5 ms·
From the link I sent: > The United States is a signatory to an international treaty that stipulates that exploration must be conducted in a manner that avoids
by NathanKP 9y ago
From the link I sent:
> The United States is a signatory to an international treaty that stipulates that exploration must be conducted in a manner that avoids of the transportation of living organisms to celestial bodies.
First of all the US is part of a treaty, so if we do introduce organisms to other plants we are violating the treaty.
> We wouldn't want to go to Mars and "discover" life - only to figure out later that we brought it with us! Scientists also want to study the planet and any life that might be there in its original "pristine state."
Ultimately I guess it comes down to why you are sending something to space. If your goal is science then contaminating the planetary environment with organisms is not great. If your goal is colonization (which I guess is SpaceX goal) then you probably wouldn't care. But I still think it's something that should be considered.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoIt definitely will be considered when they'll be actually aiming at Mars.
- hinkley 9y agoAren’t humans half microbe by percentage of cells? Once we send someone on a one way trip it’s over. Hopefully we don’t intend to keep this treaty forever, or we’ll always be stuck on this one rock.
- garmaine 9y agoThe link is wrong. I work in this space and I know of no such international law regarding biological contamination, unless they are grossly misinterpreting the outer space treaty way beyond what it says and the context in which it is written.
- pbhjpbhj 9y agoCould you comment on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16325757 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16325757, did they err?
- garmaine 9y agoIt’s totally misquoted. The line is “harmful contamination of the Earth” and the concern was about Apollo bringing back samples and the US taking proper quarantine safeguards ON EARTH.
- hinkley 9y agoGood to know. I wasn’t trying to sound fatalistic. Just pointing out it’s unworkable if true.
- idlewords 9y agoThere's no scenario where human beings can land on Mars without biologically contaminating it. This is a powerful argument against human exploration of that planet. This is why God made robots. There are worse places to be stuck than Earth. The food here is good!
- narrator 9y agoWhat's wrong with introducing biological material to mars? I am so confused as to the rational here. Is it just so some scientists can get the glory of saying the discovered life on Mars and we're sure it's not from earth? What is the practical value of that anyway except some scientist's vanity?
- woofyman 9y ago>What is the practical value of that anyway except some scientist's vanity? Proof of extraterrestrial life would be one of the greatest discoveries of all time with profound philosophical implications.
- anigbrowl 9y agoYes, but there are two ways to approach that: cautiously explore apparently barren planets and eventually, maybe, find evidence of primitive life life, either ongoing or ancient; or explore as widely and as prolifically as possible.
- narrator 9y agoI don't think it matters. If it's genetically interesting, that will increase our understanding of biology, but otherwise the practical implications are nil. Profound philosophical implications are a joke. You and the rest of the world would forget about it in a week. Look at the UFO videos the pentagon released in December. No one cares.
- saagarjha 9y ago> Look at the UFO videos the pentagon released in December. No one cares. Because they don't prove that extraterrestrial life exists?