The possibility and ethics of contaminating Mars. (Split from SpaceX.)

[SunlitZelkova]

5 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Unsure whether they will do it via Starship+ISRU or something else. Starship could deploy a MAV via crane readily enough.

Wouldn’t using Starship itself be ruled out? They can’t sterilize it.

In fact, if Starship does get to Mars before any MSR mission (Tianwen-2 or the NASA-ESA one) won’t that basically screw over the search for life on Mars?

That said though, you would think they would do their own MSR mission first, or do one for someone else (as armchair space company CEO as that sounds).

[StrandedonEarth]

10 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

In fact, if Starship does get to Mars before any MSR mission (Tianwen-2 or the NASA-ESA one) won’t that basically screw over the search for life on Mars?

Land on the other side of Mars from the MSR mission?

[SunlitZelkova]

17 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Land on the other side of Mars from the MSR mission?

Any contamination is unacceptable. If it turns out there is extant life on Mars, they would potentially end up killing it all with Earth organisms before follow up studies can be conducted.

[SpaceFace545]

42 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Wouldn’t using Starship itself be ruled out? They can’t sterilize it.

You know this is a very good point that I haven't heard at all before. 

Other lander architectures such as MADV are relatively normal sized so they can be placed into a clean room and properly cleaned and heck they may fit in some outsize fairing. But something like this happening to anything the size of starship is small.

[tater]

Once human missions are on the table, that's entirely out the window, anyway.

 

[SunlitZelkova]

27 minutes ago, tater said:

Once human missions are on the table, that's entirely out the window, anyway.

 

That’s the entire point of MSR.

NASA has a specific policy of not moving forward with a crewed Mars program until MSR happens. CNSA presumably has a similar policy (their MSR mission takes place during the same windows as the NASA-ESA one) while Roscosmos and the other agencies likely are incapable of doing a crewed Mars mission on their own.

Now if life is found to still be extent on Mars, that isn’t going to automatically rule out crewed exploration, but a proper discussion amongst the international scientific community should (and probably will be) held to decide what to do.

Not only for loss of potential discoveries, but also due to ethical reasons, it would be pretty disappointing if SpaceX ruined that. They don’t need to stop developing Starship, they just need to wait until MSR is complete or do it themselves before flying one to Mars.

Edited December 21, 2021 by SunlitZelkova

[tater]

3 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Not only for loss of potential discoveries, but also due to ethical reasons, it would be pretty disappointing if SpaceX ruined that. They don’t need to stop developing Starship, they just need to wait until MSR is complete or do it themselves before flying one to Mars.

If they wait for NASA/etc, we'll all be dead before it happens.

I personally see no ethical issue at all, there is certainly nothing there past maybe microorganisms. It's an incredibly interesting scientific question, however.

As for SS, didn't an early Soviet orbiter impact Mars instead of orbiting? That ship might have already sailed (not to mention any imperfections in keeping landers clean).

[CatastrophicFailure]

4 minutes ago, tater said:

If they wait for NASA/etc, we'll all be dead before it happens.

I personally see no ethical issue at all, there is certainly nothing there past maybe microorganisms. It's an incredibly interesting scientific question, however.

As for SS, didn't an early Soviet orbiter impact Mars instead of orbiting? That ship might have already sailed (not to mention any imperfections in keeping landers clean).

There’s Mars Climate Observer, which burned up in the at atmosphere, tho bits could have possibly survived. 
 

All in all seems an extremely low risk to me, odds of extant life on Mars + odds of something actually (not potentially) surviving launch, cruise, EDL, + odds of establishing on Mars…

[tater]

This is a real tangent, but they have to kill any spores with heat/radiation that exceeds the space environment, then completely prevent contamination, even under the fairing, after the umbilical drop (presumably they filter the air, and keep it + pressure?). We know martian rock has impacted Earth, and while the impacts have to be substantially larger to throw ejecta to Mars from Earth;s deeper gravity well, presumably this has happened, anyway.

MSR is a great mission (should have happened ages ago), but from a "rule out life" standpoint, I imagine they would want more than a few geographically* isolated samples. (*do we need a generic word or leave the "geo")

[sevenperforce]

To be honest, I am exactly as concerned about contamination of investigation of past life as I am about contamination of existing life.

Manifest destiny and all.
 

[SunlitZelkova]

4 hours ago, tater said:

If they wait for NASA/etc, we'll all be dead before it happens.

I personally see no ethical issue at all, there is certainly nothing there past maybe microorganisms. It's an incredibly interesting scientific question, however.

As for SS, didn't an early Soviet orbiter impact Mars instead of orbiting? That ship might have already sailed (not to mention any imperfections in keeping landers clean).

Even if NASA were to take until 2040 to launch their sample return mission, and something happened with CNSA's mission, as I mentioned earlier, SpaceX can do it themselves.

The ethical issue is in that they are ignoring the views of others, resulting in an irreversible consequence. It is hard to be inspired by SpaceX if they are literally just going to be your average corporation unconcerned with other's opinions. Dubious real estate claims are one thing to ignore, but scientists wishes to preserve the Martian environment are completely valid and should be respected.

No, all Soviet craft that malfunctioned and failed to reach Mars successfully were either flyby probes or lander-orbiter combinations, the latter of which was obviously sterilized, and the former of which none impacted the planet.

4 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

All in all seems an extremely low risk to me, odds of extant life on Mars + odds of something actually (not potentially) surviving launch, cruise, EDL, + odds of establishing on Mars…

The point is though that others are concerned about it- not just random SpaceX haters, actual scientists interested in studying past or present life on Mars- and thus their concerns should be taken into account.

2 hours ago, tater said:

We know martian rock has impacted Earth, and while the impacts have to be substantially larger to throw ejecta to Mars from Earth;s deeper gravity well, presumably this has happened, anyway.

It isn't about no Earth life organisms at all, it is about preserving the Martian environment as is, at least long enough to see if anything is there.

Interestingly, in this scenario, contamination wouldn't matter because we are able to date fossils of Earth organisms.

But, the possibility is still there for extant life (no matter how low) and native Martian life. No matter how low the probability is, it is still something that merits investigation.

2 hours ago, tater said:

MSR is a great mission (should have happened ages ago), but from a "rule out life" standpoint, I imagine they would want more than a few geographically* isolated samples. (*do we need a generic word or leave the "geo")

I have never heard the term "areographic", and that may not actually be a word, but it does sound cool.

[Piscator]

5 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Any contamination is unacceptable. If it turns out there is extant life on Mars, they would potentially end up killing it all with Earth organisms before follow up studies can be conducted.

Is it really considered likely that some random Earth germ that evolved under Earth conditions would somehow be able to outcompete native Martian organisms that lived and evolved there for millions of years? It's not like introducing rats to some remote Pacific island, it's like introducing rats to the middle of Antarctica.

Contamination would certainly make the identification of native Martians a lot harder though.

[RCgothic]

I've got little patience for planetary protection concerns standing in the way of crewed exploration. I want to see us advancing beyond Earth in my lifetime. 

Even if there is Martian life, it's not likely to be on the surface. The best way to find it is with human explorers. And once you have access to a proper lab, either in a local colony or by sample return, false positives are much less of a big deal.

Delaying our expansion into the cosmos just in case we might disturb something that probably isn't there or is only there as a result of earthly diaspora risks human colonies never getting off world at all.

[Flavio hc16]

35 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

I've got little patience for planetary protection concerns standing in the way of crewed exploration. I want to see us advancing beyond Earth in my lifetime. 

Even if there is Martian life, it's not likely to be on the surface. The best way to find it is with human explorers. And once you have access to a proper lab, either in a local colony or by sample return, false positives are much less of a big deal.

Delaying our expansion into the cosmos just in case we might disturb something that probably isn't there or is only there as a result of earthly diaspora risks human colonies never getting off world at all.

this, so much this, we have too much to loose form not becoming a multiplanetary species

[SunlitZelkova]

44 minutes ago, Piscator said:

Is it really considered likely that some random Earth germ that evolved under Earth conditions would somehow be able to outcompete native Martian organisms that lived and evolved there for millions of years? It's not like introducing rats to some remote Pacific island, it's like introducing rats to the middle of Antarctica.

Contamination would certainly make the identification of native Martians a lot harder though.

No. But it is a possibility.

If we were just going based on probability, the study of life on Mars as a whole is convoluted and the instruments installed on various past spacecraft have been a tremendous waste of time and money.

37 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

I've got little patience for planetary protection concerns standing in the way of crewed exploration. I want to see us advancing beyond Earth in my lifetime. 

Even if there is Martian life, it's not likely to be on the surface. The best way to find it is with human explorers. And once you have access to a proper lab, either in a local colony or by sample return, false positives are much less of a big deal.

Delaying our expansion into the cosmos just in case we might disturb something that probably isn't there or is only there as a result of earthly diaspora risks human colonies never getting off world at all.

Again though, none of that is what I (nor many others interested in searching for life on Mars) am suggesting. SpaceX and Musk could very easily do an MSR mission on their own dime with little delay to their schedule. Starship development need not be halted, and once the samples come back, even if there does turn out to be extant life on Mars, it won't automatically rule out human exploration- but the scientific community and the public deserve the right to discuss what steps should be taken.

Edited December 21, 2021 by SunlitZelkova

[Rakaydos]

You just know that the first Mars landing testbed will be literally shrink-wrapped on the launchpad, sterelized, launched, and cut free in orbit 

[mikegarrison]

The thing is, if there is no life on Mars, we learn very little about the origins of life.

If there *is* life on Mars, we potentially learn a great deal about the origins of life. Because if it is related to life on Earth, we can be fairly confident that both planets were seeded from outside. (Note, I am not trying to imply that they would have been seeded by some intentional entity.) And if the life we find is unrelated to life on Earth, then it drastically increases the odds that life developed without a seed on both planets. AND that life is common. (There is a third option -- life developed on one of the two planets and then spread to the other, via the same mechanism that brings Martian meteorites to Earth.)

All this information goes out the window as soon as we contaminate the planet with Earth-based life.

[Rakaydos]

1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

The thing is, if there is no life on Mars, we learn very little about the origins of life.

If there *is* life on Mars, we potentially learn a great deal about the origins of life. Because if it is related to life on Earth, we can be fairly confident that both planets were seeded from outside. (Note, I am not trying to imply that they would have been seeded by some intentional entity.) And if the life we find is unrelated to life on Earth, then it drastically increases the odds that life developed without a seed on both planets. AND that life is common. (There is a third option -- life developed on one of the two planets and then spread to the other, via the same mechanism that brings Martian meteorites to Earth.)

All this information goes out the window as soon as we contaminate the planet with Earth-based life.

Not really, if we find a strain of bacteria eerily similar to one found in the environs of JPL, Kennedy, Baikonur, or Boca Chica, we can be confident that it's not a martian strain. Genetics research can easilly tell if life diverged millions of years ago, or decades ago.

Edited December 21, 2021 by Rakaydos

[tater]

6 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

The point is though that others are concerned about it- not just random SpaceX haters, actual scientists interested in studying past or present life on Mars- and thus their concerns should be taken into account.

Taken into account doesn't mean they get a veto, however. I have concerns about all kinds of things, that doesn't stop people/governments/corporations/etc doing them.

 

4 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

The thing is, if there is no life on Mars, we learn very little about the origins of life.

If there *is* life on Mars, we potentially learn a great deal about the origins of life. Because if it is related to life on Earth, we can be fairly confident that both planets were seeded from outside. (Note, I am not trying to imply that they would have been seeded by some intentional entity.) And if the life we find is unrelated to life on Earth, then it drastically increases the odds that life developed without a seed on both planets. AND that life is common. (There is a third option -- life developed on one of the two planets and then spread to the other, via the same mechanism that brings Martian meteorites to Earth.)

All this information goes out the window as soon as we contaminate the planet with Earth-based life.

In the case of biochemically similar life being found on Mars, panspermia could be that life evolved elsewhere, then was seeded both planets, or it could have evolved on Mars, then was seeded to Earth, OR it could have evolved here, and was seeded to Mars. Of course full sequencing of genomes would give a pretty reasonable idea of when the divergence happened, which could tell us a lot about the order of events.

A single set of samples taken from some X km² zone around where a MSR mission lands will not possibly rule out life. It could rule it out there. Heck, not even there, there, within the sample taking parameters (soil depth sampled, location (surface, vs in a crack/cave, etc)). Would-be exobiologists will not see the results from a single MSR, and change their minds, they will want more such missions.

"You can't send Starship, there might be life under any rock we have not yet turned over! You can go after all the rocks are turned over!" (clearly an exaggeration/joke, but you all get the idea) (PS—I recall there being a faction like this in the Kim Stanley Robinson books if I am not mistaken)

Also, I should add that any related life found on Mars MIGHT be some sort of prehistorical panspermia, or it might well be historical panspermia—from an insufficiently sterilized robot/orbiter. If we can tell (gene sequencing), then it sort of doesn't matter, since we could tell once people are there, too (as @Rakaydos says).

Edited December 21, 2021 by tater

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

I suspect the fear of earth microbes affecting Mars (et.al.) and vice versa is one of those 'overly cautious' things.  NASA unveils new rules to protect the moon and Mars from Earth germs | Space

At least at this point: there's too few and too little contact between Earth and other places for it to be likely.  Basically a tiny community of source bacteria would have to find a ready and waiting environment that it could exploit, and where applicable, out-compete the already existing microbes to establish itself.  I'm not sure that microbes on the surface of the earth have anything to worry about from microbes brought up from the lightless depths of our oceans (volcanic vents), much less from Mars (of course, should I be wrong in this assumption, bad things could happen... I get it).  But drag   pyrococcus furiousus up from the depths and scatter it about the land... and what you'll get is a bunch of poisoned microbes. 

My reading of panspermia's best guess is that massive amounts of seed material fell into the proto-earth and other planets likely in the form of cometary bombardment - where the dice were rolled often enough that atmospheric breakup allowed the biotics to rain down (without burning up) and find water.  Those that could, survived then thrived.  The 'chunk of Mars' hits Earth scenario could, possibly, bring microbes from one planet to another - but something evolved to survive Mars climate might find Earth microbes fairly aggressive and the environment not very welcoming.  But that's the risk, isn't it?  The Mars adapted microbes might be so freaking tough that once in the soft lands of Earth they out-compete whatever they find.

Point of this ramble: I think we shouldn't be inordinately cautious about contaminating Mars - and only reasonably cautious about bringing stuff back here.

Edited December 21, 2021 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[CatastrophicFailure]

9 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

The point is though that others are concerned about it- not just random SpaceX haters, actual scientists interested in studying past or present life on Mars- and thus their concerns should be taken into account.

Right. But the question is, exactly how much risk of ruining the scientific process actually exists? I'm asking. We agree that it's non-zero, right? Ok, there is a nonzero risk that I'll be struck by lightning when I go outside to feed the chickens. Now, obviously that risk is so exceedingly low that it doesn't warrant that I take any special precautions. So what is the real risk here? The risk of life on Mars AND the risk of a bug on the ship AND the risk of surviving the trip AND landing in the right place AND being compatible with the environment and so on, and so on. That all seems like an extremely low risk to me. And that's assuming SpaceX somehow intentionally blunders into the worst possible place right off the bat, which itself is unlikely. There's all sorts of measures they could take, and likely will, short of waiting on sample returns, in order to further reduce that risk.

Those sample returns are a risk, too, especially if the results come back inconclusive, or worse, negative for life. Because in either case there will always be someone arguing "we can't do things yet, there might still be life and we just haven't found it yet." 

I think Tater said, that the best way to actually find evidence of life on Mars is to get boots (and a proper lab) on the ground and go looking for it. Or, more likely, randomly blunder into the right place after years of living there and searching.

7 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

If there *is* life on Mars, we potentially learn a great deal about the origins of life

Here's also the thing, if there is/was life on Mars, there almost certainly is/was life everywhere it's even remotely possible. Europa, Enceladus, Titan, heck, the Moon... if life is just one other place it's likely to be freaking everywhere, just like it is on Earth. So even if (and that's a very big if) the Martian biosphere is somehow compromised, it's less destroying an entire world and more stepping on a single plant. That is, unfortunate, but not of the gravity some would make it out to be. That's no excuse to go barreling through the cosmos strip-mining everything as we go along just for the lulz, but neither is it a valid reason to just sit here on our thumbs with analysis paralysis. 

 

And, of course, this is all assuming Martian life is life as we know it, and not something so entirely alien that we've been looking right at it this whole time without recognizing it. 

there's a reason The Face looks so done with our crap... 

[mikegarrison]

I understand that we won't resolve these questions on a game forum. But  all the arguments being made for why we just have to rush to Mars and establish a colony right away are pretty much the same reasons people have always given for why they need to cut down forests, strip mine mountains, kill all the whales, etc. etc.

It's usually only afterward that people start to say, "You know, maybe we shouldn't have done that."

[NFUN]

12 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Here's also the thing, if there is/was life on Mars, there almost certainly is/was life everywhere it's even remotely possible. Europa, Enceladus, Titan, heck, the Moon... if life is just one other place it's likely to be freaking everywhere, just like it is on Earth. So even if (and that's a very big if) the Martian biosphere is somehow compromised, it's less destroying an entire world and more stepping on a single plant. That is, unfortunate, but not of the gravity some would make it out to be. That's no excuse to go barreling through the cosmos strip-mining everything as we go along just for the lulz, but neither is it a valid reason to just sit here on our thumbs with analysis paralysis. 

 

And, of course, this is all assuming Martian life is life as we know it, and not something so entirely alien that we've been looking right at it this whole time without recognizing it. 

there's a reason The Face looks so done with our crap... 

If there is/was life on Mars, it likely just tells us that there was life on Earth and Mars. No other body is really comparable except maybe ancient Venus, and even that is unlikely. Maybe you could get a little more optimistic if you could be sure that life evolved independently, but it's still not too much better than the data point of one that we have unless it's completely different somehow. Only Titan would really tell us with confidence that life is almost assuredly common in the universe, since it'd be by necessity reliant on a totally alien biochemistry and we'd know both that it had unique origins and that there are multiple pathways to life.

[MKI]

3 hours ago, NFUN said:

If there is/was life on Mars, it likely just tells us that there was life on Earth and Mars. No other body is really comparable except maybe ancient Venus, and even that is unlikely. Maybe you could get a little more optimistic if you could be sure that life evolved independently, but it's still not too much better than the data point of one that we have unless it's completely different somehow. Only Titan would really tell us with confidence that life is almost assuredly common in the universe, since it'd be by necessity reliant on a totally alien biochemistry and we'd know both that it had unique origins and that there are multiple pathways to life.

I lean on the premise that if life is found elsewhere in the solar system, its everywhere. 

The great filter has to be somewhere, if we find a bunch of simple life somewhere like Mars that must mean life must find a way always. 

Earth isn't only 1 data-point, its multiple. There are plenty of "alien worlds" on Earth where life thrives. From the crushing depths of the ocean next to hot vents, to freezing temperatures miles under ice, to the outside of the ISS miles up in space. Life always finds a way, even in the most extreme places. Who is to say "Mars is too extreme", or "Titan is too extreme"?

If life can get a foothold next door to Earth, on Mars, then it would be vastly more surprising to find there is no life elsewhere in the Solar System.

If basic life is everywhere, I'd be happy. It means we are past the great filter, and the universe is for humanities taking!!! BAHAHAHAA!

 

Edited December 21, 2021 by MKI

[tater]

23 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

It's usually only afterward that people start to say, "You know, maybe we shouldn't have done that."

Absolutely. I think the issue is that having some sort of end-game for restrictions matters (in all things). A single sample return will sample a few grams or maybe kgs of the surface to X cm depth of some vanishingly small region of Mars. What % of the surface of Mars needs to be investigated to say, "OK, the risk of spoiling something scientifically very interesting is too low to be concerned about."?

It strikes me that one sample return (or surface mission explicitly designed to detect life in situ) will only provide useful data for this decision if it comes back positive. Any negative result kicks the can.

 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2021 by tater