Blogs/Robert Walker/Will First Mars Astronauts Stay In Orbit - Tele-operating Sterile Rovers - To Protect Earth And Mars From Colliding Biospheres: Difference between revisions

Mars is extraordinarily cold and dry, like our most arid deserts. Harsh but possibly not totally lifeless. There is a chance of life there, hidden away perhaps in thin layers of brines just a couple of centimeters below the surface, or as spores within the dust. Our astronauts will be covered in microbes from Earth too and our habitats filled with life. What happens when life mixes together from these two biospheres? This might be their first meeting for billions of years, or the first time ever, as astrobiologists haven't yet ruled out the possibility that Martian life is independently evolved. And if the more optimistic projections of Elon Musk, some NASA enthusiasts, and Bill Nye and others are fulfilled, then this encounter may happen as soon as the 2030s, perhaps sooner. Are we ready for it?

 

Let’s investigate.

 

 

 

So, why would we want '''''' to explore Mars from orbit anyway, rather than do it from the surface? One reason is because we want to find native Martian life, rather than the microbes we bring ourselves.

Human bodies are wonderful microbe incubators, with [http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002533.t001 ten to a hundred billion foreign microbes on our skin], and it takes only a month [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26865/ from when a cell is born in the basal layer to when it is shed,] carrying any foreign microbes away with it. That’s right, the entire surface of our skin is slowly shed, flake by flake, around once a month. Every single second we emit larger biological particles by the tens of thousands, and tiny sub micron ones by the hundreds of thousands (see [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bin_Zhao/publication/273451233_Measuring_short-term_emission_rate_of_particles_in_the_personal_cloud_with_different_clothes_and_activity_intensities_in_a_sealed_chamber/links/550243d90cf231de076de914/Measuring-short-term-emission-rate-of-particles-in-the-personal-cloud-with-different-clothes-and-activity-intensities-in-a-sealed-chamber.pdf figure 7 of this paper]). These constantly carry our tiny passengers away into the air around us in our [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/you-produce-microbial-cloud-can-act-invisible-fingerprint-180956698/ personal microbial clouds].

 

[https://www.youtube.com/embed/2_ib7Z4bmrg (Click to watch on YouTube)]

 

The only comparison study I know of, HERRO, found that a mission by a crew of six in orbit around Mars, teleoperating rovers on the surface, does [https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20130011281.pdf as much science as three missions of the same size to the surface] for far less cost. They also found that they can use their telerobots to explore anywhere on Mars, including the hard to access polar regions. These regions of Mars are not likely to see a human landing for a long time, because of long continuous periods of darkness, and a thick extra layer of dry ice every winter. HERRO’s carefully chosen orbit lets the astronauts tele-operate rovers over the entire surface of Mars with almost no time delay, for hours at a time for each location (it skims the sunlit side of Mars twice a day every Martian day, visiting opposite hemispheres, always in sunshine, and flies close to both poles twice a day too, giving global coverage).

 

 

<blockquote>Image: A teleoperated Centaur-style robot on Mars. Carter Emmart/NASA Ames Research Center - from [https://web.archive.org/web/20150228142403/http://www.wired.com:80/2012/11/telerobotic-exploration/all Almost Being There: Why the Future of Space Exploration Is Not What You Think]

This shows how you get into this orbit - just directly from the Earth-Mars transfer orbit.

 

 

'''Note the light speed time delay is minimal.'''<span data-offset-key="clkrg-0-0"><span data-text="true"> The Moon is 1.3 light seconds away and so telepresence of robots on the Moon from Earth would require ways to handle a large time delay (which is not impossible, after all with 1970s technology the Russians drove Voskhod 2 in a few months as far as Opportunity drove in a decade). </span></span>

This approach is safe, practical, seems likely to do most science return for the least cost and also is the only reasonably sure way to protect both any native Martian life and the environment of Earth. It was highlighted in the NASA Telerobotics symposium for its planetary protection credentials, and as a fast effective way to do the science.

 

 

<blockquote>[https://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/telerobotics-could-help-humanity-explore-space/ Telerobotics Could Help Humanity Explore Space] Credit NASA / GSFC. ''"Safely tucked inside orbiting habitat, space explorers use telepresence to operate machinery on Mars, even lobbing a sample of the Red Planet to the outpost for detailed study."'' - I've added the HERRO image of a tele-operated Centaur as an insert.<br />

The HERRO comparison was a small scale study and from nearly a decade ago. It would be good to have a more detailed study of the same sort, and based on the latest technology, but I think it is likely to come to the same conclusion, that it is faster for astronauts to explore Mars from orbit, for less cost, and with better science return. See the section '''[http://www.science20.com/robert_walker/will_first_mars_astronauts_have_to_stay_in_orbit_teleoperating_sterile_surface_rovers_to_prevent_collidng#zzee_link_57_1527369586 Need for an updated comparison study] (below)'''

 

 

Sometimes people will say that this is just not part of human nature, to orbit Mars but never land. Won't it be hard to recruit a crew for such a mission? However, the Apollo 10 astronauts went to the Moon, flew around it many times, undocked, flew all the way down to the surface just short of a landing, and then returned to orbit. In the process they turned up a bug that could have killed them all if they had landed. People are able to orbit and not land even with the capability to do so, if that is what the situation indicates. And of course in each Apollo mission the command module pilot remained in orbit while his two companions were on the surface. That was the same situation, flew all the way to the Moon, orbited it several times, his companions landed but he didn't and then he returns to Earth. No complaints about this from Michael Collins, command module pilot for Apollo 11 :). He enjoyed his quiet time in orbit especially when he was on the far side of the Moon cut off from mission control for about 55 minutes at a time.

How can that be?

 

 

=== How to read this off-line ===

Next section: [http://www.science20.com/robert_walker/will_first_mars_astronauts_have_to_stay_in_orbit_teleoperating_sterile_surface_rovers_to_prevent_collidng#zzee_link_2_1527369586 How astronauts returning from Mars will mean we need to protect Earth]

 

 

 

 

Let’s see if you agree. It is all to do with what happens when the astronauts get back to Earth. Only '''''“Mars One”''''' propose a one way '''''“to Mars and die there”''''' mission, and hardly anyone takes them seriously. The others all envision the astronauts returning. Indeed the first missions would probably only last a year or so on Mars, preparing for future longer duration follow up missions.

Well the Apollo lunar astronauts showed vividly how this can happen, when they got covered in fine clinging dust during their EVA’s on the lunar surface. Gene Cernan got particularly dirty in this way, due to an incident with a broken fender, but they all got covered in dust.

 

 

<blockquote>Gene Cernan covered in dust on the lunar surface. How did he get like that? He accidentally snapped off a fender on the lunar rover with the result that it sprayed “rooster tails” of dust all over him. He fixed it with duct tape, but that didn’t last long, and it came off again. Eventually they fixed it more permanently with duct tape this time reinforced with curled up maps. See [https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/duct-tape-auto-repair-moon Duct Tape Auto Repair on the Moon]

Here he is inside the lunar module.

 

 

And later once he took off his spacesuit:

 

 

Mars has dust as well, and the dust there is particularly fine, as fine as cigarette ash. Its winds loft clouds of this fine dust high into the atmosphere; dust clouds so thick that they can block out 99% of direct sunlight at times.

There are large quantities of fine dust in the Martian atmosphere all the time, even when it seems clear. This is what causes the blue sunsets and sunrises.

 

 

<blockquote>Curiosity photographed this sunset from Gale Crater on April 15, 2015. The sequence spans 6 minutes 51 seconds, using the leftmost camera of its Mastcam. The sunset is blue because the fine dust that’s always suspended in the Martian atmosphere absorbs red light. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech [https://www.universetoday.com/120353/what-makes-mars-sunsets-different-from-earths/ What Makes Mars Sunsets Different from Earth's? - Universe Today]

Okay - but perhaps you think this is an unlikely scenario. Could Earth’s environment really be endangered by microbes from another biosphere on Mars? It may sound like a plot-line for a science fiction movie. But do bear in mind, astronauts landing on Mars sound like science fiction too.

 

 

 

I’d better cover this right away as you may well have heard that Mars has to be sterile, because of the perchlorates, ionizing radiation, and the UV. The surface of Mars is extreme for sure, a tough place to live. But we have life in many extreme conditions on Earth too.

The conditions there are extreme for sure, for Earth life at least. But uninhabitable? The jury is out on that one at present. Mainly because we haven’t been able to examine any of the potential habitats close up or search for life there yet.

 

 

 

Nobody can give you a calculated figure here. They can give their personal views on the matter however.

There are a few others that agree with him and a few years back it got some extra support when Joseph Miller, an expert in the day / night rhythms of life (circadian rhythms) got hold of the raw Viking data (a story in its own right, with some great detective work by its curators) and analysed them again and found that they were offset by a massive '''''two hours''''' from the temperature cycle. According to Joseph Miller, chemistry can only explain an offset of about '''''twenty minutes.'''''

 

 

<blockquote>We have day / night rhythms when we sleep at night and eat during the day. Well microbes do too. These are called circadian rhythms and these patterns were discovered many years later in the Viking labeled release data. The interesting thing is that they are significantly offset from the temperature variations, which to an expert on circadian rhythms who spotted this, strongly suggested that these rhythms come from life rather than non life processes.<br />

This idea that Viking could have detected life already also got a boost with modern discoveries and ideas leading to the possibility that there could be habitats for life almost anywhere on Mars. And - I don't know if anyone else is making this connection, but later on I'll mention that the discovery by Curiosity of cold brines that may be too cold for life 2 cms below the surface - well it still might have Martian life in it. If so life could be rather abundant on Mars. If you are looking for a reason why Viking might have found it so easily, well, that could be one way to explain it. The Viking trenches were quite deep, could they have dug up some life from these layers of brines? Or just spores in the dust blown from a nearby brine with life in it? Levin himself has suggested that there may be layers of humidity trapped near the surface as the frosts melt in the early morning by overlying layers of cold air above the warming surface, leading to possibilities of high humidity briefly at a reasonable temperature for life. Chris McKay has agreed that this could be a possible way to improve habitability of the surface. For their idea, with Chris McKay's comments on it see [https://nai.nasa.gov/articles/2001/3/26/can-liquid-water-exist-on-present-day-mars/ Can Liquid Water Exist on Present-Day Mars?]

 

 

<blockquote>[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mars_Viking_11d128.png Trenches dug by Viking 1, first trenches dug on Mars]. Did it find life in the 1970s? Gilbert Levin thinks it might have and Joseph Miller, an expert in circadian rhythms, has come around to the same view and supports him in this due to some anomalies such as the 2 hours offset from temperatures. Gilbert Levin wants to send an update of his instrument to Mars which he designed soon after the confusing results from Viking in the 1970s, but with a shift of focus of NASA towards searching for habitability instead of life, we haven't sent any instruments specifically to search for life since then. So, his experiment results remain ambiguous for now with some saying that it may have found life, probably most Mars scientists pretty sure it didn't, and no way to come to a final decision until whenever we send an in situ bio detection suite of instruments to Mars with the ability to dig trenches and repeat the experiment.</blockquote>

Before I get on to the details of the likely legal obligations, and why Earth needs protection, I’d like to reassure you that I am keen on humans in space.

 

 

 

I am an Apollo era kid. I watched the Moon landings with great interest and excitement as a teenager, and am keen on humans in space, as explorers, and perhaps eventually settlers.

The natural place to start is the Outer Space Treaty, though as we’ll see, it may not be strong enough by itself.

 

 

 

Most of the planetary protection to date has been done on the basis of the Outer Space Treaty. However, we have had some evidence recently that it is rather weaker for the private sector than many perhaps expected. Elon Musk was able to ignore the international guideline to file a planetary protection plan for his cherry red Tesla motor. When he launched it on an orbit as far as Mars on his maiden flight of the Falcon Heavy on February 8, 2018, he was just left to his own judgement to choose an orbit. As it turned out, it was one with no planetary protection issues.

For more on this see [https://marsandspace.quora.com/Laws-to-Protect-Earths-Environment-Likely-Require-Mars-Astronauts-to-Orbit-First-and-Tele-operate-Sterile-Rovers-Fro/comment/1643644 my note on her suggestion here]. For a more detailed summary with comments and links to her own work, see my [https://marsandspace.quora.com/Does-planetary-protection-law-for-private-individuals-need-to-be-clarified-in-the-US Does planetary protection law for private individuals need to be clarified in the US?]

 

 

 

In short the situation is a little unclear in the forwards direction from Earth to Mars. If Laura Montgomery is correct, we can’t yet rely on the OST to provide any planetary protection for private sector missions from the US, until this matter is clarified in Congress. Also, even if it provides some protection, the precedent of Elon Musk’s Tesla Roadster suggests that the private sector may still be left largely to their own discretion to decide how exactly to implement the provisions in the OST.

However, in the other direction, when it comes to protecting Earth, we have much more than the Outer Space Treaty and the planetary protection officers to protect us.

 

 

 

So long as the astronauts plan to return to Earth eventually, all the legislation to protect Earth’s environment applies, as Margaret Race explored in her legal review paper for a robotic sample return ([http://salegos-scar.montana.edu/docs/Planetary%20Protection/AdvSpaceResVol18(1-2).pdf Planetary Protection, Legal Ambiguity, and the Decision Making Process for Mars Sample Return]).

So the approval is for an activity that may be hazardous to the environment of Earth. It’s not approval for humans to go into space.

 

 

 

We’ll look at astronauts later, and the what Carl Sagan called the “vexed question” of quarantine periods, but let’s look at a rock sample first. As you read this, try to think how you might apply the same precautions to an astronaut who enters the chain of contact with the Martian surface. Is it going to be possible?

I suggested in that article that if you want to return an unsterilized sample to the vicinity of Earth before 2040, the best choice would be to return it to above Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO) instead. This would bypass all these legal and practical complexities. So long as it is studied telerobotically in the first instance, and any materials returned to Earth are sterilized, the whole thing could be done just as it is for comet and asteroid sample returns, under COSPAR without any need to introduce new regulations.

 

 

 

While researching on this topic, I was rather astonished to find that nobody seems to be giving any thought to this yet, even for a robotic sample return.

I’d like to make it clear - I’m not a lawyer myself. When I say these things, I’m relying on Margaret Race’s analysis and her conclusions in that paper. But nobody else is considering this. It’s not as if the NASA papers said ''“We’ve considered Margaret Race’s analysis and it won’t apply to our proposed robotic sample return because of x y z”''. It is just not mentioned. Her analysis seems thorough and convincing, and I haven’t seen any suggestion of a reason why it might not apply.

 

 

 

Most of this, and perhaps more would apply to an astronaut mission to Mars. An astronaut return would certainly count as a sample return, even if they don’t take any rocks back, through spores that came into the habitat on the dust.

As we’ll see, microbial spores would survive quarantine, leading to many issues with relying on quarantine. This is a matter that would need to be examined in detail, as they go through the legislation to protect Earth, not available at the time of Apollo.

 

 

 

There might be no viable spores of Martian life in the dust of course. If not, and if there is no life at the landing site either, there would be no back contamination risk. So, let’s look at this closely.

Although the Martian air is very dry in the daytime, at night it gets so cold that the relative humidity goes right up. So much so that it can form frost layers, though it needs a bit of help from dry ice to get the ice out of the atmosphere:

 

 

<blockquote>Martian frosts photographed by Viking -the light coloured material. It’s probably only about a thousandth of an inch thick. There is little by way of water vapour in the atmosphere but at night the air becomes so cold that the relative humidity becomes high.

Also, any dust is shielded from the UV for as long as it remains in a shadow. That could be the shadow of a rock, an astronaut, the rover, or long shadows cast by nearby hills in early morning or late evening. Also, microbes can get imbedded in minute cracks in the dust, where they will be shielded from UV by the iron oxides in the dust. UV resistant microbes imbedded in cracks could potentially be transported for long periods of time, even in direct sunlight.

 

 

 

There is research that suggests that UV radiation could be made more harmful through indirect effects on the perchlorates in the dust. It can break them up into chlorates and chlorites, and these in turn will sterilize some species of spores. However, this again is a process that won’t happen in a shadow, or in dust covered by even thin layers of other dust. If the astronauts kick up some dust in a shadow, it may well be unaffected. Then, for sunlit dust, some spores may be much more hardy than the spores tested in their experiments.

Those chlorates and chlorites incidentally would have much more serious and immediate effects on humans ''"such as respiratory difficulties, headaches, skin burns, loss of consciousness and vomiting"'' ([https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242525435_Perchlorate_on_Mars_A_chemical_hazard_and_a_resource_for_humans quote from page 3 of this paper]). This could make the airborne dust more hazardous than expected. The perchlorates already can cause problems to thyroid glands, but these additional issues are more immediate in their effect. Better keep them out of any habitats.

 

 

 

Our astronauts can minimize their exposure to this dust by using the suit port, a design meant to reduce the amount of dust that gets into the habitat on either the Moon or Mars.

You crawl in through a hatch in the back of the spacesuit which remains attached to the outside of the habitat until the suit is disconnected

 

 

<blockquote>You enter / exit a suit port through the back of the spacesuit like this. The airlock consists of two plates that trap a cubic foot or so of air in between the back of the spacesuit and the interior of the habitat or rover. Figure from [https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20080014281.pdf this NASA presentation.]

Also, what happens if you need to repair the EVA suit?

 

 

 

So anyway, that was my new thought. When you try to apply the same sample return provisions to a human who is part of the chain of contact with the Martian surface, yes as for the robotic return, they would have to complete all the legal processes and the preparations for the return mission - and not only before the return. They have to have the precautions worked out to protect Earth before they launch. It doesn’t matter how long they plan to stay, so long as they do plan to return at some stage.

But do they have to stay in it potentially indefinitely? What about the Apollo quarantines?

 

 

 

You might think the answer is obvious, to use a quarantine facility as for Apollo. Quarantine them for 21 days on return to Earth. After that, they are free to leave the facility so long as they didn’t get sick while in quarantine.

For more on this see '''[http://www.science20.com/robert_walker/will_first_mars_astronauts_have_to_stay_in_orbit_teleoperating_sterile_surface_rovers_to_prevent_collidng#zzee_link_37_1527369586 Quarantine as for Apollo won’t work] (below)'''

 

 

 

My suggestion is that we have to bypass all this with astronauts in orbit around Mars tele-operating rovers on the surface. But are there any other options to consider?

And if it’s a BFR that has landed on Mars, I don’t see how its interior can be contained on return to Earth. As soon as they open the door, that would complete the chain of contact between Earth’s environment and Mars.

 

 

 

Yes, everything might change as we make new discoveries. With the Moon, scientists soon decided that it was sterile of any native life.

As for the Moon, everything may change quickly as we make new discoveries about Mars, but we can’t now in advance which way it will change.

 

 

 

Private space surely care for Earth and for their astronauts. So, they should want to know if there are any biohazards on Mars, before they go there. At least if they take the warnings seriously, they should.

If you go to the technical papers, it is abundantly clear that this is what they are saying is a possibility in the worst case, that it could be biohazardous. We will see this in a moment with Carl Sagan’s example of a Martian version of Legionnaires’ disease, and Joshua Lederberg’s warning of our cells’ potential naivete faced with their unfamiliar aggressins.

 

 

 

If my reasoning here is correct, I think it is possible that the private sector could be brought around to this approach. It just makes sense all round to do a proper astrobiological survey first, before we make our next decisions. And the best way to do it, it would seem, would be through use of sterile tele-robotic avatars for orbital astronauts.

I hope that we can find a situation where everyone is working together. I’m speaking as a space geek myself, someone who is keen on humans in space. I want to be able to cheer SpaceX on, rather than watch discouraged with a heavy heart.

 

 

 

You may be skeptical that there is any risk involved here at all, and quite naturally so. Our science fiction heroes never have to deal with such issues, indeed they don’t seem to spend much or any time even checking to see if the air is breathable. In many of these stories, even if they land on a random asteroid, of all things, only a few hundred meters in diameter, it has a breathable atmosphere!

Just as they never check the atmosphere, our science fiction heroes and heroines in shows like Star Trek never check whether the biology is compatible either. That is unless it is necessary for it to be harmful for a plot point.

 

 

<blockquote>The heroes and heroines of Star Trek landing on a planet, by teleporting. They never need to give any thought to their microbial companions. Nor do they need to worry what microbes on the planet might do to them.

But what about directly harming us?

 

 

 

I’ve already covered this in my last article so I will just touch on a couple of examples.

For more on this: '''[http://www.science20.com/robert_walker/will_first_mars_astronauts_have_to_stay_in_orbit_teleoperating_sterile_surface_rovers_to_prevent_collidng#zzee_link_34_1527369586 Argument that both planets share meteorites so must share life too] (below)'''

 

 

 

There is no problem at all here for the Moon, Callisto, Mercury, and most Near Earth Asteroids.

After all, the examples I gave are fine enough, they would be concerns, surely everyone would agree, but they are hypothetical, have to be. We have no idea whether there is or is not life on Mars. That leads us to the precautionary principle in international law.

 

 

 

The problem here is not so much that there may be risks involved, but that we are unable to quantify what those risks are. Until we can do that, then the legislators and decision makers simply don’t have the information needed to make a decision.

If you argue like Zubrin that we should send humans there right away and that there is no need to take any precautions, all this is irrelevant. But if you accept the need for precautions, and the need for an astrobiological survey first - and I think that after examining the evidence and statements the legislators and general public would agree on this, then the precautionary principle says that we need to protect the Earth, at least if we can do it in a cost effective way (and the stronger version says we should do it anyway).

 

 

 

If this argument is right, I hope that it will help get us all behind the natural next step, which is to do this astrobiological survey from orbit around Mars.

Once we do get there, then there is much of great interest for our astronauts to do both exploring Mars from orbit and exploring its two moons. The search for life, exploring Mars by tele-robotics, will be an exciting mission for them, and for space geeks following from Earth. It will also give us the experience to make future missions to the surface much safer, if they do get the green light at the end of the astrobiology survey.

 

 

 

All I’m saying is that we need to find out what is there on Mars before we make the decision about whether to introduce Earth life to Mars or return unsterilized samples from Mars to Earth. We need to know not just the upsides but the downsides as well. Then once we know that, the decision is a political one, not a scientific one. Sometimes the decision would be near unanimous, and sometimes it might be less so.

These are all things you’d want to know about before you make the decision, rather than after.

 

 

 

None of this is prescribing anything about what we do, when we know if there is life on Mars or prebiotic chemistry or whatever is there, and know what hazards there are if any. All that is gathering information we can use to inform our decisions.

There are bound to be many views on what to do next, but at least we would make the decision based on knowing what is there.

 

 

 

We can still exploit Mars with any of these options, even if we have to make it off-limits for humans altogether, or in the near future. Whether we do this is a separate question. We can mine it from orbit with telerobotics. If the surface is biohazardous, we can still export materials from Mars, if we sterilize them carefully first.

If we find native life not related to Earth life at all - that native life itself might turn out to be the most valuable thing we can “mine” from Mars. It would be like when companies search through the tropical rainforests for new drugs in species of plant never studied before. There is no knowing what might be hidden in the diversity of microbial species on Mars, especially if it has a biochemistry different from that of Earth.

 

 

 

So, that’s the main argument here. Now let’s look at this in more detail, and some of the implications of it.

-----

 

 

 

In my last article, I likened potential ET microbes on other planets to unopened treasure boxes. If you were given a wooden box as an inheritance, you would surely look inside it first before deciding to put it on a bonfire to use as fuel. Maybe you don’t need the box, but you may need what is inside it.

In the same way we need to look “inside the box” of extra terrestrial microbes before we introduce Earth life irreversibly to its habitat. We could lose a biological treasure beyond compare.

 

 

 

I'll look at three possibilities - RNA world cells, Woese's pre-LUCA non Darwinian life, and life based on DNA closely related to Earth microbes.

Then, if Martian life is based on DNA, it's still potentially confusing to introduce Earth life. For as long as there is only native life there, you just need a single strand of DNA, or a single spore that we can extract a sequence from and we identify it as DNA based life. If we introduce Earth life then we will find DNA everywhere. How do we know if any of it is native to Mars? We have to try sequencing it all to find non native life amongst the Earth based DNA. But we discover new phyla all the time when we sequence Earth microbes. Every DNA survey of spacecraft assembly clean rooms turns up numerous new species as just DNA sequences we know no more about. Even if we find a complete new phylum on Mars, it could easily be a new phylum from Earth that happens to find Mars conditions to its liking. We could announce it as a discovery of native life, then a decade later, find it back on Earth and have to retract that discovery. So far we have sequenced only 0.00001% of the estimated trillion species of microbes. More on that in the last article under [http://www.science20.com/robert_walker/what_are_we_protecting_mars_from_and_why_do_we_bother_an_unopened_treasure_chest_response_to_zubrin_and_rummel#zzee_link_18_1525425225 Zubrin’s use of anthrax - this does not show that it is easy to tell native life apart]

 

 

 

In the other direction, from Mars to Earth, it could be anything from microbes that attack plankton in our oceans, fungi that have anti-freeze fluids inside that let them make food mouldy down to -80 °C so requiring us to run our freezers below that temperature, a disease like Legionnaires’ disease but with no cure, through to a lifeform that no higher Earth life has any defences against, or can evolve resistance to fast enough, so that it ends up eating through all except the smallest and most rapidly evolving multicellular creatures.

So, of course it could also be that Earth and the Mars biosphere get on together wonderfully. I do not mean this ironically. They could be mutually symbiotic and beneficial. If you were writing a science fiction movie and want an upbeat conclusion, you could argue for that as a plausible scenario. But unfortunately we don’t get to write the sequel in this case, and we simply don't know what to expect yet.

 

 

 

There are two basic arguments given for those who say we don’t need to worry.

As for Martian life, since we don’t know its capabilities, we probably have to assume that almost all the brines are at least potentially habitable by it, even if not by Earth life. This also suggests that until we know more we should assume that there are spores of life in the dust almost anywhere on Mars, from any of its many potential habitats, from the equator to the poles.

 

 

 

Yes many of the brines on Mars will be very cold, well below the -20 °C limit below which Earth life replicates very slowly or not at all. But some of the brines may be warmer, depending on the chemical composition. And the deeper subsurface may have hydrothermal systems today and it definitely has had them as recently as a couple of hundred million years ago. There is also the potential for fresh water in the polar ice caps melted into layers 10–20 cm thick below a trapping layer of clear ice, a process that happens in Antarctica and should happen there too if there is clear ice, as models suggest.

Mars is also super-oxygenated, so oxygen doesn’t seem likely to be a problem. Mars may well have polyextremophiles that would have no trouble surviving on Earth. One of our top candidates for a lifeform on Earth that could survive on Mars, Chroococcidiopsis, is able to live anywhere on Earth from dry cliffs in Antarctica, through to tropical water reservoirs. At any rate we can’t rule this out.

 

 

 

Now of course Zubrin argues that there is nothing to worry about because Earth and Mars share meteorites so must have life in common.

And there is no way to know if any Martian life has caused mass extinctions on Earth. Indeed it is not impossible that Martian life caused the Great Oxygenation Event, which radically changed Earth’s environment by introducing oxygen for the first time to its air and oceans and may have caused a mass extinction too.

 

 

 

Obstacles are as great in the other direction or greater from Earth to Mars. This time the meteorite does have life on it as it leaves Earth, almost certainly. But it has to leave our atmosphere at over 11.2 km/sec and the last time that was possible was 66 million years ago. To leave at such speed it has to be a fireball on its journey all the way through the atmosphere sterilizing its surface and any cracks that lead into its interior through plasma sterilization.

Astrobiologists certainly do not know the answer here. They feel they need to devise experiments on Mars to be able to detect any kind of alien astrobiology and do not feel they can assume that it is identical in its biochemistry to Earth life.

 

 

 

This is the key insight for this article. It doesn’t seem possible, or at least practical, to break chain of contact between Mars and Earth for a human mission.

But let’s look more closely at the three main possibilities, quarantine, sterilizing an astronaut of spores, and breaking the chain of contact at Mars.

 

 

 

Quarantine works fine for protecting against a known hazard. If you want to protect against import of rabies to your country, [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/put-your-pet-in-rabies-quarantine a quarantine of four months is nowadays considered sufficient for the UK] (which is rabies free). For leprosy however then it may be symptom free for 20 years after infection. So it doesn’t work so well when you have an unknown hazard. And even the rabies quarantine period is far longer than the[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Quarantine_Facility three weeks for the Apollo astronauts].

And none of this is any use if they carry spores on their bodies, harmless to humans, that could be returned to Earth and impact on its environment. Especially if Martian microbes have taken part in their personal microbiomes so that their bodies have become incubators for Martian microbes, perhaps without even knowing it if the life is hard to detect amongst Earth microbes.

 

 

 

You might think, surely (as long as they are not sick of some Martian disease in their lungs or bodies), the astronauts just need to get very clean. Wash away all the spores somehow. That might work if you knew what it is you need to protect against. Surgeons are able to get clean enough for an operation but their aim is just to reduce the number of microbes, not eliminate them altogether. But for planetary protection, the requirements are far more stringent.

It is so stringent because when you don’t know what is in the sample, you have to be able to contain. It is not just Earth life but any microbe of any conceivable biochemistry. Which could be present as hardy spores in the dust.

 

 

 

Now, if you know what it is you are protecting Earth from, then you may be able to devise some method to protect Earth, to clean the astronauts of the Martian life, or a quarantine period, depending on what it is.

In short, quarantine simply does not work. This was never tested at the time of Apollo because the provisions never had to pass peer review. They were largely symbolic, as it turned out.

 

 

 

So if the astronaut is part of the chain of contact with Mars (something touches something touches something … touches the astronaut) then they have to be contained on returning to Earth, until proven not to have any spores on them that could be a hazard to Earth’s environment.

So can we keep Martian life out of the habitat to these demanding standards?

 

 

This idea comes from Mikkel Haaheim who had been certified, and regularly recertified in mass HazMat response as part of his former employment, and [https://marsandspace.quora.com/Will-First-Mars-Astronauts-Have-To-Stay-In-Orbit-Tele-operating-Sterile-Surface-Rovers-To-Prevent-Colliding-Biosp/comment/1650970 commented about this on my Quora draft of this post]. His suggestion is inspired by the approach used by the CDC to respond to Hazardous Materials (HazMat) incidents. Although they use sterilizing agents as well, they rely mainly on a physical flow or air and water to remove contamination. If this could be adapted to a space mission, astronauts would need to do this every time they return from an EVA on the surface.

But none of this can protect against contamination in the case of even a minor accident on the surface breaching the spacesuit.

 

 

 

Whatever procedure you use, what if there is some accident on the surface, with an injured astronaut- contaminated by the Martian surface materials through a tear in the suit. Are they then just left to die on the surface? Or they are allowed back into the habitat, but then none of the astronauts can ever return to normal life on Earth again unless they prove that there are no harmful spores on Mars?

But it’s hard to see any practical and reasonably reliable way of breaking contact at the Martian surface. Not with present day technology. At least, if you want something more than just to say you landed them there, do hardly anything on the surface, and return to orbit again.

 

 

 

An Apollo 11 type flag and footprints, single EVA, maybe that’s possible, without the sample returns they did, and with many measures taken to make sure they are completely sterilized of any Martian life on return. Perhaps you could do that, following the CDC approach, and treating the surface equivalently to an extreme biohazard. The astronauts would know that they risk having to be kept above GEO or in a protective bubble for the rest of their lives if they have an accident on the surface or contact surface materials through some mistake in procedures. If it is only a short duration mission, the chances of that may be low.

If you had the idea of doing it just for the prestige of being first to land on Mars, the prospect of future headlines like this might give you pause for thought:

 

 

<blockquote>(Photograph is Hubble's photograph of a [http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast11oct_2/ Global Mars dust storm from 2001] )

* [http://www.science20.com/robert_walker/what_are_we_protecting_mars_from_and_why_do_we_bother_an_unopened_treasure_chest_response_to_zubrin_and_rummel#prestige_or_dishonour Prestige or dishonour, first footsteps on Mars]

 

 

 

Technically, private space could send one way missions that contaminate Mars without triggering this legislation to protect Earth’s environment. And if Laura Montgomery’s view on the US interpretation of the OST prevailed, and if Congress was to legislate in their favour, perhaps US citizens could go ahead and land materials there without doing anything to protect Mars.

Indeed, if the survey took a decade, as it well might, the habitats would be technology at least a decade old by the time they got there.

 

 

 

Some keen Mars colonization enthusiasts might at first welcome the idea of sending Earth life to Mars, even intentionally - thinking, that (in their view) it improves Mars to introduce Earth life there - and that if we contaminate Mars, even make it as dirty as possible with Earth microbes, that’s an end to the planetary protection provisions.

We would still need to do a proper astrobiological survey before returning materials from Mars to Earth, and it wouldn’t make any difference to this requirement.

 

 

 

If we add Earth microbes to Martian microhabitats it gets harder to isolate any native Martian life, to learn what it’s unique properties are, and to determine whether it is safe for Earth’s environment or for our astronauts. It might well mean it takes longer to complete the survey.

There’s also the possibility of native Martian life exchanging genetic capabilities with introduced Earth microbes, making Mars a breeding ground for possibly hazardous life for Earth. It could make it more biohazardous than it was.

 

 

 

We also have no idea what Earth life would do to Mars, in the unusual conditions there. It will encounter conditions that are not exactly like any that we have on Earth - but possibly still habitable to Earth microbes. The previous planetary protection officer, the biologist Cassie Conley gave a simple example to show how we could get an unpleasant surprise if we introduce microbes inadvertently without knowing all the interactions and what they could do there. These interactions could cause harm even if Mars is lifeless.

In more detail, Mars has almost no oxygen, which changes how microbes behave. What she is talking about there is anaerobic oxidation of methane, which leads to the formation of calcium carbonate in anoxic conditions . It's done by a consortium of methane oxidising and sulfate reducing bacteria. See summary here in wikipedia: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcite#Formation_processes Calcite - formation process] - which links to [https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8020 this technical paper] which goes into more detail.

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Calcite-20188.jpg Calcite] - calcium carbonate. In the anoxic conditions on Mars, in presence of methane, a combination of methane oxidizing and sulfate reducing microbes can cause calcite to form and so, basically, could turn underground aquifers on Mars into cement. Cassie Conley’s example of one way that accidentally introduced microbes could have unpredictable effects on Mars.

(see also my [http://www.science20.com/robert_walker/lets_make_sure_astronauts_wont_extinguish_native_mars_life_op_ed-231034 Let's Make Sure Astronauts Won't Extinguish Native Mars Life - Op Ed] )

 

 

 

This would also be an issue with an attempt to treat with the Martian materials “hazmat style” in an early human mission to Mars before completing the survey.

Have any of the keen advocates of near future human missions to Mars drafted out provisions to break this chain of contact with the Mars surface during a human mission to Mars? Well not that I know of. As usual do say if you know of anything in the comments.

 

 

 

I’m not sure. Perhaps they expect it to be like Apollo, and assume that the quarantine facilities for Apollo for humans showed how you'd do it? But as we saw, it is now though to be mainly of interest for showing how not to do it and as completely inadequate for protecting Earth's environment. It has also been rescinded long ago.

As usual, please do say in the comments if you know of such a study - or if I am missing something in this analysis.

 

 

 

One objection you often hear is that we need to return the samples to Earth before we can detect biosignatures at all. But this is not true. Even in the 1970s, the two Viking landers had biosignature detection instruments. They were confused by the unusual Martian chemistry. But if they had encountered chemistry similar to Earth deserts, they would have been able to detect at least some forms of Martian life reasonably conclusively. The scientists concerned started to design follow up missions that could still detect biosignatures without being confused by the unusual chemistry there but they were never sent.

So, the idea is to send a suite of several such instruments. If many of them detect life you can be pretty sure it is there. And if they don’t, a null result is also of great interest for the search for life. Indeed, discovery of pre-biotic chemistry is also interesting, especially if there is no life in an apparently habitable brine on Mars.

 

 

If you shine laser light at the sample (not zap it, just gently light shining on it) - can give some information right away through [http://exploration.esa.int/mars/45103-rover-instruments/?fbodylongid=2130 Raman spectrometry]. This technique works by analyzing a tiny fraction of the light (1 in 10 million) that interacts with the surface as it bounces back.

Mars 2020 and ExoMars both will use this method.

 

 

* [http://exploration.esa.int/mars/45103-rover-instruments/?fbodylongid=2132 Tiny ovens to heat up the sample until it gives off gas, and then analyse the gases (Mars Organic Molecule Analyser)], the largest instrument on ExoMars.<br />

* [http://web.archive.org/web/20140329222237/http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/5325/searching-for-organics-in-a-nibble-of-soil Astrobionibbler] - similar idea to [http://astrobiology.berkeley.edu/PDFs_articles/08UreyAstrobio.pdf UREY], which was approved for ExoMars but descoped. Exquisitively sensitive, able to detect a single amino acid in a gram of soil, uses pressurized super heated water to extract organics which it then labels with fluorescent dyes to identify the amino acids, using microfluidic channels in a "lab on a chip". Now reduced to a target mass of only 2.5 kg for a complete end to end system with a drill doing its own sample collection, to avoid cross contamination with other instruments. For details of how it works, see [http://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/searching-for-organics-in-a-nibble-of-soil/ Searching for organics in a nibble of soil].

 

 

These can detect life even if it doesn't use any recognized form of conventional life chemistry. The life only has to metabolize - “eat something” - doesn’t have to have to reproduce. That makes a big difference as the microbes might take months to reproduce if they are cold loving, and only 1% of microbes on Earth can be cultivated anyway - it may be harder to cultivate Martian life if anything.

* [http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/marsconcepts2012/pdf/4319.pdf Levin’s idea of chiral labeled release], where he has refined it so you feed the medium with a chiral solution with only one isomer of each amino acid. If carbon dioxide or methane is given off when you feed it one isomer and not with the other, that would be a reasonably strong indication of life.

 

 

* [http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6187064/ Miniaturized scanning electron microscope]. This can’t detect whether it is life or not, but is useful along with the others for examining tiny structures. It is able to do chemical analysis as well as imaging.

 

 

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raman_spectroscopy#Microspectroscopy Raman microspectroscopy]. Combines an optical microscope with a laser shining light on the same microscopic cell observed by the microscope and the scattered light is analyzed as for normal raman microscopy.

Very promising but in a paper [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.659.5590&rep=rep1&type=pdf "Implications for the search for biomarkers on Mars" (page 3219),] the authors found that focusing on microbial colonies can be difficult and time consuming, needing precise work, even when the microbes were common enough so that you could see them as a "clear greenish zone on the macroscopic scale.

 

 

This can measure the forces between molecules and properties of cell walls such as elasticity, hardness etc (page 4-26 of [http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/Europa_Lander_SDT_Report_2016.pdf Europa lander report]). This is mature space technology that has flown on the Phoenix mission to Mars and the Rosetta mission, though it's not been used to search for life.

 

 

See this paper: [http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/ast.2015.1376 Microbial Morphology and Motility as Biosignatures for Outer Planet Missions]

The main problem again is focusing on them to find them. There is a solution though, holographic (interferometric) microscopy. Diffraction limited, but you do the focusing after capturing the light, digitally. No mechanical moving parts, and it can be operated without user input to focus the microscope. The authors of this paper: [http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147700 A Submersible, Off-Axis Holographic Microscope] have developed such an instrument with 800 nm resolution which can be used underwater. They were able to observe active prokaryotes in sea ice.

 

 

This again is from [http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/ast.2015.1376 Microbial Morphology and Motility as Biosignatures for Outer Planet Missions]. Shine UV light on the microbe and see if it shines with visible light. All microbes do this to some extent and some pigments, especially chlorophyll, absorb UV and emit strongly in visible light.

You can also use fluorescent dyes that attach to nucleic acids, lipids, cell walls, and other biosignatures. The dyes may be unstable at high or low temperatures and are complex organics, introducing those to another planet could have planetary protection issues (teaching native life “new tricks”)

 

 

This technique is mentioned in [https://www.nap.edu/read/11937/chapter/7#72 "An Astrobiology Strategy for the Exploration of Mars ", page 72].

This gives optical images that are higher resolution than 0.2 microns, below the diffraction limit, using evanescent waves. The detector has to be very close to the object being observed, at a distance less than the wavelength of the light. This is [http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/ast.2014.1207 an example of its use for fossil microscopy combined with Raman microspectroscopy].

 

 

DNA sequencers have shrunk more than any other instrument in the list. Once filled entire laboratories. Now small enough to send on a spaceship. The focus so far is on DNA but it's possible to sequence RNA based life too- so long as it uses the same bases as on Earth. Sequencing for life based on other non standard bases is also possible but work in progress, see [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christopher_Carr16/publication/310327650_Towards_In_Situ_Sequencing_for_Life_Detection/links/58c0a2f192851c2adfeb27f8/Towards-In-Situ-Sequencing-for-Life-Detection.pdf the paper for the techy details].

(A trimmed version of my more detailed descriptions here: [http://robertinventor.com/booklets/If_humans_touch_Mars.htm#zzee_link_117_1483025424 In situ instrument capabilities (i]n Touch Mars?)

 

 

Once you have unambiguous biosignatures you can return samples to orbit and then they can analyze them in telerobotically operated facilities. It is a case of doing it that way because you have to, until you know what is there.

However, until they know what it is they are studying, they wouldn’t examine them inside the crewed vehicles. They would study them inside separately flown modules not attached to any spacecraft, using telerobotic equipment. At least, they would do this, until they establish that it is safe for themselves, and Earth to study them in their habitat - if they do establish that.

 

 

 

This is often raised as if it is a fatal objection, that only humans can drill. But in the conditions on Mars, then it is dry drilling, no drilling fluids. You can’t take drilling casings with you unless very narrow as they’d be too heavy.

* [http://www.science20.com/robert_walker/what_are_we_protecting_mars_from_and_why_do_we_bother_an_unopened_treasure_chest_response_to_zubrin_and_rummel#need_to_compare Need to compare humans on the surface with humans exploring telerobotically from orbit with continuous broadband communication back to Earth]

 

 

 

One concern - if we are sending rovers to dozens of locations on Mars and they are actually going to contact liquid brines close up - is that even if sterilized to Viking standards, they may introduce Earth microbes to Mars. The chance is likely to be low, but on the other hand of the few remaining viable spores, the sterilization process favours survival of polyextremophiles, and if we can eliminate the risk altogether, so much the better.

It’s also covered in my Touch Mars? book.

 

 

 

This shows how far we have moved forward in the way we value Earth’s environment since the 1960s. It is no longer acceptable to take risks of harming it in a major way, even if the chance is small.

Probably also you have an omnidirectional treadmill you can use if needed to move the rover around on the surface just by walking in whatever direction you want to move. Omnidirectional treadmills used to be huge monsters of a device but with the influence of computer gamers they are now small and can easily be included in a spaceship.

 

 

 

If we decide we shouldn't send humans to the Mars surface quite yet, but want to go one step further than robotic exploration from Earth, and send humans there, there are many exciting missions we can do to the Mars system. We can explore Mars by telepresence from orbit, or from its moons Phobos and Deimos, or in flyby missions (using Mars as a gravity assist to get back to Earth)..

As for the duration of the survey, well, we can't know in advance. We might know some things quickly. It might be a matter of luck, too, do we find life right away, or does it take time? What kind of life is it, if we find it? As the survey continues, we'll have new questions that need to be answered, to determine whether Mars life is safe for Earth, or Earth life for Mars, and how the two biospheres are likely to interact, if there is a distinct biosphere on Mars. But we need to start the search before we can begin to map out the most important questions that need to be answered, and how best to answer them.

 

 

 

Telerobotics lets us explore Mars much more quickly with humans in the loop. The early stages of telerobotic exploration of Mars would use an exciting and spectacular orbit if we follow the HERRO plans. Every day the Mars space station would come in close to the poles of Mars, swing around over the sunny side in the equatorial regions and then out again close to the other pole, until Mars dwindles again into a small distant planet - and not only once. It does this twice every day. This "sun synchronous" orbit always approaches Mars on its sunny side so you get to see both sides of Mars in daylight from close up, every single day.

Imagine the view! From space Mars looks quite home-like, and the telerobotics will let you experience the Martian surface more directly than you could with spacecraft. You'll be able to touch and see things on the surface without the spacesuit in your way and with enhanced vision, and adjust the colours to show a blue sky also if you like. It's like being in the ISS, but orbiting another planet.

 

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/picture-galleries/8967979/A-year-in-space-30-pictures-of-Earth-taken-from-the-International-Space-Station-in-2011.html?image=9 12th April 2011: International Space Station astronaut Cady Coleman takes pictures of the Earth from inside the cupola viewing window.]- I've "photoshopped" in [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mars_23_aug_2003_hubble.jpg Hubble's photograph of Mars from 2003] to give an impression of the view of an astronaut exploring Mars from orbit.

</blockquote>

This means though, that we can build up copies of the 3D landscape back on Earth as you explore it and experts on Earth can walk into the very landscape you are in on Mars, and inspect the rocks, from all angles (if you have walked around them previously so that they have seen all sides). With multigigabyte images they can also be high enough resolution for scientists to study them close up as if they were looking at them with a geologist’s hand lens, higher resolution than you can yourself unless you choose to do the same while navigating in VR from orbit.

 

 

 

The HERRO study mentions this briefly, but I think it is worth going into it in detail as it is a major advantage of telepresence exploration. There is no need to suit up, which [http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/celsius/infokit/english/05_EVASupportInfo.pdf currently is a long procedure]. Astronauts on the ISS start preparing for an EVA, the day before, checking out the airlock and their spacesuit to make sure everything is in order, camp overnight in the airlock, and spend hours preparing for the EVA the next day too.

Elon Musk’s “Starman” wore an IVA suit when he launched the red Tesla in roughly the direction of Mars orbit.

 

 

<blockquote>SpaceX’s IVA suit

To make this possible, they use pure oxygen, which lets humans breathe and be comfortable at a much lower pressure of 30% of air pressure at sea level on Earth. However, they don't want to keep the entire ISS at such a low pressure, as a pure oxygen atmosphere is a fire risk. Given those decisions, the only solution is for the crew who are doing the EVA to adjust to the lower pressure for every EVA, which they do by this procedure which they call "camping out" or sleeping overnight in the airlock. They have to do this slowly or they risk suffering from “bends” as the nitrogen they breathed in dissolves out as gas bubbles in their blood, a potentially serious effect.

 

 

<blockquote>Piers Sellers (left) and David Wolf using pre-breathe exercises to purge their blood of nitrogen to prevent "bends" as they adjust to a third of Earth's atmosphere and a pure oxygen environment. This is done the day before the EVA and they "camp out" overnight in the airlock ready to exit for their EVA the next day. This photo was taken during the STS-112 mission on 10 October 2002. (Image: NASA). For details see [http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/celsius/infokit/english/05_EVASupportInfo.pdf page 4 of this article].

Yes, for sure, future redesigns are bound to improve the spacesuits so they are less stiff, easier to use and require less maintenance and last longer. But at the same time, the technology for telerobotics will improve as well. Also the need to maintain suits between EVAs, do numerous safety checks, and pre-breathe for an hour or more before an EVA seems likely to be with us for some time into the future. There seems to be no prospect in the near future of a flexible EVA suit you could just don and go out of your habitat with as easily as in the movies.

 

 

 

A fire is one of the most dangerous things that can happen in space, more dangerous than on Earth. There is nowhere else to go to escape from it, and it might not be easy to purge the atmosphere of smoke and carbon dioxide if the spacecraft itself is on fire. You can’t just open a window to let out the smoke and stale air.

This is an additional benefit for a telerobotic mission. They can just walk over straight to their workstation breathing the same nitrogen / oxygen mix they use all the time, for safety reasons. There is no need ever to depressurize and use pure oxygen, except for an EVA to repair their own spacecraft or to visit Phobos or Deimos.

 

 

 

You have to factor all those details about how often you can do EVAs, how much preparation is required, etc, when you make a comparison between exploring Mars from orbit or from the ground.

* [http://www.science20.com/robert_walker/what_are_we_protecting_mars_from_and_why_do_we_bother_an_unopened_treasure_chest_response_to_zubrin_and_rummel#need_to_compare Need to compare humans on the surface with humans exploring telerobotically from orbit with continuous broadband communication back to Earth]

 

 

 

As I said in the last article, none of this needs to slow down human exploration.

They would definitely die in an incident like that on a mission to Mars, swinging back to Earth over a year later rather than a few days later.

 

 

<blockquote>The Apollo 13 oxygen tank explosion happened two days into their mission. They swung past the Moon and returned to Earth in a little under 4 days. If something like this happened to an outward bound Mars mission, it would be well over a year before they could swing past Mars and return to Earth. [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Apollo_13_timeline.svg Apollo 13 timeline]

We need the equivalent of Apollo 8 (first fly around the Moon), and 10 (did everything except land on the Moon) first before we consider the Martian equivalent of Apollo 11.

 

 

 

I do not think that ten years exploring Mars from orbit as well as its two moons and telepresence on the surface will be seen as onerous by the astronauts. Especially when they also understand why they are doing it - because of the possibility that materials returned from Mars could harm the environment of Earth, and because of the possibility of native Martian life going extinct before they have a chance to study it.

And there is much they can explore in orbit around Mars, as well as the planet, its two moons, Phobos and Deimos. And actually Phobos may contribute to our understanding of early Mars. It is thought to have many meteorites in its regolith that got there within hours or minutes of leaving the surface of early Mars.

 

 

<blockquote>[https://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2013/11/phobos A sample-return mission to Phobos would return material both from Phobos and from Mars. Credit][https://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2013/11/phobos '': NASA'']

Of course, meteorites that hit Mars billions of years ago sent ejecta to Earth as well, of course - but those ancient Martian meteorites on Earth must have eroded away long ago - and would be hard to distinguish from other rocks here. They are amongst the most interesting targets to look for on Earth's Moon - but also - what about Mars' closest moon, Phobos?

 

 

 

Ancient Martian ejecta on Phobos should still be there, intact, preserved for billions of years. There is no process to destroy it. It can only get hidden by the accumulation of later material on the surface. It would also be uncontaminated by Earth life.

As it turns out, rather a lot of the Martian surface material can end up on Phobos after a meteorite impact.

 

 

Shows trajectories of debris from an impact on Mars and the orbits of Mars's two moon's, Phobos (innermost moon) and Deimos

* [http://www.science20.com/robert_walker/likely_2040_before_mars_samples_returned_safely_legally_yet_not_likely_to_answer_astrobiology_questions-232052 Likely 2040 Before Mars Samples Returned Safely, Legally -Yet Not Likely To Return Life - Needs To Be Detected In Situ First]

 

 

 

Since this is not a rubber stamping exercise, it means there is a possibility that we decide, based on what we find there, that the surface of Mars should be a no-go area for humans, in the near term for

Then, closer at home, the Moon actually has a lot going for it, the vacuum for instance is a great advantage if you want to set up a computer chip factory - far better than anything we have on Earth except at enormous expense. If you look at the Moon in its own right, rather than as a copy of the Moon, it has one advantage after another that might surprise you. There is plenty of interest there for a vigorous program of settlement and maybe colonization in the near term without needing to look further afield, and much of the technology developed for Mars is dual purpose and would also work on the Moon such as suit ports, pressurized rovers, etc.

 

 

 

There are some areas we may never send humans or not in the near future. Such as the Venus surface, with its oven heat, crushing high pressure, and concentrated sulfuric acid. Or Io within the deadly ionizing radiation of Jupiter, we couldn’t survive for minutes to hours without vast amounts of shielding.

If it has microbes that form biofilms inside our lungs, antibiotic resistant and our bodies have no defences, then, it is likely to be a no-go area for the foreseeable future. There is simply no way at present to guarantee for sure that this is not the case. Because we don’t get to write the script for this adventure and we need to be prepared to be surprised, perhaps by something nobody has even though of yet, as is often nature’s way.

 

 

 

Meanwhile there are numerous places we can go in our solar system with no planetary protection problems at all, guaranteed, because we already know enough to say this.

You can read my Touch Mars? book free online here:

 

 

[http://robertinventor.com/booklets/If_humans_touch_Mars.htm Touch Mars? Europa? Enceladus? Or a tale of Missteps?] (equivalent to 1938 printed pages in a single web page, takes a while to load).

My other books, which cover human exploration as well as planetary protection, and explore the case for going to the Moon first (for humans), are:

 

 

* [http://robertinventor.com/booklets/Online-Case-for-Moon.htm Case For Moon First: Gateway to Entire Solar System - Open Ended Exploration, Planetary Protection at its Heart] - and [https://www.amazon.com/Case-Moon-First-Exploration-Protection-ebook/dp/B01E0U0HWQ on kindle] - which as the name suggests explores the Case for going to the Moon first in detail, as its main focus.

 

 

* [http://robertinventor.com/booklets/Online-If-You-Love-Science.htm MOON FIRST Why Humans on Mars Right Now Are Bad for Science] - and [https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MF7JJK8/ on kindle].<br />

My books are all designed for reading on a computer with links to click to go to the sources, and I have no plans to attempt printed versions of them.

 

 

 

* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/282808198814324/ Touch Mars? Europa? Enceladus? Or a Tale of Missteps?]