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

[SunlitZelkova]

23 minutes ago, tater said:

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.

Fair point 

In any case, life or no life, at least within my views, it would not rule out human exploration afterwards.

But if we are to make such an assumption prior to even doing MSR (based on hypothetical results), it would, in my opinion, be reckless.

[tater]

38 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

But if we are to make such an assumption prior to even doing MSR (based on hypothetical results), it would, in my opinion, be reckless.

Maybe, or humans could just be careful. The goal would be to not contaminate samples, I personally don't think there's any life on Mars that I would consider quarantining Mars over. So if we're sending people anyway, <shrug>. Also, any human mission would include at the very least 1 dress rehearsal landing with the same vehicle, so if they tested a full round trip, might as well use that as sample return.

I'm not against MSR at all, I just don't see it as a necessary precursor to sending SS.

The current MSR mission does not return samples until 2031, putting any go at Mars off a decade.

And that assumes it goes on schedule... like JWST.

[tater]

I'll fully admit that given my age—similar to Bezos/Musk—I want sooner rather than later.

Mars launch windows for reference.

Sept 2022

Oct-Nov 2024

Dec 2026

Dec 2028 - Jan 2029

 

[kerbiloid]

It's a problem of the Martian life to take care about the signal smokes, let alone the fossilizable bones.

[RCgothic]

There isn't a single great filter.  Aside from being metaphorical, it's many-layered.

It's every circumstance that would prevent life developing and every potential extinction event thereafter.

Even civilisations that have survived to be communicable are still subject to it. The probability of extinction level events limit their lifespan and the window of time we have to notice them and make contact.

Nothing has passed the great filter until it has put itself beyond any chance of extinction.

Getting off planet removes many potential sources of extinction. It gets around anything that might happen to Earth. There's a step change in the risk of extinction and there will be much less chance of us getting filtered before our search for exosolar life can continue.

Getting out of the solar system is another step change in our risk, as it removes us from vulnerability to anything that might happen to the sun.

At each step it becomes much harder for war to take us out as well. Once we're out in the galaxy it's hard to think of anything that might take us all out at once, but even then a misplaced supernova or galactic collision might sterilise a portion of the galaxy. Or maybe among educated societies population collapse is just inevitable.

We will never have passed the great filter entirely, but it is possible to take steps to minimise our vulnerability. One thing we can do is colonize Mars.

 

Edited December 23, 2021 by RCgothic

[kerbiloid]

Since the schoolhood was interesting, how many extraterrestrial civilisation Shklovsky was familiar to personally?

[NFUN]

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Since the schoolhood was interesting, how many extraterrestrial civilisation Shklovsky was familiar to personally?

Zero, but he was aware of the lizard people, as well as being a personal guest of honor to the Edenites living inside the hollow Earth

[Nothalogh]

On 12/22/2021 at 8:39 AM, SunlitZelkova said:

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

All other concerns must cede priority to the development and implementation of large scale human interplanetary capability.

And those who would attempt to filibuster that goal with myriad technicalities are more morally detestable than those who would openly, directly, and physically vandalize such a project.

 

 

[FleshJeb]

44 minutes ago, Nothalogh said:

All other concerns must cede priority

No.

[Nothalogh]

18 minutes ago, FleshJeb said:

No.

It's the only way, all other options lead to inaction, stagnation, and decay.

Edited December 23, 2021 by Nothalogh

[tater]

Life might evolve on Mars even if it doesn't exist now, and indeed might exist, or evolve elsewhere in the universe in such a way that any human contamination will harm it. Clearly we should never leave Earth.

[Nothalogh]

5 minutes ago, tater said:

Clearly we should never leave Earth.

Indeed.

I think long term, earth should be turned into a prison for those who were against human expansion.

[FleshJeb]

[tater]

I can't remember when I read The Martian Chronicles, but it was certainly in the 1970s, probably mid 1970s.

Imagine a counterfactual where there is not just life, but sentient life on Mars.

We worry about harming Mars, and so don't even visit. They evolve and then visit us. Since we are so deeply concerned about contamination, do we see their visit as contaminating, then exterminate them for not being sufficiently devout to non-interference? Or maybe they evolve into a species that is not only not concerned about contamination, but is actively belligerent to any non-martian life. They develop spaceflight with the explicit plan to exterminate Earth.

A silly example, but shows how the "ethical" concern is really inside our heads, it is unrelated to the universe at large. Concerns about AI, for example, rely on the idea that a superintelligence might consider us about the way we consider ants. Or the way beavers deeply concern themselves with all the creatures they will drown when they make their dam.

Like I said, it is scientifically very interesting—to us, the humans—how life came about in the solar system, or how it can come about if martian life is quite different than terrestrial life. We should make sure to study Mars for that reason, there are zero ethical concerns, IMO.

Reasonable care seems sufficient to me, and if that is not enough, I'd need to see someone do the math as to what the limits are (since certainly other craft have already contaminated Marts).

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

I think the only reasonable 'care' to take is reducing the chances of false positives.  I'm literally unconcerned about what happens after we confirm or deny the existence of domestic life on Mars, aside from the usual, don't just lay waste to everything because you can.

Premise: we need to become multi-planetary, whether in this century or after the invention of FTL.  When we do... one poop on the other planet and it's game on.

 

Question: should we put humans on a thriving other planet with lots and lots of critters (none sentient) and plants, etc., and we begin eating them... how long before the 'human' becomes a non-earth human (you are what you eat, and all that)?

[NFUN]

2 hours ago, Nothalogh said:

It's the only way, all other options lead to inaction, stagnation, and decay.

No

[Nothalogh]

12 minutes ago, NFUN said:

No

Cool story, but we've been doing it your way for almost sixty years now, and it's not working.

[tater]

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I think the only reasonable 'care' to take is reducing the chances of false positives.  I'm literally unconcerned about what happens after we confirm or deny the existence of domestic life on Mars, aside from the usual, don't just lay waste to everything because you can.

Yeah, I pretty much agree here. And any sampling/testing methodology can also sample the vehicle, so we can rule out anything on the vehicle. If swabs off Starship (various points, inside and out) don't contain detectable life—then it's likely clean enough.

That's the plus of SS, on most spacecraft that would be ridiculous, but what's a few tons of extra scanning equipment

 

[Jacke]

25 minutes ago, Nothalogh said:

Cool story, but we've been doing it your way for almost sixty years now, and it's not working.

And there are plenty of examples from the thousands of years of human history where a bold advance into the unknown just died, sooner or later.

I've lived all those 60 years.  I've examined a lot of information about it.  This is the bleeding edge of human technology at work.  It doesn't just have one speed, it varies depending on a lot of circumstances.  Thinking you can hand-wave those issues away by wishing hard enough is like saying you can hold back the tide in the same way.

The James Webb Telescope is a bolder advance than almost all of commercial space endeavours combined.  Because it's going out and doing something new.  And maybe it'll lead to finding ways to service a satellite at the Sun-Earth L2 point.  That's how real advances are made.

[Nothalogh]

1 minute ago, Jacke said:

commercial

You think my position is about commercial vs governmental?

No, not even close.

I support any and all who are actually striving for meaningful progress towards the goal of the development and implementation of large scale human interplanetary capability.

 

[tater]

As I have said many time, I'm not actually a colonize Mars person (happy if they do it, it just doesn't make sense to me). Sending humans to Mars—to explore? Yeah, next launch window it's possible? Go. Sample return not done? Sample someplace away from the human landing site (like other side of the planet), that should be clean.

[SunlitZelkova]

22 hours ago, tater said:

I'm not against MSR at all, I just don't see it as a necessary precursor to sending SS.

A hypothetical compromise would be launching MSR and landing Starship at the same time.

Not sure how it would work to ensure the all up MSR craft would arrive and have time to take a sample and then lift off prior to Starship arriving though.

3 hours ago, tater said:

Life might evolve on Mars even if it doesn't exist now, and indeed might exist, or evolve elsewhere in the universe in such a way that any human contamination will harm it. Clearly we should never leave Earth.

I hope this is unintentional, but you are greatly exaggerating planetary protection advocate's views to make them seem absurd, and thus criticize their position.

No one "qualified" (astrobiologists and associated actual scientists) believes such extreme measures should be imposed.

We do one sample return from the virtually pristine environment, then if we find nothing, we can go ahead and send humans while continuing to search for life. This is basically what people (including myself) who believe MSR is necessary believe.

3 hours ago, tater said:

A silly example, but shows how the "ethical" concern is really inside our heads

zero ethical concerns

This feels like a strawman argument. One could argue this for every single issue- to the point of advocating "targeted" genocide- because really, everything, from the concept that murder is wrong to treating each other in a polite manner, is "in our heads".

That's not to say "no planetary protection measures" is an invalid position. But "yes planetary protection measures" is also a valid position, not something extremely illogical or silly.

4 hours ago, Nothalogh said:

All other concerns must cede priority to the development and implementation of large scale human interplanetary capability.

And those who would attempt to filibuster that goal with myriad technicalities are more morally detestable than those who would openly, directly, and physically vandalize such a project.

While human interplanetary capability is something to strive for, there is no reason "other issues" can not be addressed as well.

3 hours ago, Nothalogh said:

It's the only way, all other options lead to inaction, stagnation, and decay.

Is there direct evidence for this?

Spaceflight engineers and associated workers have only been able to do what they do on government money for the most part. They could not have gone any faster than they wished to, not because "of people who hate or don't care about space", but because there were actual problems that needed attending to on Earth.

1 hour ago, Nothalogh said:

Cool story, but we've been doing it your way for almost sixty years now, and it's not working.

Out of curiosity, could you share a paragraph or to detailing this history? I am interested to hear what your views are.

To me, the apparent lack of advancement in human spaceflight over the last 60 years has been caused by a myriad of external factors unrelated to just "we need to be more interested in space".

3 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I think the only reasonable 'care' to take is reducing the chances of false positives.  I'm literally unconcerned about what happens after we confirm or deny the existence of domestic life on Mars, aside from the usual, don't just lay waste to everything because you can.

The premise of this discussion is that this is "not what we do" as a society, I suppose.

As far as illogicality and reasonability goes, I think the two views so far present in this argument- precautions unneeded, precautions needed- are both reasonable opinions for one to hold and argue for.

While of course one can hold an opinion such as yours and argue for action based on it, those with differing views are equally "reasonable". Not only as others have a right to hold differing opinions, but also because there is nothing particularly outrageous about the ideas "we" (I) have been presenting (one MSR prior to a crewed mission).

3 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Question: should we put humans on a thriving other planet with lots and lots of critters (none sentient) and plants, etc., and we begin eating them... how long before the 'human' becomes a non-earth human (you are what you eat, and all that)?

Depends.

"Not quite Earth" type planet? It is impossible to know because we have no idea if humans can even be born or grow properly outside of 1 g. For all we know increasing physical deformity among those born in low gravity will eventually make birth impossible, killing the colony in a very short period of time (maybe 1000 years or so).

"Exactly Earth" type planet? Millions of years. Just like evolution anywhere else.

[tater]

4 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Not sure how it would work to ensure the all up MSR craft would arrive and have time to take a sample and then lift off prior to Starship arriving though.

Why would the timing matter? They need no land next to each other. You think a handful of spores can spread around the entire planet, and not be recognizable as Earth species, even in the 1 in however many trillions chances one blows to the opposite side of Mars and lands on the dirt a second before the sample is scooped?

[tater]

6 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

This feels like a strawman argument. One could argue this for every single issue- to the point of advocating "targeted" genocide- because really, everything, from the concept that murder is wrong to treating each other in a polite manner, is "in our heads".

That's not to say "no planetary protection measures" is an invalid position. But "yes planetary protection measures" is also a valid position, not something extremely illogical or silly.

I specifically said it was a silly example—an extreme boundary value. But as other have brought up great filters, I figured I'd throw in a Fermi paradox sort of issue as well. In the largest scale picture Earth life living is all that matters—to us. If a meeting between humans and the only other sentient species in the universe was to happen, and we set a premise that 1 species lives, and the other must become extinct—I vote for the others to go extinct.

Earth/Mars is not an us or them, as I said, the only concern is what knowledge WE, humanity, want from Mars, and it is to not shoot ourselves in the foot by wasting a useful place to look for possible life. I entirely get it. I just think that the NASA/ESA MSR mission will not reasonably rule anything out—unless life is so common on Mars that a few samples totaling a few grams taken over a vanishingly small % of the surface of an entire planet comes back +. Then it rules out "lifeless."

My concern is twofold:

1. There is no possible answer to this inconclusive rule out until 2031.

2. The most concerned planetary protection people will rightfully say, "You sampled 15 cm² of Mars, a planet with an area of 144M km²—0.000000000000001% of the planet! You have not ruled out life!"

3. More MSRs required, all of us in this discussion long dead before anyone quoted in #2 even starts wondering if there is not really life there.

[SunlitZelkova]

4 minutes ago, tater said:

Why would the timing matter? They need no land next to each other. You think a handful of spores can spread around the entire planet, and not be recognizable as Earth species, even in the 1 in however many trillions chances one blows to the opposite side of Mars and lands on the dirt a second before the sample is scooped?

Bacteria could ride dust across the planet, hypothetically. I would need to look at the nature of Martian weather more to paint a more detailed picture.

Exact timing will depend upon how fast the MSR probe can do its thing and get out. Hypothetically that could be no more than several hours. At worst, a few days.

One of the issues with Earth life getting to Mars is it killing possible extant life on Mars. Not in a "save the species cause they have a right to exist" sense, but in a "we need to keep them alive for study" sense.

6 minutes ago, tater said:

Earth/Mars is not an us or them, as I said, the only concern is what knowledge WE, humanity, want from Mars, and it is to not shoot ourselves in the foot by wasting a useful place to look for possible life. I entirely get it. I just think that the NASA/ESA MSR mission will not reasonably rule anything out—unless life is so common on Mars that a few samples totaling a few grams taken over a vanishingly small % of the surface of an entire planet comes back +. Then it rules out "lifeless."

My concern is twofold:

1. There is no possible answer to this inconclusive rule out until 2031.

2. The most concerned planetary protection people will rightfully say, "You sampled 15 cm² of Mars, a planet with an area of 144M km²—0.000000000000001% of the planet! You have not ruled out life!"

3. More MSRs required, all of us in this discussion long dead before anyone quoted in #2 even starts wondering if there is not really life there.

As I have stated before, the purpose of MSR is not to "rule out" life. It is to look for life without contaminating the environment to the greatest extent.

If it fails, it isn't "more MSR", we go to the next best step for performing an efficient search for life and not contaminating the planet- humans with extreme safety measures.

One could say "if we are going to send humans anyway, just send them", but sending humans is not a guaranteed thing. We don't know what we will find when an MSR mission returns to Earth. Hence I believe it is necessary to do at least one mission "before" (whether that be hours or years) putting non-sterilized stuff on the planet.

And again, even if we do find extant life, and discover that it will probably go extinct if we land humans, that is not going to rule out human exploration.

But a proper discussion should be held on what should be done, not one imposing their view upon the other.