4 ms·

This article brings an interesting question to mind - How will we land humans on Mars without contaminating the planet? I mean, Mars's atmosphere is mostly CO

by tarice 14y ago

This article brings an interesting question to mind - How will we land humans on Mars without contaminating the planet? I mean, Mars's atmosphere is mostly CO2, and bacteria are well-known for their ability to survive in harsh conditions. There may not be life on Mars now, but who's to say there won't be after all the astronauts leave...?

fghh45sdfhr3 14y ago
Did we contaminate the moon? I think if we can can put people on Mars, we'll like that more than not contaminating Mars.
- pc86 14y ago
  The atmosphere of Mars is over 95% CO2[1] which I imagine could support the propagation of bacteria. The Moon doesn't have much of an atmosphere at all (a trillionth of what the Earth has).[2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_the_Moon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_the_Moon
  - tarice 14y ago
    A bit of cyanobacteria[1] could theoretically thrive on Mars. All it takes is CO2, sunlight, and water. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria
    - ars 14y ago
      They also need nitrogen and trace minerals. The minerals they could get from soil, but without nitrogen they can't make proteins. The atmosphere of mars is 2.7% nitrogen, but I'm not convinced that that is enough for nitrogen fixation to work.
rodly 14y ago
Is it wrong to contaminate a space that has no life/use otherwise? I'm not saying Mars as it stands has no use, but if we find no life there, surely spreading life to another planet is "good" right?
- wtetzner 14y ago
  Well, we might end up thinking there was life on Mars when we're really the ones that brought it. It might screw with the science.
  - rodly 14y ago
    That burden is on us though. Assume we've taken the proper precautions, searched high and low on Mars, and can definitively say no life currently exists in any form on Mars. What does that make Mars? - A useful resource for studying terrestrial planets - A geologists dream land - A lifeless rock that will likely never host life unless terraformed - A useful resource for spreading life; extending the Human race's finite time in the Universe I'm not very educated on the ethics of this topic so I'm looking for reasons you would want to leave Mars be indefinitely.
    - wtetzner 14y ago
      I don't disagree with you, I was just trying to come up with a reason we might not want to contaminate it. If there's no life on Mars, I don't see any obvious ethical problems with introducing life to it. I mean, I guess maybe if it there was some reason it would be bad for the life forms, versus being bad for Mars.
bretthoerner 14y ago
http://planetaryprotection.nasa.gov/ http://planetaryprotection.nasa.gov/
- sp332 14y ago
  Well, that's the theory. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45511362/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/oops-nasa-comes-clean-mars-rover-curiosity-slip-up/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45511362/ns/technology_and_scien...

by tarice 14y ago

fghh45sdfhr3 14y ago

Did we contaminate the moon? I think if we can can put people on Mars, we'll like that more than not contaminating Mars.

pc86 14y ago
The atmosphere of Mars is over 95% CO2[1] which I imagine could support the propagation of bacteria. The Moon doesn't have much of an atmosphere at all (a trillionth of what the Earth has).[2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_the_Moon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_the_Moon
- tarice 14y ago
  A bit of cyanobacteria[1] could theoretically thrive on Mars. All it takes is CO2, sunlight, and water. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria
  - ars 14y ago
    They also need nitrogen and trace minerals. The minerals they could get from soil, but without nitrogen they can't make proteins. The atmosphere of mars is 2.7% nitrogen, but I'm not convinced that that is enough for nitrogen fixation to work.

rodly 14y ago

Is it wrong to contaminate a space that has no life/use otherwise? I'm not saying Mars as it stands has no use, but if we find no life there, surely spreading life to another planet is "good" right?

wtetzner 14y ago
Well, we might end up thinking there was life on Mars when we're really the ones that brought it. It might screw with the science.
- rodly 14y ago
  That burden is on us though. Assume we've taken the proper precautions, searched high and low on Mars, and can definitively say no life currently exists in any form on Mars. What does that make Mars? - A useful resource for studying terrestrial planets - A geologists dream land - A lifeless rock that will likely never host life unless terraformed - A useful resource for spreading life; extending the Human race's finite time in the Universe I'm not very educated on the ethics of this topic so I'm looking for reasons you would want to leave Mars be indefinitely.
  - wtetzner 14y ago
    I don't disagree with you, I was just trying to come up with a reason we might not want to contaminate it. If there's no life on Mars, I don't see any obvious ethical problems with introducing life to it. I mean, I guess maybe if it there was some reason it would be bad for the life forms, versus being bad for Mars.

bretthoerner 14y ago

http://planetaryprotection.nasa.gov/ http://planetaryprotection.nasa.gov/

sp332 14y ago
Well, that's the theory. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45511362/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/oops-nasa-comes-clean-mars-rover-curiosity-slip-up/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45511362/ns/technology_and_scien...