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

[Meecrob]

This is a very interesting debate with regards to contaminating Mars.  On the one had, I agree that we should do anything within reason to preserve the environment as it is, especially if we can get some good quality samples that only delay further exploration by a transfer window or two, but on the other hand I have this thought deep in the recesses of my brain that this scenario is similar to quantum physics. As in no matter what we do, the simple act of observation will force an outcome, no matter how we carry out our observations (i.e. robotic, human, etc).

[tater]

55 minutes ago, Meecrob said:

This is a very interesting debate with regards to contaminating Mars.  On the one had, I agree that we should do anything within reason to preserve the environment as it is, especially if we can get some good quality samples that only delay further exploration by a transfer window or two, but on the other hand I have this thought deep in the recesses of my brain that this scenario is similar to quantum physics. As in no matter what we do, the simple act of observation will force an outcome, no matter how we carry out our observations (i.e. robotic, human, etc).

It's extremely likely a nonzero number of spores have already been put on the surface by spacecraft. If "any contamination" is a problem, then it's too late.

My gut says that taking reasonable precautions with human landings is fine. The brief mission durations (not 1-way) are ~40 days on the surface for opposition missions, and ~550 for conjunction. The latter give a lot of time to really explore an area, and seek out life with the best chances to find something in that area. If any trash is to be left, seal it in an impermeable container and leave that (vs chucking bags out the door as they did on the Moon). Make every effort to prevent contamination (easier with a huge craft like SS, since people will not be living with their spacesuits, etc, they are removed on the airlock deck, etc).

Have the tests for life ready to go, and contingency samples from near the landing site are immediately tested/examined. Any positive result and discussions can happen (with people back on Earth) about the implications.

Precursor mission(s) without crew could disperse a few reentry vehicles with mini rovers, or even things more like Insight that could look on the ground where they land, even trying the polar regions, canyon bottoms, etc. Many of them, and cheap—they can be properly sterilized. yeah, the one SS lands, but any contamination would be limited to that landing site, and honestly, the outside of the spacecraft is pretty unconcerning I would think after months in space (rotate the vehicle to expose all sides to XXX hours of radiation), plus a high energy EDL the outside is not an issue. If any of the probes come back +, then they reevaluate. All this is at least 2 years before crew.

Edited December 21, 2021 by tater

[NFUN]

51 minutes ago, MKI said:

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 even 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!

 

Earth is one data point, and the question isn't "is it too extreme for life to exist? ", it's "is it hospitable to life developing in the first place?". We already know life is tenacious, and if we only cared about whether it could survive on Mars, we wouldn't be worried about contamination. If Mars has life that came from Earth, that says nothing. If Mars has life that didn't come from Earth, that says life perhaps readily forms on Earth-like planets. It does not say that life can form under miles of ice or in a non-polar environment; may as well say life can live on the Sun with your logic

[Elthy]

1 hour ago, MKI said:

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!

You got that the wrong way. If basic life is everywhere it means the great filter must lie beyond that, increasing the chances its still ahead of us...

[MKI]

1 hour ago, Elthy said:

You got that the wrong way. If basic life is everywhere it means the great filter must lie beyond that, increasing the chances its still ahead of us...

 

If most of what we find is basic life, and never find intelligent life (assuming we are intelligent) then the scales tilt toward we are past the great filter. 

Your right in that if basic life is everywhere the filter must lie beyond it, but it also provides more evidence that to get from basic life to where we are is much harder, as we are less common. 

With large amounts of basic life around everywhere doesn't automatically remove the possibility the filter is still ahead of us, but I do believe it tilts the scales in our favor. 

 

2 hours ago, NFUN said:

Earth is one data point, and the question isn't "is it too extreme for life to exist? ", it's "is it hospitable to life developing in the first place?".

Life could always hitch a ride via Panspermia events. 

2 hours ago, NFUN said:

It does not say that life can form under miles of ice or in a non-polar environment; may as well say life can live on the Sun with your logic

Life as we know it can't exist on the sun, but life in some form could still exist on/in/around the Sun. 

You say life is tenacious, but the Universe is also painting with a very wide canvas across incredible timescales. Who is to say life as we know it can only handle what we've seen? Because we haven't seen much. 

[NFUN]

1 hour ago, MKI said:

If most of what we find is basic life, and never find intelligent life (assuming we are intelligent) then the scales tilt toward we are past the great filter. 

Your right in that if basic life is everywhere the filter must lie beyond it, but it also provides more evidence that to get from basic life to where we are is much harder, as we are less common. 

With large amounts of basic life around everywhere doesn't automatically remove the possibility the filter is still ahead of us, but I do believe it tilts the scales in our favor.

If most of what we find is basic life, we don't know if we can't find intelligent life because the filter is that it's difficult to develop or if it's that intelligent life blows itself up eventually after getting the technology to do so. Merely finding basic life everywhere means the filter lies after the development of life; you're making a huge unfounded and unvoiced assumption to say otherwise

 

1 hour ago, MKI said:

Life could always hitch a ride via Panspermia events.

And if this happened with Mars, we're back to a datapoint of one and have no more idea of how common life is than we do now, which was exactly my point. If we find life on Europa, suddenly a single biogenesis event in the solar system looks much less likely. If we find life on Titan, it's impossible.

 

1 hour ago, MKI said:

Life as we know it can't exist on the sun, but life in some form could still exist on/in/around the Sun. 

You say life is tenacious, but the Universe is also painting with a very wide canvas across incredible timescales. Who is to say life as we know it can only handle what we've seen? Because we haven't seen much. 

You again heroically missed my point. If we find life on Mars, life as we know it is still likely life as we know it. You have to see that it'd be insane to posit that life on Mars is evidence that there'd be life on the Sun, and it'd be nearly as crazy to say it's evidence of life on Titan. To say it exists in either place now is pure speculation, and life as we know it absolutely could not survive on Titan.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Quote

But psychrophilic bacteria actually grow faster at cold temperatures than they would at room temperature."

Quote

"To figure out which bacteria were consuming methane, ethane, and propane, we used a technique called stable isotope probing,

Quote

 

The bacteria that consumed the ethane and propane were the same Colwellia in the samples from May and June, when ethane and propane consumption rates were high. They were abundant when the researchers incubated oil at 40 F, but not at room temperature.

This suggests, say Valentine and Redmond, that the Colwellia grow well at low temperatures, and can consume ethane and propane.

"The ability of oil-eating bacteria to grow with natural gas as their 'foodstuff' is important," said Valentine, "because these bacteria may have reached high numbers by eating the more-abundant gas, then turned their attention to other components of the oil.

"We've uncovered some of the relationships between hydrocarbons released from Deepwater Horizon and the bacteria that responded," he said.

 

Scientists identify microbes responsible for | EurekAlert!

 

 

...Life is weird.  If it can overcome the cold, perhaps it can eat the crud found on Titan.

 

[Jacke]

6 hours ago, MKI said:

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.

 

Well, no.  Life arose on Earth where that was relatively easy.  It later got into several of those extreme environments by evolving its way there.  With many many mutations.

And if tektites from Earth transported Earth life to somewhere else, that's not independent creation of life.  That's Earth life in one form being tough enough to get transported that way to another location where it could survive.  Just an extension of the previous paragraph's case.

And it appears life of the bacterial nature arose relatively quickly on Earth, within a billion years.  But complex life, eukaryotes, took much longer and are likely to have been more a case of luck.

Sure, extraterrestrial life similar to bacteria may be common.  Anything else may not be at all.

[SunlitZelkova]

10 hours ago, tater said:

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.

Yes, this is as I said earlier. Even if some evidence pointing to life or life itself was discovered, it won't automatically rule out human exploration. Proper discussion should be held on what should be done, not one side automatically getting its way.

7 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

That all seems like an extremely low risk to me.

It is. But to many, it is a risk worth taking precautions against.

That is not to say they should automatically get their way on everything (see below).

7 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

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."

While this may be an issue, it is not what I am arguing in favor of.

"Everybody else" (NASA, ESA, Roscosmos, CNSA, JAXA, etc.) basically has a policy in which *a* (single) MSR mission shall be flown prior to starting a crewed exploration program. Not "if we don't find anything keep flying MSR missions until we can conclusively say there is no life". One mission.

I believe if SpaceX plans on going ahead of them, and are unable to properly sterilize Starship, they should fly their own MSR mission prior to attempting to land Starship on Mars. As said above, the risk is indeed low, but it is enough that precautions are taken against it. SpaceX should respect this, not only as they supposedly value science, but also as this is just a courteous thing to do as human beings.

If this SpaceX MSR mission comes back negative or inconclusive, then in accordance with "everybody else's" policy, SpaceX can go ahead and fly Starships to Mars (with a landing). Although people are free to argue against that, as this was not their position prior to the results coming back from the MSR mission, it is completely fine for SpaceX to go ahead with their plans despite opposition.

But flying them now would blatantly ignore the already existing plans of many scientists and space agencies. Their plans don't have to come into conflict with SpaceX's. I am not suggesting SpaceX wait until governments get funding for their own MSR missions. SpaceX can do their own whilst not significantly delaying their own program.

6 hours ago, tater said:

It's extremely likely a nonzero number of spores have already been put on the surface by spacecraft. If "any contamination" is a problem, then it's too late.

My gut says that taking reasonable precautions with human landings is fine. The brief mission durations (not 1-way) are ~40 days on the surface for opposition missions, and ~550 for conjunction. The latter give a lot of time to really explore an area, and seek out life with the best chances to find something in that area. If any trash is to be left, seal it in an impermeable container and leave that (vs chucking bags out the door as they did on the Moon). Make every effort to prevent contamination (easier with a huge craft like SS, since people will not be living with their spacesuits, etc, they are removed on the airlock deck, etc).

Have the tests for life ready to go, and contingency samples from near the landing site are immediately tested/examined. Any positive result and discussions can happen (with people back on Earth) about the implications.

Precursor mission(s) without crew could disperse a few reentry vehicles with mini rovers, or even things more like Insight that could look on the ground where they land, even trying the polar regions, canyon bottoms, etc. Many of them, and cheap—they can be properly sterilized. yeah, the one SS lands, but any contamination would be limited to that landing site, and honestly, the outside of the spacecraft is pretty unconcerning I would think after months in space (rotate the vehicle to expose all sides to XXX hours of radiation), plus a high energy EDL the outside is not an issue. If any of the probes come back +, then they reevaluate. All this is at least 2 years before crew.

I think we are both biased by our thoughts surrounding crewed Mars exploration.

I do not find "immediate" crewed exploration to be necessary, and am interested in the study of whether life ever existed there or not, and therefore am inclined to feel that the risk, however low, merits precautions.

You, if I recall correctly, have basically made statements to the effect that you desire to see humans on Mars as soon as possible, and thus would be inclined to feel that the risk is low enough that it does not merit major precautions, at least not the ones those "on the side" of seemingly more drastic precautions are.

If one is to ask someone interested in crewed exploration whether the risk is there, they shall be told no, if one is to ask someone someone more interested in the science itself rather than the concept of people on Mars, they shall be told "yes".

This creates a dilemma of what is "right", what constitutes obstructing other's plans they have a right to execute, etc.

As stated above, all I am suggesting is a single MSR mission prior to an attempt at landing Starship on Mars. This is in line with the policies of various space agencies, agreed with by astrobiologists and most (some?) planetary protection advocates.

The risk is indeed low, but it is seen as worth meriting taking precautions by many. Taking "the precaution" (MSR) would not drastically delay SpaceX's plans.

[tater]

17 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

You, if I recall correctly, have basically made statements to the effect that you desire to see humans on Mars as soon as possible, and thus would be inclined to feel that the risk is low enough that it does not merit major precautions, at least not the ones those "on the side" of seemingly more drastic precautions are.

I'm in the camp that doesn't understand colonization as a goal, but sure, I'd send humans to Mars the instant it was possible/safe. If Starship was good to go, the next synod is fine with me. Take reasonable precautions to avoid contamination (which is all the space treaty requires).

Waiting for some other mission to happen first? Meh, seem pointless to me.

17 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

The risk is indeed low, but it is seen as worth meriting taking precautions by many. Taking "the precaution" (MSR) would not drastically delay SpaceX's plans.

Again, if there is to be a sample return, or in situ testing requirement—what are the exact requirements? What % of the surface (meaning total area, actual samples might well be below ground) needs to be surveyed to rule out life and allow landing? If a single MSR is the threshold, then the requirement is clearly a joke and performative unless the science community actually thinks that X random samples within a small land area are sufficient to rule out life on an entire planet—X in this case is likely a single digit number of samples of a few grams.

 

Edited December 22, 2021 by tater

[NFUN]

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Scientists identify microbes responsible for | EurekAlert!

 

 

...Life is weird.  If it can overcome the cold, perhaps it can eat the crud found on Titan.

 

The "cold" here is above freezing, and they use hydrocarbons are food; they didn't base their entire biochemistry on them. There is a big big big big big big big difference between that and living on Titan. It's like pointing out that some people can hold their breath for ten minutes, so maybe with enough training they could live on the Moon.

[tater]

Do any Atacama desert samples not have life?

[NFUN]

1 minute ago, tater said:

Do any Atacama desert samples not have life?

There are some areas where it's negligible to non-existent IIRC, as well as parts of the McMurdo dry valleys

[SunlitZelkova]

20 minutes ago, tater said:

Again, if there is to be a sample return, or in situ testing requirement—what are the exact requirements? What % of the surface (meaning total area, actual samples might well be below ground) needs to be surveyed to rule out life and allow landing? If a single MSR is the threshold, then the requirement is clearly a joke and performative unless the science community actually thinks that X random samples within a small land area are sufficient to rule out life on an entire planet—X in this case is likely a single digit number of samples of a few grams.

It is not about "ruling out life" as I will go over below, but prior to that-

It is not about whether it actually is per say so much as whether a large portion of the scientific community thinks it is.

That sounds ludicrous at first, but these aren't just random people with a strong opinion, they are astrobiologists, physicists, etc. And certainly various nations have not spent precious funding on planetary protection (sterilization of spacecraft) while being strung along by some boogieman with an irrational fear.

MSR, at least as the concept currently exists at NASA-ESA and CNSA, is not about "ruling out life". It is the next step in the study of potential life on Mars while preserving the environment to the greatest extent possible. If evidence is inconclusive or not found at all, it doesn't "rule out life", the search will continue, likely through human explorers. There is obviously a risk in that, but if MSR does not yield the results we are looking for, that would be the next step forward.

[Meecrob]

7 hours ago, tater said:

It's extremely likely a nonzero number of spores have already been put on the surface by spacecraft. If "any contamination" is a problem, then it's too late.

Very close to what I was thinking. I'm worried that it might be a scenario in which the method of contamination is an unknown unknown to us, and no matter what we do aside from leave Mars alone, we will have the same outcome. Now the question is whether that outcome is "good" or not, and in a way, that is just re-stating the terms of the original question. And the further I go down the rabbit hole, I only get solutions that are paraphrases of the original, so The fairest way could be as crude as a coin toss.

(yeah, DM me, and I'll link you to my dealer, hahaha!)

[RCgothic]

A single sample return mission as a prerequisite for a crewed mission is a joke.

If the sample *does* find life, it's clearly so abundant that there's no particular need to take precautions because samples will be everywhere. Makes sense to send crew to study it.

If it doesn't find evidence, that just means there wasn't any evidence in the one place it looked. Makes sense to send crew who can be more thorough in the search.

And if we're sending crew either way, just send crew.

[Nothalogh]

1 hour ago, RCgothic said:

A single sample return mission as a prerequisite for a crewed mission is a joke.

If the sample *does* find life, it's clearly so abundant that there's no particular need to take precautions because samples will be everywhere. Makes sense to send crew to study it.

If it doesn't find evidence, that just means there wasn't any evidence in the one place it looked. Makes sense to send crew who can be more thorough in the search.

And if we're sending crew either way, just send crew.

It's basically concern trolling, at an institutional level.
And a way for individuals and organizations to make themselves relevant to an endeavor that they have no business being near.

[SunlitZelkova]

4 hours ago, RCgothic said:

If the sample *does* find life, it's clearly so abundant that there's no particular need to take precautions because samples will be everywhere. Makes sense to send crew to study it.

This would be a pure assumption. If extant life were to be found, we would have no way of knowing how widespread it is.

3 hours ago, Nothalogh said:

It's basically concern trolling, at an institutional level.
And a way for individuals and organizations to make themselves relevant to an endeavor that they have no business being near.

This is literally the same logic used by climate change deniers and corporations who wish to get environmentalists off their back.

[mikegarrison]

Basically, I would not volunteer to ride a rocket to Mars until I knew there was a reasonable chance to come back, so I would want an unmanned return mission anyway.

(But yes, I know there are people who signed up to go on a intentionally 1-way expedition to Mars.)

[tater]

26 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

This would be a pure assumption. If extant life were to be found, we would have no way of knowing how widespread it is.

If we samples a handful of spots that were a few cm², in a spot randomly on the planet and found life, it would tell us about the probability as a prior if it came back +.

 

12 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Basically, I would not volunteer to ride a rocket to Mars until I knew there was a reasonable chance to come back, so I would want an unmanned return mission anyway.

(But yes, I know there are people who signed up to go on a intentionally 1-way expedition to Mars.)

Yeah, I think this goes without saying for early missions. The issue with a Starship sample return in this particular case is that it's too big to sterilize, so the spacecraft itself is the source of contamination. Sample return rovers could be sterilized, and brought, however. Any samples taken well away from the SS, and sealed before returning. Maybe the collection probe has the ability to sterilize itself (which they might want anyway, if they want to take multiple samples and know where the one with life actually came from—course all subsequent ones might get contaminated, so you know it was the first one +).

I'd add on the Starship return from Mars... I'd need to see a huge number of them come back from a Mars transfer sort of EDL, getting to Mars and not being dead only means you're halfway

 

[55delta]

I'm wondering if we're not considering something here.

If we can't sterilize the spaceship at launch, why can't we sterilize it while in space? I don't mean depend on space to sterilize, but send out robots or astronauts to take samples, then sterilize the ship while it is between planets?

[MKI]

23 hours ago, NFUN said:

You again heroically missed my point. If we find life on Mars, life as we know it is still likely life as we know it.

I didn't realize the life you were talking about was "life as we know it" sorta life. I assumed it to be at least different enough we'd realize it was different. If its just more of the same life we currently know I'd be more cautions that it wasn't just hitchhikers we brought with us.

Mars isn't exactly a paradise. It also at least provides a secondary model on how life could at least exist within other systems. If it exists in our freezing, radiation baked, backyard, then who is to say our backyard is even unique? Its easy to point to Earth as a paradise, as we live here and thrive. If the range life can exist/live on is Earth from the past and present, and Mars from its past and present, you have a dramatic range of candidates. 

When I say "everywhere" I mean the universe, not the solar system, even though there is a case to be made that there are more "life friendly" areas in the solar system than Mars. (Ice moons anyone?)

 

23 hours ago, NFUN said:

Merely finding basic life everywhere means the filter lies after the development of life; you're making a huge unfounded and unvoiced assumption to say otherwise

You mean the filter lies after the development of "basic" life right? I also assume "basic" life means single celled bacteria. If these are found everywhere, then assuming the odds of the rest of the "filter" are equal, this means the filter is probably behind us. This of course doesn't eliminate the chance that the filter is in front of us, but it would be highly likely that some step from bacteria to us is where the filter is simply due to how many filters are between bacteria and us.

If the filter is still in front of us, that means alien intelligent life is also common. Except AFAIK we haven't even seen us in our area of the galaxy/universe, as we are noticeable enough, even if that means we are only noticeable for short time-scales. It would be incredible if the "last filter" between intelligent life and a noticeable galactic presence really is that difficult, but all the previous filters aren't. Furthermore it also means we can't find any of this intelligent life that is apparently abundant in the universe. 

So if the "filter" is unequally weighted where the last filter is the most difficult to pass, then yes your right. That just means we can't find evidence of intelligent life before it goes intergalactic and or gets snuffed out, since intelligent life should be much easier to find than a bunch of bacteria all over the place. So it just seems highly unlikely. 

 

 

Edited December 23, 2021 by MKI

[SunlitZelkova]

11 hours ago, tater said:

If we samples a handful of spots that were a few cm², in a spot randomly on the planet and found life, it would tell us about the probability as a prior if it came back +.

If we did choose a random spot, that would be true, but basically all MSR missions target areas that potentially had liquid water in the past. Not "average Mars".

An MSR should target such a region, not doing so would be like running a million dollar search for wild tomatoes in Death Valley.

11 hours ago, tater said:

Starship sample return

Starship sample return as I envisioned it meant launching an all up MSR craft aboard Starship. Starship wouldn't land, it would either be expended or release the probe a few days prior to its EDL, and then adjust course, conduct a flyby, and return to Earth, similar to the flight profile planned for crewed Mars flyby missions in the 70s.

Edited December 23, 2021 by SunlitZelkova

[tater]

13 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

If we did choose a random spot, that would be true, but basically all MSR missions target areas that potentially had liquid water in the past. Not "average Mars".

It would also necessarily be a lowland spot in the right latitude range as all the Mars landers have been using existing tech.

We're still talking about areas that are effectively random a few square cm, in places where rovers can actually get to, albeit in a general area that seems good to us, based on what we know about life here.

Any + result would suggest it must be pretty widespread, and negative result... it might have been thriving a few cm from where the sample was taken.

 

[NFUN]

42 minutes ago, MKI said:

You mean the filter lies after the development of "basic" life right? I also assume "basic" life means single celled bacteria. If these are found everywhere, then assuming the odds of the rest of the "filter" are equal, this means the filter is probably behind us.

This. This is a huge unfounded assumption. Us having no idea the characteristics of the great filter is why the idea has proven so compelling. If we find that the filter is after the advent of life, epistemologically we still have no idea if the filter lies before or ahead of our current technological development as a species. We just know that it's after the advent of life. Now, perhaps we have somehow already narrowed down the terms of the Drake equation and know it's either before life develops or after where we are, then this would be meaningfully helpful. Otherwise... wait, you're getting it backwards again. If you're being fast and loose with logic you might intuit that because you've eliminated some terms of the equation (those happening at or before biogenesis), the odds of the remaining terms being the filter is higher... which includes the term after intelligent life develops, ie, where we are now. This is "not even wrong" territory!

 

Like, the rest of your post is incomprehensible. You subscribe to the idea of a great filter, one requirement that leads to advanced life being apparently uncommon in the galaxy... and then say that it'd be "incredible" if there was one filter much more difficult than the others! All I can think to say to the rest of your post is to look up how long humans have been around vs how long life on Earth has been around