Mars Sample Return - Threat of back-contamination

Mad Grad Student · 2003-11-19 22:04:27

i'm not exactly fluent in the intricacies of orbital mechanics & spacecraft rendezvous, but it seems to me we may be able to bring the samples back to ISS and finally get some bona fide use out of the thing. this would (er, could) isolate the samples from our biosphere

The problem, though, is that if the samples were exposed to the ambient environment in the ISS, its crew would return Martain spores and other particles to Earth in every concievable nook and cranny. However, if once brought to the ISS the samples were kept isolated from the air, then the threat of backward-contamination would be minimized by the fact that the samples are never returned to Earth. However, this imposes the problem that it would be extremely expensive to look at the samples and astro/cosmonauts would have to act as middlemen to the biologists. I say that we take the risk and just bring the samples home.

dicktice · 2003-11-20 17:48:29

Mad Grad: Don't, as you say , take the risk! Quite a few billion people on Earth wouldn't want you to do that. The ISS is up there, so use it to access a separate Spacelab-type receiving station for the initial evaluation lab-work, perferably by remote presence manipulators, even from Earth.

Earthman · 2003-12-14 15:34:49

I presented my theory of back contamination ( I just learned that phrase) online with a Langley research scientist a few years ago. NASA had a live website and this guy actually discussed my theory of the Lander contaminating Mars when it crashed ,with his colleagues. They agreed that bacteria may have survived inside the fuel tank even after sterilization. It was great for a layman to be able to interact with these guys. I envisioned a green brachiopod ring around the north pole of Mars. Then someone made a movie kind of like that.
I just started here, any info on this? I call it Claudia's Ring. Can u see it yet?

Earthman · 2003-12-14 15:37:28

No, wait.... It's just system contamination, not back contamination, sorry.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-12-16 02:28:40

Hi Earthman!
Which Lander were you discussing?
???

Earthman · 2003-12-19 20:08:41

In 1999, the Polar Lander. I think water is the only important variable for sustained life on Mars.
The $165 million lander was supposed to touch down Dec. 3 for a 90-day mission to analyze the planet?s atmosphere and search for frozen water beneath its south pole. It has not been heard from since it started its descent after an 11-month cruise, and NASA has not offered a reason for the disappearance.

Earthman · 2003-12-19 20:09:46

In 1999, the Polar Lander. I think water is the only important variable for sustained life on Mars.
The $165 million lander was supposed to touch down Dec. 3 for a 90-day mission to analyze the planet?s atmosphere and search for frozen water beneath its south pole. It has not been heard from since it started its descent after an 11-month cruise, and NASA has not offered a reason for the disappearance.

Rxke · 2003-12-20 03:38:13

Official explanation:

"The crash of Polar Lander, coupled with the loss of NASA's Mars Climate Orbiter a few months earlier, triggered a major overhaul of the agency's strategy for exploring the planet.

The loss of Polar Lander was traced to an undetected software error that caused the rocket to shut down during descent. The Climate Orbiter missed Mars because ground-based experts mixed English and metric measurements to make critical navigation calculations.

Investigators blamed the lapses on underfunding and a compressed development schedule that didn't provide enough people to work on the programs or allow enough cross-checking for errors. "

Shaun Barrett · 2003-12-20 18:33:47

I was just about to say the same thing!
Thanks, Rxke!

Palomar · 2003-12-20 19:46:50

"The Climate Orbiter missed Mars because ground-based experts mixed English and metric measurements to make critical navigation calculations.
Investigators blamed the lapses on underfunding and a compressed development schedule that didn't provide enough people to work on the programs or allow enough cross-checking for errors. "

*Well that's just great! :angry:

Thanks for the detailed info, Rkxe. I was thinking about those two missions the other day. Your post fills in some gaps of information for me.

How boneheaded, a mix-up like that. Unforgiveable.

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2003-12-21 03:17:40

Cindy:-

How boneheaded, a mix-up like that. Unforgiveable.

You said it, sister!! :angry:

[Now do you go along with the death penalty?!!! ??? ]

Rxke · 2003-12-21 04:11:28

Everytime NASA attempts a launch somewhere, the comments/jokes about the English/metric thing resurface... I guess they're really tired hearing it.

To their defence: it was bound to happen sometime... Since engineering largely uses the English system, and the scientific communty the metric... that's simply asking for trouble.
Then again, the "faster,cheaper,better" idea was inherently flawed, If you want to build something, EVERYBODY knows you can pick two of those three qualities, but not all three. I guess this time they wanted to go too fast. It should've been : slower, cheaper, better.... (slower: more testing)

Mad Grad Student · 2003-12-21 18:27:22

"The Climate Orbiter missed Mars because ground-based experts mixed English and metric measurements to make critical navigation calculations.
Investigators blamed the lapses on underfunding and a compressed development schedule that didn't provide enough people to work on the programs or allow enough cross-checking for errors. "
*Well that's just great! :angry:
How boneheaded, a mix-up like that. Unforgiveable.

And yet still no one listens to my plea to switch to the metric system! If Boenig had been measuring in meters and kilos such a problem never could have arose. I found out recently that the US is now officially THE ONLY country that still uses the English system of measurments, officially. Even Liberia, which long used English units too, has switched (Which will probably spark yet another civil war ).

You'd think people would listen to something like MCO, but no. Why does everyone think it would be so hard to switch?

lunarmark · 2004-03-05 07:13:41

I really dont see whats so difficult about a sample return mission. Russia and the US did them in the 60's on the moon and that was with primitive technology. It wouldn't have taken much to stick a small return rocket on one of the rovers and sent a sample back into orbit, which could dock with a return vehicle. Then when it arrives in earth orbit we could rendevous with it and return it via the shuttle. (Thereby preventing the need for reentry vehicle and possible contamination if the sample crashes).

In any case We have (in fact, I have) Martian Meteorite rocks here on earth. if there is back contamination. it's already taken place, Since anything that could survive on Mars with it's hostile radiation and temperatures, would likley survive a trip to earth trapped deep inside a chunk of martian meteorite.

An SRM WILL HAPPEN if it's not the US then another country like Europe or Japan or China will do it - maybe Beagle 3!

This makes a lot more sense than sending people there just to do a robots job! and at a fraction of the risk/cost.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-11-19 22:04:27

Re: Mars Sample Return - Threat of back-contamination

#27 2003-11-20 17:48:29

Re: Mars Sample Return - Threat of back-contamination

#28 2003-12-14 15:34:49

Re: Mars Sample Return - Threat of back-contamination

#29 2003-12-14 15:37:28

Re: Mars Sample Return - Threat of back-contamination

#30 2003-12-16 02:28:40

Re: Mars Sample Return - Threat of back-contamination

#31 2003-12-19 20:08:41

Re: Mars Sample Return - Threat of back-contamination

#32 2003-12-19 20:09:46

Re: Mars Sample Return - Threat of back-contamination

#33 2003-12-20 03:38:13

Re: Mars Sample Return - Threat of back-contamination

#34 2003-12-20 18:33:47

Re: Mars Sample Return - Threat of back-contamination

#35 2003-12-20 19:46:50

Re: Mars Sample Return - Threat of back-contamination

#36 2003-12-21 03:17:40

Re: Mars Sample Return - Threat of back-contamination

#37 2003-12-21 04:11:28

Re: Mars Sample Return - Threat of back-contamination

#38 2003-12-21 18:27:22

Re: Mars Sample Return - Threat of back-contamination

#39 2004-03-05 07:13:41

Re: Mars Sample Return - Threat of back-contamination

Board footer