you can you ever be sure there isn't life somewhere?

You can't. You establish a given threshold, after which it's no longer reasonable to maintain a quarantine.

Re: NASA Planetary Protection Policy

#26

Post by bretthoerner »

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...?

http://planetaryprotection.nasa.gov/

Re: NASA Planetary Protection Policy

#27

Post by colkassad »

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…

>Guess what? There are factions that are actively moving to make sure that doesn't happen.

Do you have any examples? This is interesting. Reminds me of the Mars trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson.

Re: NASA Planetary Protection Policy

#28

Post by pavel_lishin »

grecy wrote: post #3
tocomment wrote: post #2

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

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?

Are you comparing killing off a whole world's worth of sentient humans with killing off some potential bacteria on Mars?

Re: NASA Planetary Protection Policy

#29

Post by wtetzner »

rodly wrote: post #22
wtetzner wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That burden is on us though. Assume we've taken the proper precautions, searched high and low on Mars, and can definitively say no life currently exists in any form on Mars. What does that make Mars? - A useful resource for studying terrestrial planets - A geologists dream land - A lifeless rock that will likely never host life unless terraformed - A useful resource for spreading life; extending the Human race's fini…

I don't disagree with you, I was just trying to come up with a reason we might not want to contaminate it.

If there's no life on Mars, I don't see any obvious ethical problems with introducing life to it.

I mean, I guess maybe if it there was some reason it would be bad for the life forms, versus being bad for Mars.

Re: NASA Planetary Protection Policy

#30

Post by sp332 »

bretthoerner wrote: post #26
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...?

http://planetaryprotection.nasa.gov/

Well, that's the theory. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45511362/ns/technology_and_scien...
Post reply on HN