[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Fwd: contamination]
> Sorry I will not have time for "ALH84001 and Me"
> until the first part of next week, but for the time
> being...
This should be interesting, but take your time.
> Actually, the conclusion that they commonly hold is that it is going
> to take a lot more evidence to
> decide the question one way or another.
But, the evidence will be difficult to obtain. Even after we have
reasonably explored the surface, there will be a nagging possibility
that we have overlooked something. That is my main concern with wanting
to be absolutely sure the planet is sterile. You can't be sure until you
have taken it apart and put it back together.
> Since no Mars flight is funded or currently proposed
> by NASA, the NRC committee has not "canceled"
> anything. The next Mars probes will be their next review, and then
> maybe the Mars sample return flight will come up.
Currently, no manned flight is planned, but it is a NASA priority.
(Though NASA is in a funding squeeze and can't stay loyal to a project
for very long.)
> > The CDC biologists won't argue with this. They have the same
> precautions.
That is my main point: they themselves use the same procedure.
If we could find less volatile chemicals, it would not be a major
problem on a Mars hab.
> Actually, they have samples in cryogenic storage, and living ones are
> in in containers in negative
> pressure glove boxes equipped with heavy duty gloves.
Yes, and we can keep Mars samples in the same. Even if there is no
threat from Martians, any researcher would keep the samples in airtight
boxes to prevent contamination, only they would rather use positive
pressure for sterile samples.
> Your idea for chemical showers is a good one. The
> Russians came up with it back in the 1970's. What
> are the chances that Zubrin would consider adopting it?
>
Zubrin wouldn't be especially fond of it, but if he saw it was either
that or no-go, he would accept it and be quite happy. It shouldn't make
the trip too much more expensive, just more difficult for the
astronauts. It could that or no-go, I will gladly take that.
> Actually, if you used a real rover, something like the Russian
> Marsokhod, instead of something dinky, like
> Sojourner, you could do the job very quickly.
Maybe, but again there is that nagging possibility that something sleeps
beneath the surface.
> And that is exactly what the biologists intend to do:
> Insure that anything that NASA does not raise the chances from where
> they are now: 0.
My only concern is that a manned mission is not completely out of the
question. I still doubt that Mars life would pose a threat, but some
simple decon methods may be in order. Especially if it is that or no-go.
----------
Archives located at:
http://www.meteoritecentral.com/list_best.html
For help, FAQ's and sub. info. visit:
http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing_list.html
----------
References: