16 ms·
One question I had about the Tesla launch that wasn't clear is whether the car was thoroughly sanitized prior to sending it up. My understanding is that any obj
by NathanKP 9y ago
One question I had about the Tesla launch that wasn't clear is whether the car was thoroughly sanitized prior to sending it up. My understanding is that any object that has the potential to reach another planet has to be thoroughly sterilized to avoid inadvertently introducing Earth organisms to another planet. The chances are technically low but it is theoretically possible and its why NASA has a dedicated page on "planetary protection": https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/mission/technology/insituexploration/planetaryprotection/ https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/mission/technology/insituexplorati...
My hope is that the SpaceX people did the same for this Tesla. Otherwise it would be rather reckless especially since now it is clear there wasn't a specific controlled orbit path, just a burn to launch it as far as possible, and now its possible it could end up impacting something and potentially contaminating it with Earth organisms.
- Eire_Banshee 9y agoThis isnt a real concern... right? Like... of all of the things to worry about in a rocket launch.
- bicubic 9y agoVery real concern. A lot of effort goes into sterilising craft intended to land on or impact other planets. If we fail to do so, we run a real risk of seeding earth life on those planets and forever ruining our chances to test them for the existence of life prior to contamination.
- garmaine 9y agoNot everyone sees that as a problem.
- kbenson 9y agoWhile not everyone likely sees seeding Earth life on another planet as a problem, I think most would want to know if life existed there prior to that, since it helps us answer quite a few fundamental problems.
- bicubic 9y agoThe prioneers and experts of the field see it as a problem. The uninformed opinion of the general public doesn't carry much weight on this matter. People who don't see it as a problem should take the time to read one of dozens published papers outlining the dangers and problems it will pose. If they then still don't feel it's a problem, they're encouraged to publish their own research supporting that view.
- nickik 9y agoThat is not true. Many people, including 'pioneers and experts' think that we are going to far in how big of a deal we are making this out to be. We can not do this forever if we want a real human outpost there.
- anigbrowl 9y agoSome do and some don't. In terms of knowing about life on other planets of course it would be ideal to maintain planetary quarantine protocols and so on. The problem for exobiologists is that given the absence of visible life in our local system, any life that does exist is fossilized or fragile, and of course we would want to approach it with the same delicacy that we would any other fragile thing. On the other hand, our solar system is but one among many and the longer we hesitate in exploring this one the longer it will be before we are able to explore others. TAn excess of caution can become an excuse for inaction. If earth is an oasis in a planetary desert, the way to find other life is not by maintaining extreme caution about disturbing the surrounding sand dunes but by trekking across them in search of other oases.
- icebraining 9y agoIt certainly is: https://planetaryprotection.nasa.gov/ https://planetaryprotection.nasa.gov/
- TeMPOraL 9y agoYes, but only if you're purposefully aiming at a planet.
- overcast 9y agoIt's a big deal. This is essentially our equivalent of the prime directive.
- dootdootdoot 9y agoI don't see the problem of introducing organisms to other planets.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- fwdpropaganda 9y agoHere's one: when you get there and are looking for extra-terrestrial life, you won't know if the things you find are native, or if they got there on their own somehow, or if you brought them with you. Maybe you don't care, but I think that knowing the answer to that question would be super interesting.
- Chris2048 9y agoYou still wouldn't know, would you?
- garmaine 9y agoHaving a self sufficient human settlement on Mars would also be super interesting, and vital to reducing existential risk. You have to pick one.
- dpkonofa 9y ago>You have to pick one. Why? Why can't you have both? Once we verify that there isn't measurable life on Mars, we can start a human settlement.
- emiliobumachar 9y agoEven if there is life on Mars, we can consciously decide to build a colony that may wipe out that life, after we studied it.
- anigbrowl 9y agoIt would, but there's a bunch of other celestial bodies that offer at least as much potential, eg Europa. I share your interest, but not to degree of stopping all other activity while you indulge your curiosity, because other people would like to go and explore directly. I'm not saying just ignore the issue and barrel ahead, but would-be exobiologists should make ambitious and timely proposals of what they intend to sample, what they expect to find, and how long they need to check, in order to give other people a chance to pursue their interests.
- jessriedel 9y agoI think before you ask a question like this, you should estimate the likelihood of something like this happening or ask someone for help on how to do that. These sorts of questions are so boring, so easy to ask, and instantly derail the discussion.
- NathanKP 9y agoOf course its low, but its still something that needs to be considered as more and more commercial organizations gain the ability to launch things into our solar system. Obviously an organization like SpaceX has a commercial focus rather than a scientific one like NASA. The more stuff gets launched by more people the more likely of contamination from something. Between SpaceX, Blue Origin or any other space travel initiatives that end up succeeding we are going to end up with a lot more stuff in space which isn't necessarily going to be friendly to scientific efforts as in the past.
- jessriedel 9y agoNone of what you said conflicts with my comment and suggested question re-formulation. The world is filled with an unlimited number of concerns about infinitesimal risk. Your question remains boring and distracting, and, as pointed out elsewhere, the risk is not likely enough to be important.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- planteen 9y agoAnd yet, it is a very important question that people will always ask first. Exactly how low are the probabilities? This was a major concern with the bankruptcy of Iridium that concerned the President. The insurers at the time wouldn't touch it. And bad things happen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954
- 9y ago
- Facemelters 9y agodepends on the destination / trajectory of the object. This object has almost zero chance of ever hitting anything, so it doesn't have to go through the super crazy sanitizing that the Curiosity rover did.
- everdev 9y agoThat was probably true of the original trajectory, but now it's supposed to fly quite close to Ceres and scientists want updated data to see if a collision is likely.
- ryanwaggoner 9y ago“Quite close” is relative, given how ridiculously vast space is. The chances that they fire blindly out into space and just happen to hit Ceres seems so unlikely as to be basically impossible.
- everdev 9y agoTrue, but it's not like you have to hit an object head on, but merely pass within it's gravitational field which is far bigger.
- ceejayoz 9y agoPass within its gravitational field at a slow enough relative speed for capture. Remains exceeeeeeedingly unlikely.
- everdev 9y agoNonetheless people are asking SpaceX for data to calculate the probability because they seem to think it's higher than 0 because of the unplanned trajectory.
- garmaine 9y agoIt will not cross Ceres orbit.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoThere's risk management involved. Sanitizing is considered when you're planning a planet landing. Space is big, so on the timescales of human civilization, the probability of actually hitting a planet by accident is negligible. If that Roadster lands on Mars in a hundred million years, we won't care.
- godelski 9y agoIf that roadster hits Mars and seeds Mars, that would be huge and interesting for science. Mostly because "How did something survive in space for that long?"
- TeMPOraL 9y agoTrue, but by that time it won't be our science, it will be descendants-of-our-dolphins' science. Or aliens-from-outer-space science. Seriously, the only way I can see humanity not getting to Mars before the Roadster is if we completely fail as a species.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mulmen 9y agoAlso "how did a plastic car survive reentry?"
- everdev 9y agoEven if it was sanitized is it worth it to have a car exploding on one of our celestial neighbors? It's funny and cool to see a car in space as long as we're not hurtling garbage into other planets.
- extrapickles 9y agoThey never were going to send it to mars. The plan was to send it out to a orbit that could reach mars if they pointed it correctly. Now that they know its final orbit they can compute if it will hit anything for thousands/millions of years and slightly adjust it if it does.
- gbrown 9y agoThere's no capability to adjust the trajectory at this point.
- nightski 9y agoI think he means adjust their calculated trajectory once the collision occurs.
- LyndsySimon 9y agoThey've sent one vehicle, I suppose they could send up a tow truck to repossess it...
- Theodores 9y agoThere is also the fire extinguisher in the passenger foot-well, spaceman can just use that to correct his course and get to Mars, maybe to wait for the tow truck there...
- extrapickles 9y agoAfter the burn was complete they can use the cold gas thrusters to slightly change the orbit (a few mm/s now adds up over hundreds of years)
- rocqua 9y agoI heard the batteries were only good for 12 hours. You'd need some sort of power to fire gold gas thrusters.
- Robotbeat 9y agoSpaceX did do the analysis for NASA to show it had an exceedingly small chance of contamination.
- NathanKP 9y agoAwesome. That's great to hear. I was specifically wondering since this isn't just a metal satellite, there are cushions and fabric and stuff which can probably hold a lot of microbes.
- Robotbeat 9y agoYou'd be surprised what even metal spacecraft contain. Not everything sent into deep space is sterilized, and even stuff sent to Mars contain a number of actual spores.
- snowwrestler 9y agoTo be clear, they analyzed the likelihood that the Roadster would hit a planet (exceedingly small), not the likelihood that the Roadster is carrying biological life from Earth (which is exceedingly high).
- jonknee 9y agoThough the odds of that life surviving for extended periods of time in space is close to nil.
- mattmanser 9y agoErrrrrrr: http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/Research/Tiny_animals_survive_exposure_to_space http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/Research...
- jonknee 9y agoWe have very different definitions of extended periods of time. Elon's talking about it orbiting for millions of years. It's definitely not going to hit anything anytime soon.
- notatoad 9y agoI've heard a few times today how radiation will peel the paint off the car. Shouldn't that also sanitize it pretty thoroughly?
- Zardoz84 9y agoYou could be surprise how resilient are the microbes against the harsh conditions of space.
- NathanKP 9y agoYep these things can actually survive in the vacuum of space as well as go without food or water for 30 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade
- Balgair 9y agoFor other readers: yes the Tardigrade is likely to be resistant to the extreme radiation of the Mars-Earth voyage.
- pbhjpbhj 9y agoThey'll be surfing the mycelial network before we know it :/
- dpkonofa 9y agoYeah, but you're not going to find those in the stitching of a leather Tesla Roadster seat.
- biggerfisch 9y agoSome bacteria can survive very high levels of radiation. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinococcus_radiodurans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinococcus_radiodurans
- godelski 9y agoThere's enough places for microbes to hide from radiation. On that short of a mission it wouldn't be surprising to see microbes. There are various microbes that can withstand the nominal radiation there. Would be much harder to survive the Van Allen belts and CMEs, but it is possible. If we were talking about a 100 year mission, that would be more surprising. Even hardy microbes don't like extended stays in vacuums and have to go into a hibernation state. There are bacteria that can survive for decades in a vacuum and low temperatures. Disclaimer: not a biologist
- JackFr 9y agoOf course as a practical matter, NASA can deny the use of their facilities to whomever they choose. If SpaceX had their own launch facility, etc., are there legal restraints from contaminating another planet (possibly purposefully)? And if there are such restraints, what is their legal justification?
- mikecb 9y agoNeed an FAA license to launch, the US is signatory to various space treaties, etc.
- garmaine 9y agoNone of which say anything about planetary contamination. GP is right that there is absolutely no laws enforcing “planetary protection” on commercial entities (thankfully).
- mikecb 9y agoDo they not? UNOOSA, Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, Art. IX [1]: "States Parties to the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination..." Note that State parties are responsible for the actions of their nationals later in the paragraph. Is the above wrong? I admit to not being a space person. Edit: [1] http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/publications/STSPACE11E.pdf http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/publications/STSPACE11E.pdf
- pubby 9y ago>its possible it could end up impacting something and potentially contaminating it with Earth organisms. I dunno about you, but I would be really, really excited if other planets became infested with Earth organisms. I mean, that's kinda the whole reason for space travel in the first place! I understand the argument for sterilized launches, etc. etc. but I can't help but wonder if it's holding terraforming back in the long run.
- craftyguy 9y agoI bet the technologies required for teraforming a planet will hold back teraforming more than a concern for spreading microbes.
- bonesss 9y agoNaturally Star Trek style terraforming is off in the far future (if at all), but I wonder if we're not too far away already from some more humble projects... A genetically modified lichen, or fungus, that was designed as a stepping stone towards a better Martian biome, and a launch setup to seed them effectively isn't too far outside the bounds of present day work with genetics, and present day launch & deployment systems. It's far less sexy, but a multi-generation approach to terraforming could yield a usable Mars without too much magic...
- dcdanko 9y agoNASA is only trying to keep Mars sterile for 100 years or so, probably doesn't matter much on the scale of terraforming
- mrfusion 9y agoWell for those of us who live less than 100 years it matters a whole lot.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- 9y ago
- m3kw9 9y agoIt would likely burn up on the entry, it’s still got air friction in Mars atmosphere
- mrfusion 9y agoI always worry more about the risk that earth contains the only occurance of life in the universe and if something destroys earth then all life is destroyed forever. But sure, protect your planets ...
- Reason077 9y ago"the risk that earth contains the only occurance of life in the universe" That seems almost impossibly unlikely considering the size of the universe. The number of Earth-like planets capable of supporting life is thought to exceed the number of grains of sand on our planet. Surely life will have evolved on at least a few of them!
- mrfusion 9y agoTrue but no one knows how likely life is to start up from raw materials in the first place. It would also need to reach a balance with its planet and not simply eat up all the resources and die out.
- rosser 9y ago> It would also need to reach a balance with its planet and not simply eat up all the resources and die out. Like we're kinda doing?
- Gustomaximus 9y agoHumans are far from dying out and incredibly resilient. Things like climate change are not really about the human race surviving, more the scale and quality at which we continue to live. Both important but very different things.
- rosser 9y agoI was speaking more to the resource utilization part of the statement, but sure: technically, there will probably still be humans left, in places, if we keep going at the rate we are. If we're (as a species) lucky, that number might even exceed the minimum viable population. The individuals in that circumstance probably won't feel very lucky, though.
- carapace 9y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tersicoccus_phoenicis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tersicoccus_phoenicis > Tersicoccus phoenicis is a member of the bacterial family Micrococcaceae. It has only been found in two spacecraft assembly clean room facilities and is resistant to the methods normally used to clean such facilities. The species name is derived from tersi, Latin for clean; coccus, Greek for berry; and phoenicis, from NASA's Phoenix lander, the spacecraft being prepared when these bacteria were first discovered.
- greglindahl 9y agoThe FAA people in charge of issuing launch licenses worry about this kind of thing -- and commented a while ago that they'd lean heavily on the NASA Planetary Protection Officer for cases like this. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3260/1 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3260/1 > “We don’t have the expertise in-house when it comes to planetary protection,” said Kelvin Coleman, acting deputy associate administrator for commercial space transportation at the FAA. His office licenses commercial launches, a process that includes a payload review that would, potentially, include a planetary protection review. He said the FAA would “be leaning on” NASA to provide planetary protection expertise.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- isfield 9y agoI think the people behind this launch would have given some thought to this. I mean they're quite thorough and intelligent people. As in so clever and interested in the subject that they could be ..... Rocket scientists... :P
- dogma1138 9y agoNASA doesn’t sterilizes most probes either even planatery ones unless they are destined to land in a protected environment. Cassini was deorbited on Saturn specifically to minimize the chances of it crashing into one of its moons and contaminating it. If the car would land on Mars it would be a whole other story but as long as the biggest risk is that it would burn in its atmosphere if it even stood a chance of being captured it doesn’t need any extraordinary sanitation other than the usual clean room treatment.
- lmilcin 9y agoMars does not have enough atmosphere to assure space craft burn up completely. Once it is in orbit there is good chance it will reach ground.
- dogma1138 9y agoMars has sufficient atmosphere to burn that car into a crisp considering the speed it’s going at, it’s not like it will slow down and park it self in Martian orbit neither do most probes which is why they come with a heatshield so they won’t burn up during aerobraking.
- lmilcin 9y agoThe heatshields are necessary so that the payload is stable aerodynamically and so that it isn't burned to crisp. But the atmosphere is very thin so that it is currently major challenge to use it to slow anything down before it slams the ground. While the temperature is governed by the speed of reentry (large speed relative to atmosphere molecules == high temperature) the heat transfer is depending also on the pressure. Low pressure == lower efficiency of heat transfer. Martian surface is around 600Pa, only 0.6% of Earth surface pressure. This means, that entire Mars reentry profile is comparable to reentering just 0.6% of Earth atmosphere mass. This happens at around 40km (25miles) on Earth. It means, that if it is able to reach 40km above surface of Earth it is as if it already crossed entire Mars atmosphere. It is also worth noting that the altitude of peak heating depends heavily on angle of reentry. In a steep reentry the period of peak heating happens much lower. For example, the peak heating for Space Shuttle was at about 70km, but that was only because the profile was kept purposefully extremely shallow to be done with heating before it reaches dense atmosphere. You be the judge if it is enough to completely burn up Tesla Roadster, I find it difficult to reach any scientific study of Tesla Roadsters being thrown into Mars gravity well to watch results.