Cassini was deorbited on Saturn specifically to minimize the chances of it crashing into one of its moons and contaminating it.
If the car would land on Mars it would be a whole other story but as long as the biggest risk is that it would burn in its atmosphere if it even stood a chance of being captured it doesn’t need any extraordinary sanitation other than the usual clean room treatment.
WEIR: I am not a fan. And I’ve mentioned this a few times in the past.
My main concern is this. OK, so just run through a little flowchart in your mind. Start off by saying, “Is there anything that’s on Earth, any organism on Earth, that can survive an eight-month journey through the vacuum of space and the radiation of space, and all the other rigors of being just out in space, that can survive the trip from Earth to Mars?” OK, maybe some tardigrades could; it’s possible; maybe some bacteria inside of something could. OK.
But if your answer to that is no, then there’s no need for planetary protection.
If your answer is yes, then the next question is, “Is there any life native to Earth that could find anything to eat on Mars?” That there’s any, anything . . . “Would it be able to survive and reproduce on Mars?” I don’t think it would. So if the answer to that is no, then there’s no need for planetary protection.
If it’s yes, then ask yourself this: “Would that life that you accidentally introduced to Mars — ” Oh, sorry. Right at the top of this flowchart, ask, “Do you think there’s life on Mars?” If the answer is no, there’s no need for planetary protection. If the answer is yes, then move into these other steps.
Now, so since we’re assuming there’s life on Mars, move ahead to, “Would the Earth life somehow be more adept at surviving on Mars than naturally evolved Mars life to the point that it would displace it and ruin the Mars ecosphere?” Seems very unlikely to me, so I would say no.
But if your answer to that is yes, then ask yourself if the Soviets properly sterilize their probes.
But the atmosphere is very thin so that it is currently major challenge to use it to slow anything down before it slams the ground.
While the temperature is governed by the speed of reentry (large speed relative to atmosphere molecules == high temperature) the heat transfer is depending also on the pressure. Low pressure == lower efficiency of heat transfer. Martian surface is around 600Pa, only 0.6% of Earth surface pressure.
This means, that entire Mars reentry profile is comparable to reentering just 0.6% of Earth atmosphere mass. This happens at around 40km (25miles) on Earth. It means, that if it is able to reach 40km above surface of Earth it is as if it already crossed entire Mars atmosphere.
It is also worth noting that the altitude of peak heating depends heavily on angle of reentry. In a steep reentry the period of peak heating happens much lower. For example, the peak heating for Space Shuttle was at about 70km, but that was only because the profile was kept purposefully extremely shallow to be done with heating before it reaches dense atmosphere.
You be the judge if it is enough to completely burn up Tesla Roadster, I find it difficult to reach any scientific study of Tesla Roadsters being thrown into Mars gravity well to watch results.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3260/1
> “We don’t have the expertise in-house when it comes to planetary protection,” said Kelvin Coleman, acting deputy associate administrator for commercial space transportation at the FAA. His office licenses commercial launches, a process that includes a payload review that would, potentially, include a planetary protection review. He said the FAA would “be leaning on” NASA to provide planetary protection expertise.
But sure, protect your planets ...
After all these years, passing the red planet so many times, it had caught enough wisps of gas from its atmosphere that it was going to finally come to rest — finally land there at last.
If landing is what you want to call it.
Down the machine came. It arced across the sky — slowing much more quickly now. And as it slowed it fell closer to the surface still, and got hotter and slower still...
When it finally hit the dunes of this world it scattered into all of its components. For miles and miles so many small metal and plastic parts from Earth flew and tumbled. And also, some stowaways.
What stowaways? Why, little organized corpuscles of organic chemicals. They were plentiful at one time on their home planet of Earth. But now, millions of years later, they found they had been travelers to a strange, new world.
Let there be life!"
:
Poorly channeling "The Last Question" in a way....
That seems almost impossibly unlikely considering the size of the universe. The number of Earth-like planets capable of supporting life is thought to exceed the number of grains of sand on our planet. Surely life will have evolved on at least a few of them!
I'm actually not too worried that we're the only example of life in the universe. Instead I'm more worried that the galaxy is filled with planets containing nothing but slime mold.
It would be pretty trippy to think about. A planet not unlike our own in terms of atmosphere, water content, temperature, etc, and it's all slime mold. Entire mountains, covered in mold. Rolling hills of mold. Valleys thick with mold. Mold everywhere.
Ours may very well be the only planet in the universe where life evolved to one day ponder the possibility of a universe filled with mold. Multiverses and Moldyverses.
So, who knows, we may take it upon ourselves to spread life and make the universe less moldy.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/29/earth-lo...
It would also need to reach a balance with its planet and not simply eat up all the resources and die out.
Like we're kinda doing?
If we're (as a species) lucky, that number might even exceed the minimum viable population.
The individuals in that circumstance probably won't feel very lucky, though.
IIRC, many low-probability events were in the development of simple life, so life itself might be surprisingly thin too.
Life got going on Earth very early on, now perhaps it was a lucky fluke, but it happened early.
When you consider that there are perhaps 100 Billion stars in a typical galaxy, and in the observable universe there are perhaps 200 billion to 2 trillion galaxies, for me personally, I can only conclude that the universe is teeming with life.
Lets say Earth was a 1 in a million, that still means there are perhaps 1000 planets in our galaxy which contain life. Now if you multiply that by the number of galaxies you end up with billions.
Now intelligent life is a whole different beast, it could be that within a single galaxy civilisations come and go at different periods and never exist at the same time. Civilisations which are in different galaxies will find it extremely hard to contact each other.
I believe the popular statement is more towards 'There are more stars in the universe than grains of sand on all beaches of earth.'
Once you bring in inland sand deposits etc this would probably not be true given the estimate (I've read but there must be other) of stars to beach sand grains is fairly close given the scope.
And as for planets, I'm not sure the ratio of 'earth like' planets to star ratio in the universe but would suspect this to be less than 1:1 given in the milky way this averages a less than 2 earth like planets for every 10 stars.
It's such a great analogy. Its the closest as I can come to understanding the scale of the universe we live in.
We have insufficient data from which to make that conclusion to any reasonable degree of certainty.
We also have an insufficient definition of “intelligent life” to even enable gathering such data.
Sanitizing is considered when you're planning a planet landing. Space is big, so on the timescales of human civilization, the probability of actually hitting a planet by accident is negligible. If that Roadster lands on Mars in a hundred million years, we won't care.
Seriously, the only way I can see humanity not getting to Mars before the Roadster is if we completely fail as a species.
I dunno about you, but I would be really, really excited if other planets became infested with Earth organisms. I mean, that's kinda the whole reason for space travel in the first place!
I understand the argument for sterilized launches, etc. etc. but I can't help but wonder if it's holding terraforming back in the long run.
1. If there is life elsewhere, we want to make sure terrestrial lifeforms don't drive it to extinction before we get to see it. 2. We want to make sure that if life is found elsewhere that it isn't due to our own contamination of the site.
The closest equivalent is inter-species infections, like the Avian or the Porcine flus. Having humans near unhealthy ducks or pigs constantly means mutated strains have a higher chance of carrying dangerous behaviour from one species to another.
There are a lot more to say around bio-chemistry basins, carbon-based vs silicon-based (or another compound) — but the idea is not exclusively to protect life there.
http://reducing-suffering.org/applied-welfare-biology-wild-a...
https://foundational-research.org/the-importance-of-wild-ani...
http://reducing-suffering.org/will-space-colonization-multip...
What is almost always ignored is that these animals would have feelings, and many would suffer enormously as a result of being created into Darwinian ecosystems in which predation, disease, and premature death are endemic. Theologians ask why a good God would create so much cruelty in nature. Future humans should likewise ponder whether it's morally acceptable to create new ecosystems containing vast amounts of suffering, or whether they should pause and seek more compassionate alternatives if they embark upon space colonization.
Viruses and bacteria don't have feelings and the vast majority of the biomass on Earth is not even capable of suffering.
A genetically modified lichen, or fungus, that was designed as a stepping stone towards a better Martian biome, and a launch setup to seed them effectively isn't too far outside the bounds of present day work with genetics, and present day launch & deployment systems.
It's far less sexy, but a multi-generation approach to terraforming could yield a usable Mars without too much magic...
Disclaimer: not a biologist
how short? because i thought the timeline we're talking about is that the Roadster is not going to run into any planet for as long as they've run simulations for, but it's theoretically possible that it might, at some point, hit something.
If SpaceX had their own launch facility, etc., are there legal restraints from contaminating another planet (possibly purposefully)? And if there are such restraints, what is their legal justification?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience
It is shipping, in a different dimension.
Obviously those booster rockets might get a bit tired after doing daily commuter flights for a decade or so, therefore there will also come a time when a third world country, e.g. Bangladesh becomes the place where old booster rockets go to be scrapped, so, next to the ships on the beach booster rockets crash down and small children working with no health and safety tear them to pieces.
UNOOSA, Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, Art. IX [1]:
"States Parties to the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination..."
Note that State parties are responsible for the actions of their nationals later in the paragraph.
Is the above wrong? I admit to not being a space person.
Edit: [1] http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/publications/STSPACE11E.pdf
“States Parties to the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter....”
The “their harmful contamination” part clearly refers to something plural (the moon and other celestial bodies). The second part would be redundant if those were sources, rather than recipients of contaimination.
"State Parties to the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter and, where necessary, shall adopt appropriate measures for this purpose."
Now that they know its final orbit they can compute if it will hit anything for thousands/millions of years and slightly adjust it if it does.
> Tersicoccus phoenicis is a member of the bacterial family Micrococcaceae. It has only been found in two spacecraft assembly clean room facilities and is resistant to the methods normally used to clean such facilities. The species name is derived from tersi, Latin for clean; coccus, Greek for berry; and phoenicis, from NASA's Phoenix lander, the spacecraft being prepared when these bacteria were first discovered.
It's funny and cool to see a car in space as long as we're not hurtling garbage into other planets.
People who don't see it as a problem should take the time to read one of dozens published papers outlining the dangers and problems it will pose. If they then still don't feel it's a problem, they're encouraged to publish their own research supporting that view.
On the other hand, our solar system is but one among many and the longer we hesitate in exploring this one the longer it will be before we are able to explore others. TAn excess of caution can become an excuse for inaction. If earth is an oasis in a planetary desert, the way to find other life is not by maintaining extreme caution about disturbing the surrounding sand dunes but by trekking across them in search of other oases.
We can not do this forever if we want a real human outpost there.
> The United States is a signatory to an international treaty that stipulates that exploration must be conducted in a manner that avoids of the transportation of living organisms to celestial bodies.
First of all the US is part of a treaty, so if we do introduce organisms to other plants we are violating the treaty.
> We wouldn't want to go to Mars and "discover" life - only to figure out later that we brought it with us! Scientists also want to study the planet and any life that might be there in its original "pristine state."
Ultimately I guess it comes down to why you are sending something to space. If your goal is science then contaminating the planetary environment with organisms is not great. If your goal is colonization (which I guess is SpaceX goal) then you probably wouldn't care. But I still think it's something that should be considered.
Hopefully we don’t intend to keep this treaty forever, or we’ll always be stuck on this one rock.
There are worse places to be stuck than Earth. The food here is good!
Proof of extraterrestrial life would be one of the greatest discoveries of all time with profound philosophical implications.
Look at the UFO videos the pentagon released in December. No one cares.
Because they don't prove that extraterrestrial life exists?
Either we use extremophiles to establish beachheads in otherwise uninhabitable places, or we adapt ourselves or other beneficial organisms with the information we learn.
For instance proteins that protect against high or low temperatures.
Less speculatively, krill can be fed to things we already eat, and some krill survive on a diet entirely comprised of extremophiles.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reports_of_Streptococcus_mitis...
Why? Why can't you have both? Once we verify that there isn't measurable life on Mars, we can start a human settlement.
These sorts of questions are so boring, so easy to ask, and instantly derail the discussion.
Between SpaceX, Blue Origin or any other space travel initiatives that end up succeeding we are going to end up with a lot more stuff in space which isn't necessarily going to be friendly to scientific efforts as in the past.
The world is filled with an unlimited number of concerns about infinitesimal risk. Your question remains boring and distracting, and, as pointed out elsewhere, the risk is not likely enough to be important.
As it turns out, the difference in probability between the things you mention and interplanetary collisions is astronomical -- like dozens or more orders of magnitude -- and a minute of Googling shows that NASA frequently satisfies the planetary protection rules by ensuring that non-sanitized parts of inbound spacecraft miss the planet on the first pass (even though they will in principle be circling in the same general orbit for a billion years).
https://twitter.com/AscendingNode/status/961086031784235008
I realize deep space collision risk is very low. I saw a talk with Alan Stern about New Horizons where he answers someone's question about collision avoidance in the asteroid belt that on a trip out to Pluto you are unlikely to encounter anything larger than a grain of sand. But rather than acting annoyed with the person who questioned him, he answered the question well, and I still remember his answer. And let use not forget that space exploration has ethically questionable choices and "improbable" events occur in the past (e.g., Laika, artificial radiation belts from nukes, debris from an RF reflecting foil cloud).
But in any case, I'm happy with with earnest questions about math/science. What's boring and distracting are these expressions of concern about rule violations. Consider: would the original comment of NathanKP have been popular if he asked "I wonder what the chances are that the Tesla will collide with an asteroid?" No. Maybe someone would have quickly pointed to a calculation or estimate, but it would't be at the top of the thread without the emotional appeal that someone somewhere might be breaking a rule.
My hope is that the SpaceX people did the same for this Tesla. Otherwise it would be rather reckless especially since now it is clear there wasn't a specific controlled orbit path, just a burn to launch it as far as possible, and now its possible it could end up impacting something and potentially contaminating it with Earth organisms.