Containment - Containment

Ian · 2002-04-17 10:51:01

I think that some people are nervous about stuff from Mars contaminating the Earth.

Mark S · 2002-04-17 16:42:28

I think that people at NASA have that same fear. If a sample return mission is launched, it will probably be quarantined at White Sands rather than returning for an ocean or land recovery. Perhaps the people at NASA have taken "War of the Worlds" a bit too seriously. Still, too much precaution is better than no precaution.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-11-09 01:33:32

Why should anyone, especially at NASA, be nervous about "stuff from Mars contaminating the Earth"?! ???

It is now as near to certainty as you can get about anything, that pieces of Mars have been arriving on Earth at regular intervals for the past 4.5 billion years, due to impact transfer. In fact,there has probably never been a period any longer than a few thousand years during which significant quantities of Martian crust haven't landed here!
Experiments and calculations have shown that there's no reason why viable organisms in such Martian meteorites should necessarily be destroyed in the process of getting from Mars to Earth.
From the inescapable logic of this situation, it's impossible to deny that many Martian life forms, at any and every point in the history of Mars, must already have been introduced into our biosphere!

I know I've been arguing this point, ad nauseam, on New Mars for quite a while now. But the latest research at this site just serves to confirm the obvious.
Apparently, more pieces of Mars than we've realised are landing on Earth as regular as clockwork! - About one piece per month, on average.

Can anyone out there who still thinks Earth has remained quarantined from any Martian bacteria throughout the eons, please now explain to me how they arrive at this conclusion. Because I, for one, have no idea how such a position can be defended!

And can we now dispense with the Sample Return Mission nonsense in its entirety, and simply get on with sending the only devices capable of exploring Mars properly ... human beings?!!
Thankyou! :angry:

AltToWar · 2002-11-09 04:33:57

Diseases are highly specialized organisims.

Just as you cannot catch dutch elms disease, No mars virus will do anything to a human being.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-11-10 06:39:05

Further to my last post here, I'll just relay to you an excerpt from "The Fifth Miracle", by Dr. Paul Davies, who is described by the Washington Times as 'The best science writer on either side of the Atlantic' :-

"The near-certainty of planetary cross-contamination, which seems to have been overlooked by most scientists and commentators involved in the recent life-on-Mars debate, makes the ultimate origin of life problematic."

To me, this whole thing is almost spooky. Everywhere I look, newspaper articles and TV shows still talk about Mars and its relationship in space with Earth as though it's still 1977!!
I've decided to call it the 'Viking Time Warp Anomaly' ! Or VTWA for short.
It doesn't seem to matter how much information we've gathered about Mars or how dramatically our picture of its history has changed. It makes no difference that our knowledge of how tenacious, adaptable, and durable microorganisms are has grown exponentially in the past 25 years. And the continual exchange of surface material between Earth and Mars over geological time, together with the obvious ramifications for biological transfer, are almost totally ignored.

Even members of New Mars make posts wondering if we will find life on Mars (a virtual certainty) or discussing the quarantine of laboriously retrieved Martian samples in case Earth should become contaminated (as though it's still 1977 and we've never heard of impact transfer).
It's uncanny! It's incredible!! Are Dr. Davies and myself the only people who haven't been living in a sensory-deprivation chamber for the last quarter century?!!

This is important stuff we're talking about here. If the people who make the decisions can be dragged kicking and screaming into the light of reason, and if they will just open their eyes and see, it will become apparent to them that the Sample Return Mission and elaborate quarantine facilities are entirely unnecessary. There's nothing alive on Mars that we don't already have here!
The SRMs (notice the plural - we'll need more than one! ) are going to cost literally $billions, and will delay the first human mission by many years.
And it's not necessary!! ???

HeloTeacher · 2002-11-19 09:28:48

A MSR is not only about a search for life. A good sample of Martin soil woul help define some of the surface chemistry and allow better planning for what items an initial manned mission would need. In the NASA context it is still a reasonable idea.

It will slow things down. I agree that we should get on with it but that isn't reason a NASA option.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-11-19 18:51:09

Thanks for the response, HeloTeacher!

If we ignore the question of life on Mars, I believe a Sample Return Mission then becomes an expensive white elephant we can avoid.
In 1977 we managed to send automated laboratories to Mars to conduct experiments on the soil in a search for microbes. How much easier would it be for us today to send instruments which will give us a complete run-down on Martian regolith constituents? In view of the fact that dust is blown from one side of the planet to the other and back again on a seasonal basis, I believe just one such mineralogical sampling, in-situ, is all we'll need. The dust from one place is as good as the dust from any place because it's so thoroughly mixed.

The Mars Direct plan is an ongoing plan. The first crew will be the ground-breakers and will discover more about Mars in the first month than 20 years of pointless SRMs could ever do.
There is risk involved, for sure. But you could spend a century trying to analyse every conceivable danger the first crew will face, and still miss something that nobody thought of!

By all means send a probe to see what chemicals are in the regolith. But make it one, make it quick, and let's make with the real exploration of Mars!
???

Phobos · 2002-11-19 21:49:10

Preach it Shaun! I think we might have to replace some of those creaking boards in your soapbox! I totally agree that sample return missions are pointless. Considering their complexity and cost we'd be better off just using the funds earmarked for those missions to do the pre-requisite R&D needed for a human mission.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-11-19 22:07:06

Phobos writes:-

Preach it Shaun!

I thank you sincerely for your much appreciated support. The hat will be passed around shortly. A few coins would be most welcome!

AltToWar · 2002-11-20 00:36:52

One thing a sample return mission to mars will most definately prove is the need for us to put a man (or woman (or a pack of lesbians with a sperm bank)) to mars to get any decient results.

Lone--Wolfe · 2003-06-18 22:06:00

Don't tell me Ian. You read Dark they Were, And Golden Eyed, right? I highly doubt that could happen, let alone a disease on a planet which appears to have not have sustained life for millions of years.

Palomar · 2003-06-19 06:40:34

*What with all the plagues and diseases we've got on Earth (and, if the statistics are any indication, many folk still don't know what a condom is), I remain confounded that some people are afraid of microbes from Mars. This strikes me as similar to the fear of ghosts...when it's the living who are the true cause for worry!

--Cindy

P.S.: PHOBOS, COME BACK!!

dickbill · 2003-06-19 16:41:19

I agree with BGD, it's unlikely that we've been infected, however:

1) the martian life could originated from a martian hot vent, close to a martian volcanoe, and the martian organism already adapted to conditions very close to the terran oceanic hot-vent.

2) If close to a volcanoe, basalts are probably present in great quantity, and these early martian bacteria could seek refuge inside the basalt. These volcanic rocks are like glass sponge, filled with bubble of gas, they can make good temperature isolant and protect the martian bacteria from being carbonized at the meteoritic impact.

3) Millions of years later, a piece of that martian volcanic rock can fall on earth in the ocean, close to an oceanic vent. Even if the crust has melted during the atmospheric entry, the meteor can break at the impact with water and terran foraging organisms can further pierce and colonize the martian rock, like coralline algae colonize calcacerous rocks to make the 'living rock" well known from the aquarists. So the martian spore or bacteria can finally escape.

4) Several attempts to revive old organism have been made: 50 million years old bacteria contained into the gut of a wasp encapsulated in amber have been put successfully in culture. Straight, no cloning here. A micro tool drilled through the amber, inside the wasp gut, extracted the content and put it in culture. The DNA analysis prooved the bacteria were real living fossils. I've also heard of claim that a team of scientist has revived 250 millions years old bacteria contained in a liquid inclusion inside a salt crystal (but people have doubt here). So life can be time resistant enough for a space trip.

dickbill · 2003-06-20 13:58:51

Dickbill, do you really think microorganisms can survive millions of years in space ? Think about radiation from Sun, solar flares and especially GCR. The latest is composed of heavy charged particles, like iron ions. They are able to crack apart molecules like a chainsaw through cheese, in no more than a few months. And medium-heavy elements (like those found in rocks) are the worst shielding materials possible....

BGD, all this is just speculation, but in the problem of life of Mars, we have to assume that life can appear in about the same conditions than for earth.
So, on earth life appeared at least 3.8 billions years ago, as it is often stated, some people say as soon as the crust was cold enough. We don't know exactly where: bottom of the ocean close to a tectonic hot vent ?, shallow water with direct sun light with plenty of UV and organics from the incoming comets ?, mineral interface with their catalysis properties ?, close to volcanic water spring in surface ? all this has been proposed.
The rational for the hot vent hypothesis is the presence of archaebacteria/extremophil in these spots. It has also been suggested that the archae kingdom is actually the oldest living kingdom on earth because these microorganisms are adapted to conditions expected in early earth, when volcanism and tectonic was intense. So life on earth might have happen in hot spring or vent.
On Mars we have to assume the same and so, old martian hot vents are good candidate to search for fossil, or even present life. By the way, that means that volcanoes area are also good candidate for life, so maybe the future rovers may take a trip to the volcanoes in search for fossilized hot springs, and not always stay in the area where water has flooded.

That life can resist the rigor of space is surprising, a priori I would say it's impossible for anything to stay alive for long in space, but not so. Bacteria have been found on the lens of a camera left on the moon, other bacterias have been reported to make the apollo trip, both way, and alive. There is a recent report in the litterature, some guys have tested the survival capabilities of bacteria in martian-like conditions. At the temperature, pressure and in presence of UV, they found that they survived the conditions:

Life Sci Space Res. 1970;8:53-8.
Effect of ultraviolet on the survival of bacteria airborne in simulated Martian dust clouds.
Hagen CA, Hawrylewicz EJ, Anderson BT, Cephus ML.
IIT Research Institute, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
A chamber was constructed to create simulated Martian dust storms and thereby study the survival of airborne micro-organisms while exposed to the rigors of the Martian environment, including ultraviolet irradiation. Representative types of sporeforming and non-sporeforming bacteria present in spacecraft assembly areas and indigenous to humans were studied. It was found that daily ultraviolet irradiation of 2 to 9 X 10(7) erg cm-2 was not sufficient to sterilize the dust clouds. The soil particles protected the organisms from ultraviolet irradiation since the numbers of survivors from irradiated environments were similar to those from unirradiated environments . Pending further data of the Martian environment, the contamination and dissemination of Mars with terrestrial micro-organisms is still a distinct possibility.

And also the next reference. But don't take these ref. for the parole of sanctity, we just don't know. However, I would say that a microorganism, especially a spore which is a very resistant form of bacteria, could resist a long time in a space travel, provided it is deeply buried inside a meteorit.

Icarus. 2000 Jun;145(2):391-427.
Natural transfer of viable microbes in space.
Mileikowsky C, Cucinotta FA, Wilson JW, Gladman B, Horneck G, Lindegren L, Melosh J, Rickman H, Valtonen M, Zheng JQ.
KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden. mil.behr@iprolink.ch
The possibility and probability of natural transfer of viable microbes from Mars to Earth and Earth to Mars traveling in meteoroids during the first 0.5 Ga and the following 4 Ga are investigated, including: --radiation protection against the galactic cosmic ray nuclei and the solar rays, dose rates as a function of the meteorite's radial column mass (radius x density), combined with dose rates generated by natural radioactivity within the meteorite; and survival curves for some bacterial species using NASA's HZETRN transport code --other factors affecting microbe survival: vacuum; central meteorite temperatures at launch, orbiting, and arrival; pressure and acceleration at launch; spontaneous DNA decay; metal ion migration --mean sizes and numbers of unshocked meteorites ejected and percentage falling on Earth, using current semiempirical results --viable flight times for the microbe species Bacillus subtilis and Deinococcus radiodurans R1 --the approximate fraction of microbes (with properties like the two species studied) viably arriving on Earth out of those ejected from Mars during the period 4 Ga BP to the present time, and during the 700 Ma from 4.5 to 3.8 Ga. Similarly, from Earth to Mars. The conclusion is that if microbes existed or exist on Mars, viable transfer to Earth is not only possible but also highly probable, due to microbes' impressive resistance to the dangers of space transfer and to the dense traffic of billions of martian meteorites which have fallen on Earth since the dawn of our planetary system. Earth-to-Mars transfer is also possible but at a much lower frequency.

dickbill · 2003-06-20 15:51:21

the surface of the ship will be sterilized during reentry, now, are we talking about a sample return mission ? then the inside of the container has to be opened into a pressurized lab, I am not afraid by that.
Frankly, with all the germs and new diseases that we have to deal with year after year, a martian germ would just be another one. Our immune system has seen much worst than that. Beside, there is a kind of law, the more extreme conditions the organism is adapted to live, the worst competitor it is, when put in presence with other bacteria or germs. For example D. radiodurans is tough and nobody can compete with it in its adapted conditions, but at 37 degre C on a rich media, it competes poorly and the other guys take all the food. So a poor martian spore arriving now would be eaten very quickly by some terran organism.
2 billions years ago, however, that's different, this spore could fall on a relatively empty ecological niche on earth and survive more easily

Shaun Barrett · 2003-07-08 06:12:42

I note that BGD and, to a lesser extent, Dickbill are somewhat skeptical that Martian lifeforms could have reached Earth in viable form. This is simply incorrect.
For an interesting summary of our present thinking on this subject, have a look at this article.

Certain conditions are prescribed in order to classify meteorites from Mars as being suitable (or 'hospitable') enough to allow any organisms in them to survive the journey to Earth. These conditions are:-

-The radius of ejected rock is between 0.67 and 1 metre (mainly to provide protection from radiation in deep space).
-The core temperature within the rock during ejection or re-entry did not exceed 100 C (two of the dozen or so Martian meteorites that have been found on Earth meet this criterion)
-The journey time between planets was 100,000 years or less.

It is concluded that, on average, 150 kgs (330 lbs) of 'hospitable' Martian material falls to Earth each year.
It is estimated that if there are Martian microbes in these rocks in the first place, approximately 7% of them will survive as viable organisms when they get here!

It seems a similar mass of Earth rock arrives on Mars each year, too. And again, 7% of the organisms therein are likely to be viable upon arrival. Of course, conditions being what they are on Mars today, the article cautions that far less of the dormant terrestrial microbes are likely to find a niche in which they can prosper ... at least in the present epoch. But it should be noted that Earth bacteria reaching Mars, say, 3 billion years ago may well have found a much balmier environment.

In summary, I say again that everything I read tells me Martian microbes, if they exist (and I firmly believe they must), have certainly arrived intact here on Earth on a regular basis since time immemorial.
There is no point whatsoever in mounting time-consuming Sample Return Missions and building expensive containment facilities to protect ourselves from contamination.
Martian bugs are here among us now!!
And they evidently don't look any different from Earth bugs because nobody has recognised them as alien!

I think it's time we all woke up and smelled the coffee. You can't quarantine Martian material ... it's too late!

prometheusunbound · 2003-07-09 14:14:30

I would not be too worried about martain life conquering earth for the singluar reason that one lifeform (with the exception of humanity) has never completely dominated the ecosystem of earth. . .and probably never will. The ecosystem is geared in favor of beings that feed off each other. ..there is little chance that one spieces will survive by wiping out all the opposition. In order for mars life to dominate they need other martian life to work with. As there is no martain life ( as we know it to date) on earth it is highly unlikely (stastically impossible) that any martian life would be able to establish a bridgehead.

dickbill · 2003-07-09 18:14:55

In summary, I say again that everything I read tells me Martian microbes, if they exist (and I firmly believe they must), have certainly arrived intact here on Earth on a regular basis since time immemorial.

Hi Shaun, I agree with everything of that panspermia theory and your statement of: "If martian life exists, then it has been transmitted or infected to earth" is STATISTICALLY true, meaning highly probable.

However I have a big problem when you say that your are convinced that martian life exist. Here is why.
Life is not a deterministic force or physical law, like gravity or gas pressure, where we could apply deterministic cause and effect actions. There is only one case known of life, earth.
So here is the point, I am firmly convinced that somewhere, somehow in the martian past, hot martian vent existed with exactly the same condition that terran vent, same temperature, pressure, chemical composition etc.
We can suppose that these very same conditions might have been good for life appearance on earth, so then they are good on Mars as well, since these are exactly the same conditions, However I cannot infer that life happened on Mars just because Mars has the adequat conditions.

If we find life on MArs however, then we can apply statistics and deterministic laws for further studies of life spot in the cosmos, until then, how can we be sure of anything ?. It's hard for me to explain that in better english, but I guess you get the point.
Before we can apply cause and effect laws to that putative state of matter that we call "living matter" , we need more cases.

If we find no life on Mars, and still discover conditions where life should have happened in the martian past, because it happened on earth in similar conditions, what will be your conclusion ?

Shaun Barrett · 2003-07-13 22:40:59

Hi BGD and Dickbill!
Thanks for the interesting responses.
You are both absolutely correct when you say that nobody knows for sure whether there is life on Mars or not. Aside from the Viking LR experiment, the results of which are hotly disputed, I have nothing to go on but probability. I do admit that probability and fact are two totally different things.

But I have seen enough to say I believe life on Mars is almost a certainty. I cannot be 100% sure but, to my mind, the probability is very high ... say, 95%+.

Dickbill, we do know one or two things for sure: There is life on Earth. There has always been transfer of crustal material from Earth to Mars and Mars to Earth. Hence, the conditions must have been sufficient for life to develop on one planet or the other but, for now, we can't be sure which one.
Let's say life originated on Earth 4 billion years ago. There is credible evidence that many places on Mars at that time were warm and wet. Rocks liberated from Earth's crust by frequent impacts would have been arriving at Mars often. Statistically, the probability is extremely high that many of those rocks would have contained dormant but viable microorganisms, some of which would have found their way into the Martian regolith and prospered.
I put it to you that once the Martian crust was contaminated with bacteria from Earth (even just one bacterium), those bacteria would have spread quickly across the surface or, at the very least, throughout the subsurface pores and spaces in the regolith. I put it to you also that those microorganisms, replenished after even the worst planetary disasters by fresh arrivals from Earth over the ages, would have survived and evolved up to the present day.
If Mars was the planet which first gave rise to life and we are actually Martian, the situation is essentially the same. I believe Mars will still harbour the descendants of that original genesis somewhere - more likely underground than on the surface, for obvious reasons. (Though Dr G. Levin almost has me convinced that even the near-surface of Mars probably contains bacteria.)

Even if both Earth and Mars produced life independently of each other at about the same time, life based on different systems and/or different amino acids, it seems likely to me that we are either an 'amalgamation' of the two systems or the victors of a battle for survival between the two that raged on both planets eons ago.
Otherwise, we would have found an entirely different life system here on Earth by now, living side by side with our own RNA/DNA system. Why? Because life-bearing rocks from Mars would have been raining down also on this planet for billions of years.
This is the least likely scenario in my opinion. I tend to think that life more likely arose just once in this star system and migrated between the planets. I justify this reasoning by using Occam's Razor to select the least complex explanation for what I see before me.

In summary, I think we'll find Earth-type life on Mars .. probably underground, though just possibly at the surface too in certain more hospitable regions. At the moment, I can't see how we could determine which planet it originated on. But that may be because I'm not smart enough! Maybe you, Dickbill, can see how it might be done one day in the future(? ).
Again I concede that none of this is fact. However, I think the logic is compelling and I'll be surprised if it isn't vindicated by future discoveries.

BGD, in response to your question, the 150kgs of so-called 'hospitable' material from Mars would logically be the smaller part of the total amount of rock arriving here from Mars because it has to fulfil certain requirements in order to qualify as 'hospitable'. We have only a few kilograms of known Martian crustal material in our possession. The probability is that this would not be 'hospitable' material.
Even so, a couple of the 'Martian meteorites' do seem to contain evidence of fossilised life forms which appear to have left chemical and mineral signatures not inconsistent with what we'd expect from Earth-type bacteria. [i.e. Polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and magnetite crystals very similar to those produced by terrestrial bacteria to orientate themselves in Earth's magnetic field.]

What do you think? Convinced yet?

dickbill · 2003-07-14 06:32:51

What do you think? Convinced yet?

Hi Shaun,
you proved very well your case, and the link/article about the characteristics required for meteorits to shelter microorganisms is very interesting. What I am convinced is that "we" will necesseraly find a terran meteorit on Mars one day, big enough to shelter some terran microfossils. That is statistically inescapable, it's just a matter to turn upside down enough martian rocks.
But to jump to the conclusion that panspermia as occured, I am not yet ready, unless you can also proved that the terran microfossils have heavily spread to the surrounding bed rock.

And don't forget that we still don't know how and where life occured on earth. Miller's experiment suggested a shalow organic soup in surface, archae/extremophiles existence suggest hydrothermal vent in the oceans, could be also in mineral interface, maybe it occured in all those places, or none of them. Finding terran meteorits with molecular fossils of that time on the moon or Mars, since such fossils have disapeared from earth, would be revelating.

Palomar · 2003-07-14 08:59:14

Dickbill: "What I am convinced is that "we" will necesseraly find a terran meteorit on Mars one day, big enough to shelter some terran microfossils. That is statistically inescapable, it's just a matter to turn upside down enough martian rocks."

*Maybe I shouldn't admit it...but Terran meteorites on Mars hadn't occurred to me before. Maybe I'm more Earthocentric than I realize? Interesting thought though...and yes, quite likely!

"But to jump to the conclusion that panspermia as occured,"

*I'm not a big fan of the "panspermia" theory. Atmospheric makeup has a lot to do with the probabilities, no?

And don't forget that we still don't know how and where life occured on earth. Miller's experiment suggested a shalow organic soup in surface, archae/extremophiles existence suggest hydrothermal vent in the oceans, could be also in mineral interface, maybe it occured in all those places, or none of them. Finding terran meteorits with molecular fossils of that time on the moon or Mars, since such fossils have disapeared from earth, would be revelating

*Yep. Very interesting post, dickbill!

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-04-17 10:51:01

Re: Containment - Containment

#2 2002-04-17 16:42:28

Re: Containment - Containment

#3 2002-11-09 01:33:32

Re: Containment - Containment

#4 2002-11-09 04:33:57

Re: Containment - Containment

#5 2002-11-10 06:39:05

Re: Containment - Containment

#6 2002-11-19 09:28:48

Re: Containment - Containment

#7 2002-11-19 18:51:09

Re: Containment - Containment

#8 2002-11-19 21:49:10

Re: Containment - Containment

#9 2002-11-19 22:07:06

Re: Containment - Containment

#10 2002-11-20 00:36:52

Re: Containment - Containment

#11 2003-06-18 22:06:00

Re: Containment - Containment

#12 2003-06-19 06:40:34

Re: Containment - Containment

#13 2003-06-19 16:41:19

Re: Containment - Containment

#14 2003-06-20 13:58:51

Re: Containment - Containment

#15 2003-06-20 15:51:21

Re: Containment - Containment

#16 2003-07-08 06:12:42

Re: Containment - Containment

#17 2003-07-09 14:14:30

Re: Containment - Containment

#18 2003-07-09 18:14:55

Re: Containment - Containment

#19 2003-07-13 22:40:59

Re: Containment - Containment

#20 2003-07-14 06:32:51

Re: Containment - Containment

#21 2003-07-14 08:59:14

Re: Containment - Containment

Board footer