3 ms·
That's historically been true, but won't always be the case. NASA has talked about putting humans on Mars within a couple of decades. It may be sensible to try
by bostonpete 12y ago
That's historically been true, but won't always be the case. NASA has talked about putting humans on Mars within a couple of decades. It may be sensible to try putting other living things on Mars in advance of humanity...
- JoeAltmaier 12y agoThis! Having supplies/environment primed and ready when humans arrive could make the difference between a thriving colony and a miserable death.
- rtkwe 12y agoThe first colonies won't get any help from microbes on the surface of Mars, it's too cold and dry for much of anything useful from Earth to survive much less thrive. And the timescales for anything that could a) thrive and b) have a measurable impact on the lives of colonist are way longer than (I hope) any mission will land since it'd take decades/centuries for there to be a useful impact. Eventually yeah introducing life to Mars will be a useful prospect but we're talking about kickstarting a whole planet's ecosystem not something to do haphazardly or that will show large impacts in a single lifetime.
- JoeAltmaier 12y agoAll we'd need is a bubble-greenhouse to be growing some wheat or something - don't have to terraform the entire place.
- rtkwe 12y agoFor a long time this will still be the case. Until we're going to be putting humans on Mars (at which point there are very limited options for continuing the sterility, because we're lousy with them) avoiding contamination will be a pretty high goal for missions.