7 thoughts on “Babying Mars”

  2. If there is life on Mars, then by induction life is ubiquitous throughout the universe, at least for some subset of planets with atmospheres. Such a discovery would make Phobos even more attractive than it already is.

    1. Have you heard? That guy, you know the robot guy, wants to set up a little telerobotics lab on Phobos!
      Doesn’t Phobos mean fear? Why yes…

      Little shop, Little shoppa horrors.
      Bop-sh’bop, Little shoppa terror.
      Watch ’em drop, Little shoppa horrors.
      No, oh, oh, no-oh!

      I’m all for it, if it doesn’t distract from colonization.

  3. a rover might not be able to distinguish between a life form native to Mars and one with origins on Earth

    Obviously. The solution is to send people that can. What double hubris to think not only can we sterilize an entire planet (which probably does a good job of that without our help) but also that the search for life takes precedence over every other thing we might do.

    If life is to be found, we’ll find it. The babies are the one’s defining the missions.

  4. Actually, I find myself in agreement with the sterilization protocols. It’s not a concern about bacteria or viri surviving on mars, but a concern over contaminating life-detecting experiments, and going further, the analysis of any found life, be it past or present… for example, the might-be-bacterial fossils in that Martian meteorite.

    I have no issues at all with increasing the cost of a probe by 4% to minimize these risks. However, I’m also well aware that such protocols would be impossible for a human crew, so I’d also be in favor of waiving them for a human mission.

    IMHO, though, the protocols make some sense to follow at the moment. I just don’t think they should be allowed to be a barrier.

    1. First man on the ground drops trou, er suit, and squats one large one for mankind thereby claiming the biology of the planet. Fixed if for ya.

Comments are closed.