Are there people against contamination of Mars?

Earthman · 2003-12-14 15:54:35

I believe we put life on Mars. Life is tenacious. Are there people against its desterilization?

~Eternal~ · 2003-12-14 22:29:21

I'd say that the amount of "reds" is ~ to 2/3 the amout of pro-terraformers.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-12-16 02:46:48

Earthman, I think you're probably right that "we put life on Mars".

Life is indeed remarkably tenacious, as you point out. Here on Earth we go to enormous trouble to create sterile environments in Operating Rooms, using state-of-the-art disinfectants and elaborate sterilising procedures. Nevertheless, infections are common and becoming alarmingly more frequent as our antibiotic armoury rapidly depletes.
A probe crashing into the martian regolith, disintegrating as it buries itself in the surface, has a good chance of introducing dormant bacterial spores into the soil.
It only takes one bacterium to find shelter, raw materials and moisture and the process of reproduction can begin in earnest; a process endowed with the staggering power of the geometric progression, with one bacterium becoming two bacteria, then four, then eight, then sixteen etc. etc.

This of course ignores the natural cross-contamination called impact transfer, mediated by the exchange of crustal material by asteroid impact over the eons. The advantage with this means of contamination is that it was occurring when Mars was warmer and wetter, too, and more able to nurture stray bacteria than it is today.
An established biosphere of bacteria on the surface and/or underground on Mars would, in my opinion, be almost impossible to eradicate without remelting the entire crust in a catastrophic collision of some kind.

I've paddled this canoe before, so I'll shut up now!!
:;):

Bill White · 2003-12-16 06:42:02

An established biosphere of bacteria on the surface and/or underground on Mars would, in my opinion, be almost impossible to eradicate without remelting the entire crust in a catastrophic collision of some kind.

I agree 100% - therefore evidence of Marsian life will either smack us in the face or there won't be any at all.

Gennaro · 2003-12-16 09:24:30

In someways the tought of this is unbearable. Just think of the prospect when Martian life is found with some uncanny resemblance to certain forms, but we are not exactly sure, and the ensuing debate whether this is actually indigenous life at all or descendants of microbes being transported there by a Soviet 70's probe. All of it resulting in absolute confusion ? la Allen Hills and giving us no clues whatsoever whether life in the galaxy is a common event or merely just a freak chance within our solar system, because some dominant brand of scepticism has begun to doubt if panspermia can cope with interstellar distances.

Mad Grad Student · 2003-12-16 18:12:10

I agree 100% - therefore evidence of Marsian life will either smack us in the face or there won't be any at all.

Aah! Now everyone's spelling Martian wrong, not just Cindy! For further referance, that's "Martian", not "Marsian." I really don't know who decided to end one planet's possesive adjective with a "tian" (Mars), and another with a "sian" (Venus), but I don't make the rules, I just tell other people to follow them.

As for an actual response, life doesn't necessarily have to smack us in the face to be there. After all, it took years to develop the technology to discover life in places like Yellowstone, nuclear reactor cores, and Antarctica. Life is extremely good at living, but it also does a pretty good job at hiding, so I don't think it's very surprising that neither of the Vikings found anything. Heck, even with today's technology we can hardly find anything in the Atacama desert.

Come to think of it, how different would life look on Mars, even if it origionated there? I haven't taken biology yet, but from what I've learned life arose in a very predictable pattern here on Earth. First the tides mixed up a soup of proteins, then surface tension bound tiny spheres of nuclear material (DNA, not uranium) together, which after gaining a cell wall of lipids became Earth's first (And still most successful) life. It's hard to imagine this natural process occuring in a substantially different way on Mars, so Martian life actually should be pretty simmilar to Terran life. Of course, no one will mention that until we find a strain of bacteria identical to E. Coli tucked away in Gusev Crater.

dickbill · 2003-12-17 17:15:01

Come to think of it, how different would life look on Mars, even if it origionated there? I haven't taken biology yet, but from what I've learned life arose in a very predictable pattern here on Earth. First the tides mixed up a soup of proteins, then surface tension bound tiny spheres of nuclear material (DNA, not uranium) together, which after gaining a cell wall of lipids became Earth's first (And still most successful) life. It's hard to imagine this natural process occuring in a substantially different way on Mars, so Martian life actually should be pretty simmilar to Terran life.

I think it would rather be very different, in the details at least.
On earth, all the prebiotic and biochemistry has been victim of contingencies: The way the protein synthesis system has "selected" for levogyre aminoacids, the DNA codon system, the DNA configuration and even the DNA composition are the results of contingencies during the prebiotic and early biogenesis evolution on earth.
For example, early information support on earth, were not necesseraly the double strand DNA or even the more simple RNA that we know today. Other molecular precursors were present and have been discarded or transmitted, sometimes by chance. I remember that glycerol could have been used instead of ribose in the early nucleic acid molecules.
These early prebiotic molecules were also probably disparate, not standardized yet and poorly efficient compared to their modern descendant, DNA, RNA and amino acid.
So on Mars, conditions were different, like for example the lack of nitrogen , the low temperature in surface etc. The early martian prebiotic chemistry, if it has ever existed, had to deal with these differences. There is no reason to expect a martian DNA with the same 3 letters codon code than on earth, for example. There is even no reason to expect a DNA molecule, other molecular information support are possible. I would be very suspicious if that happened, of a contamination.
But you are right that, given the law of chemistry and physic being the same everywhere, some similarities will emerge.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-12-17 18:07:11

Gennaro, I don't think there'll be any problem distinguishing truly martian life (i.e. arising from a separate and independent genesis) from terrestrial life which may have been introduced later.
As Dickbill has explained, and rather well as usual , there were countless ways for Earth-life to evolve differently. Thus, purely indigenous martian life has an essentially zero chance of being based on the same pattern. If we discover life on Mars based on the same 20 amino acids, 19 of them laevo-rotatory as they are here, and with the same total bias in favour of dextro-rotatory sugars, we will know beyond doubt that we're looking at terrestrial life.

But of course, if that's the case, we may never know for sure which planet first produced this form of life, since it could have been transferred in either direction my impact debris, as well as one-way on poorly-sterilised probes!

The most awe-inspiring scenario involves finding life which is based on different amino acids and sugars, with a different DNA structure, or perhaps no familiar DNA-type structure for information transfer at all!
Then we'll know that life has arisen independently on two planets in the same solar system and we'll be almost assured that life is everywhere in the universe.
But sadly for frothing-at-the-mouth rabid terraformers like me, such a scenario is simultaneously the best and worst of worlds. A wholly martian form of life will turn Mars into a no-go zone as the I.S.A.M.B. (International Society for the Advancement of Martian Bacteria) and the world's greenies shift into overdrive and make it a Planetary Park.
I'll love the little martian bacteria too but I'll find it very hard to let go of my beloved Blue Mars!!

Cobra Commander · 2003-12-17 18:12:49

But sadly for frothing-at-the-mouth rabid terraformers like me, such a scenario is simultaneously the best and worst of worlds. A wholly martian form of life will turn Mars into a no-go zone as the I.S.A.M.B. (International Society for the Advancement of Martian Bacteria) and the world's greenies shift into overdrive and make it a Planetary Park.
I'll love the little martian bacteria too but I'll find it very hard to let go of my beloved Blue Mars!!

So perhaps I won't be alone in the Society of Greedy Western Imperialists Bent on the Genocide of Indiginous Martian Life for Comfort and Profit.

dickbill · 2003-12-18 11:50:26

A hobby for future Martians/Marsans : terran meteorite hunter.
It's easyer to receive a martian stone on earth than the reverse, due to lower velocity required on Mars, but that just means that bigger impactors are required, on earth compared to Mars, to send pieces of rocks on Mars.
But we know a big impactor that stroke us in the past: the one that form the Chicxulub crater that (supposedly) killed the dinosaurs. The consequence is that, if lucky, future martians meteorite hunters might find one day, a bone of Tyranosaurus Rex on Mars. How cool that would be !

http://miac.uqac.ca/MIAC/chicxulub.htm

Palomar · 2003-12-18 13:05:50

Shaun: "But sadly for frothing-at-the-mouth rabid terraformers like me, such a scenario is simultaneously the best and worst of worlds....
I'll love the little martian bacteria too but I'll find it very hard to let go of my beloved Blue Mars!!"

Cobra Commander: "So perhaps I won't be alone in the Society of Greedy Western Imperialists Bent on the Genocide of Indiginous Martian Life for Comfort and Profit."

*Good grief. You can count me out as a future member of the SGWIBGIMLCP Club.

dickbill: "A hobby for future Martians/Marsans : terran meteorite hunter."

*Hey, that's an interesting idea.

The consequence is that, if lucky, future martians meteorite hunters might find one day, a bone of Tyranosaurus Rex on Mars. How cool that would be !

*Um...I'd say you're a really optimistic fellow, dickbill. Yeah, it'd be cool though.

--Cindy

Mad Grad Student · 2003-12-18 17:41:15

There is no reason to expect a martian DNA with the same 3 letters codon code than on earth, for example. There is even no reason to expect a DNA molecule, other molecular information support are possible. I would be very suspicious if that happened, of a contamination. But you are right that, given the law of chemistry and physics being the same everywhere, some similarities will emerge.

Yes, that's true, to some degree at least. I'd be willing to stretch to say that under different conditions including a colder environment, reduced gravity, and near-zero tides life could arise without the standard A T C G combo that we know and love. However, you must also take into account that the reason A T C and G ended up becoming the components of DNA was because they are the chemicals that will naturally mix given the chance, ditto for amino acids. However, there would be more lenience on sugars, protiens, and acids because there are so many more possible combinations of formulae. Just look at the diversity of monerans on Earth! I suppose that while all water-based life will superficially resemble Terran life, any trained biologist would be able to tell it didn't come from anywhere in this neighborhood.

I don't think we can justify the terraformation of Mars if we find life there simply because the proccess is so expensive and we'd be paving over the only known extraterrestrial life. Can we ethically (And I hate to use that word) do that?

Cobra Commander · 2003-12-18 20:29:06

I don't think we can justify the terraformation of Mars if we find life there simply because the proccess is so expensive and we'd be paving over the only known extraterrestrial life. Can we ethically (And I hate to use that word) do that?

Can we ethically deny future human generations the resources and living space of an entire world simply because a few microbes happen to live there?

I realize that comes across as rather confrontational which is not my intent, but both questions are equally valid.

Shaun: "But sadly for frothing-at-the-mouth rabid terraformers like me, such a scenario is simultaneously the best and worst of worlds....
I'll love the little martian bacteria too but I'll find it very hard to let go of my beloved Blue Mars!!"

Cobra Commander: "So perhaps I won't be alone in the Society of Greedy Western Imperialists Bent on the Genocide of Indiginous Martian Life for Comfort and Profit."
*Good grief. You can count me out as a future member of the SGWIBGIMLCP Club.

Yeah, I don't suppose I'd be a card-carrying member either. But I'd go to the meetings from time to time.

The discovery of life on Mars would be extraordinarily significant, even more so if we could prove that it originated independently of Earth life. It should be preserved and studied. This is not in direct conflict with colonization or terraforming, we wouldn't have much luck wiping the planet clean of them if we tried.

From a more long-term perspective, if Mars has native life then it is likely that many other planets do as well, meaning that if we should ever be so lucky as to find another world even remotely Earth-like it too will (by definition as Earthlike) have life as well. If we won't terraform because of microbes, we can't very well start clearing forest or irrigating fields if some higher form of life is present.

If we set the precedent that native life, however primitive, is more important than human settlement or development than it will follow us to the stars and severely limit what we can accomplish. The debate is about more than Mars.

Fight the Red Menace! Terraform now!

Palomar · 2003-12-18 21:18:20

If we set the precedent that native life, however primitive, is more important than human settlement or development than it will follow us to the stars and severely limit what we can accomplish. The debate is about more than Mars.

*Yes, this is true. And it's mostly the reason I have a lot of conflict regarding terraforming. I really am amazed that some people (with no offense intended toward anyone; it's just my sentiments at work here) can feel absolutely YES or absolutely NO about it. Although I suppose the extremes in either camp is small in number (?).

To me, it's another can of worms. How not to paint one's self into a corner to the point of sheer immobility versus how not to ride roughshod over everything?

I see it as a delicate matter, with serious long-range consequences (either way) involved.

If just 1 person were to decide "yea or nay," I wouldn't want to be that person.

To me, it's not a "cut and dry" matter.

--Cindy

dickbill · 2003-12-19 09:12:22

There is two different kind of bacteria, the good and the bad. If we can categorize martian bacteria as "devilish bacteria" belonging to "axis of evil", then we can safely go there, kill them and replace them by our own "good" bacteria.

Rxke · 2003-12-19 09:17:46

you mean these bacteria are actually WMD's?

Hmmm... insert here obvious joke about Landers unable to find them, and get a lot of angry/happy replies from the whole political spectrum represented on this site

dickbill · 2003-12-19 10:40:25

you mean these bacteria are actually WMD's?
Hmmm... insert here obvious joke about Landers unable to find them, and get a lot of angry/happy replies from the whole political spectrum represented on this site

Yes, they are bad and a threat for us. We know for sure that they are there. If we cannot find them , it's the very proof that they exist, because they hide, we must find them and detroy them before they destroy us.

hmmm... did I made this joke before ?

Mad Grad Student · 2003-12-19 15:51:29

Okay, in hindsight I shouldn't've used the word "ethically." First, I hate any argument that involves ethics simply because of all the tripe I've heard against cloning, GM crops, and evolution. Second, there's a scientific reason to go red as well. Sure, there might be life on many other worlds out there circling distant G-type stars, but what if there isn't? Even if we find indiginous life on Mars we have no reason to assume it's common elsewhere, just more circumstantial evidence along the lines of (Caveman voice) "Oh, loook, it happen here! There must be life everywhere!" That argument didn't work for Percival Lowell, it's not going to work now.

So let's assume for a moment that it turns out that Mars is the only non-Earth nearby source of life. If we destroy the whisp of an ecosystem that exists with terraforming, we'd forever loose a wealth of information on how life comes about and where it can survive. We'd be back to working with an example of one, and necessitate yet more speculation and guesswork. I don't want to spark a your-mama argument, but perhaps a spirited discussion on the matter would be pertinent.

However, if we can conclusively prove that Mars doesn't have life now and terraforming won't pave over any previously-living fossils, I'd be all for terraforming as long as the price is right. Both are pretty daunting tasks, as no matter what there would always be some faint glimmer of hope that life just might be somewhere we haven't looked yet. As for the second, any way you look at it terraforming has a monsterous price tag that would be very difficult to justify commercially or scientifically. And no matter what you run into the problem of how to get Mars' core running again. Perhaps a sequel to The Core would give us the answer.

Earthman · 2003-12-19 21:00:59

WOW, what a witty, cerebral, and enthusiastic group! Just the kind of people I would terraform with.
To see succesional stages of life rise and fall in a dictatorial ballet on Mars is what I want to see. If there is an ecosystem there, and ours will obliterate it, so be it. In the noble cause of celestial preservation it is but a grain of sand. In the greater cause of reproduction, it is imperative we spread.
I'm sad about the damage to the Earth and Moon caused by the space programs, but we must reach out with all our might.
We can turn your mighty rocks to dust with just one cell.
We are proud representatives of this organized activity called carbon based life. Earthlife rules

Rxke · 2003-12-20 03:45:31

So let's assume for a moment that it turns out that Mars is the only non-Earth nearby source of life. If we destroy the whisp of an ecosystem that exists with terraforming, we'd forever loose a wealth of information on how life comes about and where it can survive. We'd be back to working with an example of one, and necessitate yet more speculation and guesswork.

That's a very good point. Problem is, when can one *definitely* say there is *no* life... If you don't find it, it could be hiding. How long should one keep searching...

dickbill · 2003-12-20 08:49:11

That's a very good point. Problem is, when can one *definitely* say there is *no* life... If you don't find it, it could be hiding. How long should one keep searching...

True, early martian attempts, successful attemps I mean, of prebiotic biochemistry can be very local, hidden somewhere in a pocket in the crust, not everywhere, just in some tiny spot on Mars. But for some reasons, these early cellular progenitors have never develloped further because they have been frozen or impacted or who knows what. The quest for life in Mars will never end completely.

Earthman · 2003-12-21 19:30:45

I'm sorry,... take some samples and then plant some biological starter mix. I know some bryophites that would love to live there. If our lifeforms are the fittest, they should survive.
Can we even keep our own ecosystems free from non-natives? The bulldozer will win, it's human nature to take over. Our doom is unchangable like all life. We are the most durable species known, Mars life evolved too slow to keep up. I'm not being sarcastic. I'm Johnny Appleseed.
We go clumbsily forth or we don't go. Just my opinion.
I'm going to read on this, thanx for the info

Rxke · 2003-12-22 07:40:17

I know some bryophites that would love to live there.

Can you give some more info on that? I've always been interested in this kind of stuff, but i'm not a botanist/biologist and a lot more ... not (if you know what i mean)

Do you think there are organisms on Earth, already capable to survive on Mars?

Mad Grad Student · 2003-12-22 16:53:08

Do you think there are organisms on Earth, already capable to survive on Mars?

Certainly, there would be a huge range of extremeophiles yearning to live in such an environment. What you have to keep in mind is that every square inch, I'm not kidding, EVERY square inch (Minus maybe three or four in the Atacama desert and Antarctica) of Earth is crawling with microorganisms. They are as integral to how this planet operates as is the hydrosphere or the atmosphere, and some of them live in such terrible hellholes Mars would seem like a vacation. There are strains of bacteria that live (Read: thrive) in nuclear reactors, sulfuric acid, and the middle of the Antarctic ice sheet. While I can't name any specific examples I'm sure that there are several species of bacteria that would thrive down in those hidden aquifers below the surface, no matter what life will find a way.

Runnerbrax · 2004-01-09 15:50:44

Hey everyone its me again... I skipped over alot of the thread and im sure it was adressed... but here is my 1.5 cents, with "whats his face" that debated about a martian mission this morning saying that it would contaminate mars germ wise and landscape wise. On the germ thing, wouldnt the most resilient of germs have to be sheilded from Mar's UV light in order to survive ? and on the second note, Ima green so thats my opinion on that.

And if you were wondering why i didnt post for a while, I just felt out classed by everyone's debating.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-12-14 15:54:35

Re: Are there people against contamination of Mars?

#2 2003-12-14 22:29:21

Re: Are there people against contamination of Mars?

#3 2003-12-16 02:46:48

Re: Are there people against contamination of Mars?

#4 2003-12-16 06:42:02

Re: Are there people against contamination of Mars?

#5 2003-12-16 09:24:30

Re: Are there people against contamination of Mars?

#6 2003-12-16 18:12:10

Re: Are there people against contamination of Mars?

#7 2003-12-17 17:15:01

Re: Are there people against contamination of Mars?

#8 2003-12-17 18:07:11

Re: Are there people against contamination of Mars?

#9 2003-12-17 18:12:49

Re: Are there people against contamination of Mars?

#10 2003-12-18 11:50:26

Re: Are there people against contamination of Mars?

#11 2003-12-18 13:05:50

Re: Are there people against contamination of Mars?

#12 2003-12-18 17:41:15

Re: Are there people against contamination of Mars?

#13 2003-12-18 20:29:06

Re: Are there people against contamination of Mars?

#14 2003-12-18 21:18:20

Re: Are there people against contamination of Mars?

#15 2003-12-19 09:12:22

Re: Are there people against contamination of Mars?

#16 2003-12-19 09:17:46

Re: Are there people against contamination of Mars?

#17 2003-12-19 10:40:25

Re: Are there people against contamination of Mars?

#18 2003-12-19 15:51:29

Re: Are there people against contamination of Mars?

#19 2003-12-19 21:00:59

Re: Are there people against contamination of Mars?

#20 2003-12-20 03:45:31

Re: Are there people against contamination of Mars?

#21 2003-12-20 08:49:11

Re: Are there people against contamination of Mars?

#22 2003-12-21 19:30:45

Re: Are there people against contamination of Mars?

#23 2003-12-22 07:40:17

Re: Are there people against contamination of Mars?

#24 2003-12-22 16:53:08

Re: Are there people against contamination of Mars?

#25 2004-01-09 15:50:44

Re: Are there people against contamination of Mars?

Board footer