I've always been under the impression that the Mars rovers were sent up >largely with the intent of seeking to discover if there is or has ever been >life on Mars.
Turns out, they're not going to send this 2.5 billion-dollar gizmo that was >sent to explore Mars anywhere near where there could conceivably actually
be life, i.e. where there's water. Supposedly because of concern over the >potential for introducing Earth microbes into the Mars ecosystem.
Say what? Apparently 2.5 billion doesn't buy an explorer that's clean
enough?
So under what circumstances would they ever be utterly certain that
anything they send up is completely, unquestionably sterile?
So is this rover program another expensive bill of goods just like the >shuttle was?
So under what circumstances would they ever be utterly certain that >anything they send up is completely, unquestionably sterile?
They can do it, but it's damn hard so they've done less levels of cleanliness.
On Sunday, October 11, 2015 at 3:47:42 PM UTC-4, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
So under what circumstances would they ever be utterly certain that >anything they send up is completely, unquestionably sterile?
They can do it, but it's damn hard so they've done less levels of cleanliness.
I would think that sterilizing the entire final assembled unit isn't the only solution. I'm incredulous that they can't sterilize the components before assembly and put them together in a sterile environment, and put them into sterile containment inthe transport vehicle.
Is it going to get any less difficult with future missions?
electronics and the like due to the sterilization process. Plus you're driving up the cost of assembly because that would then have to be done
in a completely sterile environment.
On 2015-10-12 23:19, Jeff Findley wrote:
e still risking damage to the
electronics and the like due to the sterilization process. Plus you're driving up the cost of assembly because that would then have to be done
in a completely sterile environment.
Which would require totally sterile white room and everything done via remotely operated arms. And somehow, the package would have to remain totally sterile while standing on launch pad with birds shitting on
rocket, mosquitos finding a way in etc.
the transport vehicle.I would think that sterilizing the entire final assembled unit isn't the only solution. I'm incredulous that they can't sterilize the components before assembly and put them together in a sterile environment, and put them into sterile containment in
Is it going to get any less difficult with future missions?
Even if done on components, you're still risking damage to the
electronics and the like due to the sterilization process. Plus you're driving up the cost of assembly because that would then have to be done
in a completely sterile environment.
Jeff
On Monday, October 12, 2015 at 11:19:24 PM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:in the transport vehicle.
I would think that sterilizing the entire final assembled unit isn't the only solution. I'm incredulous that they can't sterilize the components before assembly and put them together in a sterile environment, and put them into sterile containment
Is it going to get any less difficult with future missions?
Even if done on components, you're still risking damage to the
electronics and the like due to the sterilization process. Plus you're driving up the cost of assembly because that would then have to be done
in a completely sterile environment.
Well there you have it, it's impossible to ever determine if there's life on Mars.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 296 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 57:35:19 |
Calls: | 6,652 |
Calls today: | 4 |
Files: | 12,200 |
Messages: | 5,331,023 |