8 ms·

It's worth asking just how small did scientists in the era consider the contamination risk. Was this a case of willful ignorance of a legitimate risk, or a begr

It's worth asking just how small did scientists in the era consider the contamination risk. Was this a case of willful ignorance of a legitimate risk, or a begrudging theater to placate a general public's overactive imagination? Even based on what was known 50 years ago, what was the hypothesis for how microscopic particles with billions of years of geographic isolation might hurt the biosphere? I'm reminded of the "LHC might create a black hole and swallow the earth" craze in our more recent memories.

bawolff 3y ago
> what was the hypothesis for how microscopic particles with billions of years of geographic isolation might hurt the biosphere? North america was pretty isolated from europe but bad things still happened. I think the risk is lower because its not just geographic isolation but the vaccum of space. But everything was just theory before we actually went there. In terms of trade offs, risk seems low, but a quarintine also seems relatively low effort. Seems worth it as its an easy precaution.
- safety1st 3y ago
  How do we know they didn't bring anything back, for that matter? In the years since we've found all kinds of extremophiles and other exotic microscopic life on earth, there's stuff living here which can survive a vacuum.
- George83728 3y ago
  > North america was pretty isolated from europe but bad things still happened. I don't think this and the hypothetical moon pathogen are comparable. In the case of smallpox in North America, the native Amerindian population had no acquired immunity to smallpox but smallpox had already evolved to be very effective at spreading through human populations. But in the case of lunar pathogens, both the pathogen and humans would be new to each other. The lunar pathogen would not be evolved to spread in humans.
  - bawolff 3y ago
    My understanding is the most dangerous pathagons are not the ones evolved for humans, but the ones that jump the species barrier. Still have the problem that the moon is a barren rock with no life at all.
- HlessClaudesman 3y ago
  Yes. We need to look at how severe the negative outcome could be before we invest resources in prevention. A low probability catastrophy is still well worth an attempt to prevent.
jandrese 3y ago
Chunks of the moon are knocked off by meteorites from time to time and find their way to Earth. If they were super deadly for some reason we wouldn't be here today.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  Burning up in the atmosphere is different than hitching a ride in a comfortable environment
  - adastra22 3y ago
    The interior of these rocks stay a comfortable temp for rock-boring microbes during the entire trip (including both impacts).
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
nroets 3y ago
Firstly, the moon is pretty hostile: Radiation. No water. No oxygen. To survive the moon and then survive the oxygen rich atmosphere, the organism would need to be built like a tank. So it's replication rate will be very very low. Then it's also possible that some creature on earth may prey upon the new arrival and keep it in check. Secondly: Asteroid impacts on the moon regularly send moon debris into our atmosphere and some of it even survives reentry.
- andbberger 3y ago
  > the organism would need to be built like a tank. So it's replication rate will be very very low. this does not follow
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    What would be the metabolic energy source to fuel a high replication rate?
    - speed_spread 3y ago
      Rock and Radiation. Eventually the whole moon would be alive.
      - TeMPOraL 3y ago
        And then it would look like Earth, or like something from a lovecraftian horror. It doesn't, so we're not at the high replication rate organism stage.
    - andbberger 3y ago
      free energy and the hostility of the environment are decoupled eg deep sea vents
bruce511 3y ago
Long before actual space travel there was science fiction which imagined every possible plot. And since fiction has to have protagonist and an antagonist, [1], the "disease from outer space" was well earned. So I expect its a bit of both. Good PR to head-off the space-bug narrative, and arguably prudent behaviour in the face of no experience. [1] real life is mostly boring. They went to the moon, they came back, nothing happened. By apollo 13 it was so routine they didn't broadcast the launch, or live feed. The drama was because something unexpected happened. Then again quickly forgotten. Most people who lived through that time can't tell you a single thing about apollos 14 through 18, or that 18 didn't fly. Equally I saw the first shuttle mission launch on TV, but then mea. There were 135 launches. 2 ended badly. Oh, and they fixed hubble. And they built a space station. But I couldn't tell you much of anything in any detail. Life is boring.
oefrha 3y ago
As a former theoretical physicist who has worked for LHC, by the time LHC was being built we had enough knowledge of high energy physics to predict events below 10TeV with very high accuracy, the black hole thing was pure nonsense perpetrated by lay people who has read a bit of pop sci. Meanwhile, I don’t think we know enough today to conclusively say there are no hostile microscopic lifeforms on the moon (maybe beneath the surface?). We don’t even know the deep sea on Earth very well.
- adastra22 3y ago
  > Meanwhile, I don’t think we know enough today to conclusively say there are no hostile microscopic lifeforms on the moon (maybe beneath the surface?). We don’t even know the deep sea on earth very well. Be careful stepping outside your field. I used to work at the NASA Astrobiology and Lunar Science institutes. There is zero chance there is any biology going on or under the surface of the moon.
  - solveit 3y ago
    Ludicrous. Your models of biology and the moon may predict that, but the chances of your models being significantly wrong are certainly much greater than zero.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    The chances are quite literally not zero
  - oefrha 3y ago
    Particle physics has the advantage of being simple (there are a few fundamental particles, all particles of one type are indistinguishable, etc.), and we had decades of experimental evidence at lower energy as well as heaps of observations of highly energetic cosmic events confirming our simple and consistent theories going into LHC. Is there anything close to that pile of evidence for life (whatever that means, maybe not necessarily carbon-based) on moon or lack thereof? Now do Mars? Personally I don’t think there’s anything on moon, but the evidence isn’t much. In the 60s it might as well have been nonexistent.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

bawolff 3y ago

> what was the hypothesis for how microscopic particles with billions of years of geographic isolation might hurt the biosphere? North america was pretty isolated from europe but bad things still happened. I think the risk is lower because its not just geographic isolation but the vaccum of space. But everything was just theory before we actually went there. In terms of trade offs, risk seems low, but a quarintine also seems relatively low effort. Seems worth it as its an easy precaution.

safety1st 3y ago
How do we know they didn't bring anything back, for that matter? In the years since we've found all kinds of extremophiles and other exotic microscopic life on earth, there's stuff living here which can survive a vacuum.
George83728 3y ago
> North america was pretty isolated from europe but bad things still happened. I don't think this and the hypothetical moon pathogen are comparable. In the case of smallpox in North America, the native Amerindian population had no acquired immunity to smallpox but smallpox had already evolved to be very effective at spreading through human populations. But in the case of lunar pathogens, both the pathogen and humans would be new to each other. The lunar pathogen would not be evolved to spread in humans.
- bawolff 3y ago
  My understanding is the most dangerous pathagons are not the ones evolved for humans, but the ones that jump the species barrier. Still have the problem that the moon is a barren rock with no life at all.
HlessClaudesman 3y ago
Yes. We need to look at how severe the negative outcome could be before we invest resources in prevention. A low probability catastrophy is still well worth an attempt to prevent.

jandrese 3y ago

Chunks of the moon are knocked off by meteorites from time to time and find their way to Earth. If they were super deadly for some reason we wouldn't be here today.

yieldcrv 3y ago
Burning up in the atmosphere is different than hitching a ride in a comfortable environment
- adastra22 3y ago
  The interior of these rocks stay a comfortable temp for rock-boring microbes during the entire trip (including both impacts).

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

nroets 3y ago

Firstly, the moon is pretty hostile: Radiation. No water. No oxygen. To survive the moon and then survive the oxygen rich atmosphere, the organism would need to be built like a tank. So it's replication rate will be very very low. Then it's also possible that some creature on earth may prey upon the new arrival and keep it in check. Secondly: Asteroid impacts on the moon regularly send moon debris into our atmosphere and some of it even survives reentry.

andbberger 3y ago
> the organism would need to be built like a tank. So it's replication rate will be very very low. this does not follow
- sokoloff 3y ago
  What would be the metabolic energy source to fuel a high replication rate?
  - speed_spread 3y ago
    Rock and Radiation. Eventually the whole moon would be alive.
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      And then it would look like Earth, or like something from a lovecraftian horror. It doesn't, so we're not at the high replication rate organism stage.
  - andbberger 3y ago
    free energy and the hostility of the environment are decoupled eg deep sea vents

bruce511 3y ago

Long before actual space travel there was science fiction which imagined every possible plot. And since fiction has to have protagonist and an antagonist, [1], the "disease from outer space" was well earned. So I expect its a bit of both. Good PR to head-off the space-bug narrative, and arguably prudent behaviour in the face of no experience. [1] real life is mostly boring. They went to the moon, they came back, nothing happened. By apollo 13 it was so routine they didn't broadcast the launch, or live feed. The drama was because something unexpected happened. Then again quickly forgotten. Most people who lived through that time can't tell you a single thing about apollos 14 through 18, or that 18 didn't fly. Equally I saw the first shuttle mission launch on TV, but then mea. There were 135 launches. 2 ended badly. Oh, and they fixed hubble. And they built a space station. But I couldn't tell you much of anything in any detail. Life is boring.

oefrha 3y ago

As a former theoretical physicist who has worked for LHC, by the time LHC was being built we had enough knowledge of high energy physics to predict events below 10TeV with very high accuracy, the black hole thing was pure nonsense perpetrated by lay people who has read a bit of pop sci. Meanwhile, I don’t think we know enough today to conclusively say there are no hostile microscopic lifeforms on the moon (maybe beneath the surface?). We don’t even know the deep sea on Earth very well.

adastra22 3y ago
> Meanwhile, I don’t think we know enough today to conclusively say there are no hostile microscopic lifeforms on the moon (maybe beneath the surface?). We don’t even know the deep sea on earth very well. Be careful stepping outside your field. I used to work at the NASA Astrobiology and Lunar Science institutes. There is zero chance there is any biology going on or under the surface of the moon.
- solveit 3y ago
  Ludicrous. Your models of biology and the moon may predict that, but the chances of your models being significantly wrong are certainly much greater than zero.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  The chances are quite literally not zero
- oefrha 3y ago
  Particle physics has the advantage of being simple (there are a few fundamental particles, all particles of one type are indistinguishable, etc.), and we had decades of experimental evidence at lower energy as well as heaps of observations of highly energetic cosmic events confirming our simple and consistent theories going into LHC. Is there anything close to that pile of evidence for life (whatever that means, maybe not necessarily carbon-based) on moon or lack thereof? Now do Mars? Personally I don’t think there’s anything on moon, but the evidence isn’t much. In the 60s it might as well have been nonexistent.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]