Why haven't we seeded a planet or moon yet?

[Jas1126]

They have the technology (at least I think they do) to send probes to a lot of places in our galaxy. They know for a fact that atmospheric planets are out there. Even a couple of moons in our own system have signs of liquid water.

So, why haven't they even attempted to seed a body with micro-organisms?

I don't know which organism would be appropriate but we must have a few here on Earth (Extremophile's?) that could cope. I would think that somebody would have thrown the idea around.

Cost? Results being too slow? Impractical? Risk?

Those points may be valid but to simply not try at all? Scientists all throughout history have done ridiculous things to acquire knowledge. So, why not this?

[jwenting]

no, they don't have that technology. And they don't have the microorganisms that would survive the trip. And they don't have the planets to aim for.

And even if they did, the timescales involved would be way too long, thousands upon thousands of years to get there, then millions upon millions more to see any result develop, then thousands upon thousand more to get the data back to earth.

Don't get your "science" knowledge from B rates science fiction movies.

[Seret]

We've only just managed to have the first spacecraft leave the solar system. That's the galactic equivalent of the end of our street. The next star is like crossing an ocean compared to that. With our current technology reaching even the closest neighbouring star would take tens of thousands of years.

[Jas1126]

@jwenting So, you're saying we don't have the technology to send a few probes to the moon in our solar system that is shown to have frozen water, and perhaps liquid below that? (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(moon)

Did we not send a probe into deep space? (See: http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/

There aren't Extremophile's on our planet that can survive extreme conditions? (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile.

We couldn't see results such as the organisms surviving the initial placement within a small time frame?

A few questions would need answering such as if there's liquid water below the ice of Europa, could we engineer the Extremophile's to survive the trip/stay, ect.

I never claimed to have knowledge of these things. I merely asked questions. Try not to jump to childish conclusions, please. Thanks.

Edited May 10, 2014 by Jas1126

[sal_vager]

We try not to contaminate other planets/moons as it could be later found and confused with extraterrestrial life, or could interfere with and destroy existing life if any.

Also, despite our best efforts it's very hard to completely eliminate the possibility of Earth microbes hitching a ride on a probe, if you've seen pics of probes and satellites under construction you'll notice the lengths that are gone to to prevent such contamination.

So we've likely already put Earth bacteria on the Moon and Mars, also Venus though it's not likely any microbes would survive an environment that melts and crushes steel.

[Jas1126]

I see. So, we're intentionally trying not to seed bodies. Makes sense.

[Seret]

Within our solar system yes. Within the galaxy no. I was referring to Voyager myself when I mentioned that we've only just reached the edge of the solar system.

As for why don't we send micro-organisms within our system, we actually go to great lengths to make sure we don't. Probes are thoroughly sterilised to make sure they don't contaminate the destination with Earth life. Doing so would invalidate anything they found there. We don't know much about the rest of the solar system, so we need to carefully study it in its natural state. If we found signs of life somewhere we'd need to be able to be sure it wasn't something we introduced by accident.

[Kryten]

We have no way to get to the surface under Europa that'd actually fit on an affordable spacecraft-attempts to reach subsurface lakes in Antarctica, under much less ice, have required buildings full of equipment-and trying to do it before we've determined if there is life already there would be unconscionable in the extreme.

[Scotius]

During one of Apollo missions astronauts brought back a camera from Surveyor probe. Imagine surprise of the team disassembling her in a lab, when they found still living (hibernating) bacteria inside, which survived couple of years on Moon's surface So yeah, we've seeded our Moon with life - of course this bacteria could survive only because it was sheltered inside a camera.

[maccollo]

We have actually contaminated the surface of Mars, but that's ok. It's surface environment is so good at killing pretty everything that they don't bother to sterilize the probes anymore. However, they would sterilize anything that is supposed to investigate an environment that has the potential to support life.

[jwenting]

Jas, you were talking about sending them across the galaxy, to planets around other stars.

And no, we're not going to send anything to Titan or anywhere else in the solar system to terraform it, it's pointless, it just won't work. If it worked, I'd be all for it, but it won't, waste of resources.

[vger]

If there's a target world that an extremophile can live on, then it stands to reason that something might already be living there. How about we be nice and NOT launch a bio-weapon at them? It'll have their immune systems screaming a great big "WTF?!"

Recommended reading

Edited May 10, 2014 by vger

[Nibb31]

I see. So, we're intentionally trying not to seed bodies. Makes sense.

Absolutely. Why would you want to do that anyway? There is not a single rational reason to purposely contaminate other planets.

In the best case, extremophiles would be in a dormant state deprived of oxygen. In the worst case, life might evolve after several billion years into something nasty that would return to bite us in the ass.

[Stargate525]

Jas, you were talking about sending them across the galaxy, to planets around other stars.

And no, we're not going to send anything to Titan or anywhere else in the solar system to terraform it, it's pointless, it just won't work. If it worked, I'd be all for it, but it won't, waste of resources.

Not necessarily. The only thing Mars is missing is a magnetosphere, which we could theoretically replace, and Venus' upper atmosphere is actually quite nice. Impossible, no. Difficult, yes.

And ironically, the beginnings of any effort would be the bacteria and spores we're so careful not to bring along.

[Jas1126]

Absolutely. Why would you want to do that anyway? There is not a single rational reason to purposely contaminate other planets.

Simple. Knowledge. Why do scientists do anything? To see if there's a reaction or useful outcome.

I think it's ridiculous that people jump onto the topic of morality when quite a few scientists only care about morals when they're caught.

I'd bet everything I own and will earn that, if given the chance (and no chances of getting caught), at least a few scientists would jump at the opportunity to contaminate a planet. I would even go so far as to say that some of those "accidents" were intentional. A group of scientists are not a hive mind. As with most groups, there is a bad apple.

Face it, people seeking knowledge and power will put morals on the back-burner if needed (and if they think they can get away with it).

Edited May 11, 2014 by Jas1126

[Ralathon]

Simple. Knowledge. Why do scientists do anything? To see if there's a reaction or useful outcome.

I think it's ridiculous that people jump onto the topic of morality when quite a few scientists only care about morals when they're caught.

I'd bet everything I own and will earn that, if given the chance (and no chances of getting caught), at least a few scientists would jump at the opportunity to contaminate a planet. I would even go so far as to say that some of those "accidents" were intentional. A group of scientists are not a hive mind. As with most groups, there is a bad apple.

Face it, people seeking knowledge and power will put morals on the back-burner if needed (and if they think they can get away with it).

The problem with your (completely incorrect) statement here is that contaminating a planet makes it much harder to detect alien life.

The question whether or not alien life exists is way more interesting whether or not earth life can exist in alien environments. We can always simulate the latter in a lab. So it is better if we don't contaminate other planets to prevent confusing the sensors.

[jwenting]

yes, the upper atmosphere of Venus is quite nice. Boiling sulphuric acid is such a nice environment for life...

[lajoswinkler]

People have s gross misunderstanding of the word extremophile, and that's obvious from the original poster's entry post.

Those aren't organisms that are capable of withstanding whatever you put in front of them. It means the qualities of their ecological niches are such that organisms we're encountering on regular basis (mesophiles) can't stand it.

If you put such organisms in a different niche, they will die. Being an extremophile doesn't mean your niche is wide, and I can't stress that enough.

(this is just for the temperatures, there's pressure, pH, salinity, heavy metal content, etc.)

We do not have organisms on Earth that could live in space, Mars, Venus, or anywhere else. Why? Because they've evolved to live in their own narrow niches.

The only way we could seed another place in space is to genetically engineer an organism, but the problem is that such places are very rare. Interior pockets of Mars, Europa, and other icy bodies, where liquid water exists, are a candidate, but we'd have to investigate those niches and then tailor the organisms for them.

Other than that, any attempt is futile and laughable.

[Sirrobert]

Simple. Knowledge. Why do scientists do anything? To see if there's a reaction or useful outcome.

I think it's ridiculous that people jump onto the topic of morality when quite a few scientists only care about morals when they're caught.

I'd bet everything I own and will earn that, if given the chance (and no chances of getting caught), at least a few scientists would jump at the opportunity to contaminate a planet. I would even go so far as to say that some of those "accidents" were intentional. A group of scientists are not a hive mind. As with most groups, there is a bad apple.

Face it, people seeking knowledge and power will put morals on the back-burner if needed (and if they think they can get away with it).

And what kind of knowledge could we POSSIBLY gain from spreading bacteria around?

You just threw bacteria there, so you can't search for life that already lives there. Because you will never know for sure if your results don't just come from whatever you brought along.

Evolution? Don't make me laugh. By the time you'd even see any results, we would already have FTL drives and your seeding would be pointless.

This isn't KSP we're talking about. You can't just throw stuf at the wall and see what sticks, because if you do, your future experiments will become worthless (because the wall is full of sticky goo)

[Tinyboss]

Simple. Knowledge. Why do scientists do anything? To see if there's a reaction or useful outcome.

Right, so we should potentially sacrifice all the knowledge we could learn about an alien biosphere just to learn something about a bacterium we already know. Right.

Edited May 12, 2014 by Tinyboss

[Jas1126]

So, learning how bacteria on our planet would adapt, or manipulate their new environment to thrive wouldn't be interesting or potentially useful? Not all forms of evolution take millions of years to form. Just a few generations and we can see significant qualities. I'm sure scientists wouldn't just throw random bacteria out there to see what happens. I would assume they have some grasp of the chemical make-up of the atmosphere and choose appropriate specimens. Seriously.. The things people say. lol

I would think that scientists had enough intelligence to be assured that their experiments wouldn't ultimately ruin any potential findings. Or, perhaps sent these bacteria to a planet or moon that they have concluded has no lifeforms. Isn't this obvious?

Concerning Extremophile's: Yeah, I said I had very little knowledge of them. Only that they might be potential candidates.

Edited May 11, 2014 by Jas1126

[lajoswinkler]

Existing microbes would not adapt, and using GM ones would be a gross crime against nature and scientific progress. Pristine environment, showing us the geological history of Solar system, and you'd contaminate it with microbes tailored for successful growth? So many information would be lost.

We can simulate any kind of condition in the lab, and that's where microbes should stay.

This not only it would be stupid, but it would be insanely expensive, too.

[Jas1126]

Existing microbes would not adapt, and using GM ones would be a gross crime against nature and scientific progress. Pristine environment, showing us the geological history of Solar system, and you'd contaminate it with microbes tailored for successful growth? So many information would be lost.

We can simulate any kind of condition in the lab, and that's where microbes should stay.

This not only it would be stupid, but it would be insanely expensive, too.

If you notice the time of my last edit (before your post) I already deleted my fool statement about altering them (need sleep). Altering them wouldn't make any sense if we wanted to find true results. And there's that mindset "where such and such should stay" that makes me cringe. Most of the significant findings would have never been discovered if scientists had such closed minds.

Edited May 11, 2014 by Jas1126

[sojourner]

Ever heard the expression "cutting off your nose to spite your face"? Yeah, that would be pretty much what your "experiment" would be doing.

[Kryten]

Jas, your experiment would work exactly the same in a low pressure chamber with UV lamps and the right soil and gas mixtures-and probably for a good bit less money than sending this stuff to Mars with the equipment to monitor it, even if you disregard the ethical implications. This approach also means you can scale the conditions up to Martian conditions, as anything being immediately able to survive all of the various challenges of Mars initially (peroxide radicals, UV, temperature, pressure, et.c.) are extremely slim.