Dissenting views on Mars sample return back contamination risks: Difference between revisions
Dissenting views on Mars sample return back contamination risks (edit)
Revision as of 02:06, 8 September 2018
, 5 years agono edit summary
No edit summary |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1:
MSR pages: [[Mars Sample Receiving Facility and sample containment|MSR facility]] - [[Mars Sample Return Legal Issues and International Public Debate| Legal Issues]] - [[Discussion of science value of a Mars sample return |science value]] - [[Dissenting views on Mars sample return back contamination risks|Dissenting views on back contamination risks]]
{{Needs-Attention|This is based on part of the original [[Planetary protection for a Mars sample return]] - is it best separated out or included - or transcluded?}}The official NASA and ESA view and the view of the Planetary Protection Office is that samples returned from Mars present a biohazard concern, but that this risk can be adequately contained with use of a [[
Robert Zubrin argues that the back contamination risk has no validity. Note however that he shouldn't be regarded as a supporter of the NASA and ESA plans for a sample return, as he also feels that a Mars sample return has little value at present. He considers that humans would return better, more useful samples at a later date.
Line 5 ⟶ 6:
The ICAMSR argue that it is not possible to contain the samples adequately at our present stage of knowledge of Mars and with present day technology. With Levin's approach, sample return is done after a series of biohazard testing experiments have been completed in situ on Mars, and in orbit.
These represent two extremes in the international public debate that will be required in the future, in case of a Mars sample return to Earth, see [[
This article presents their views, along with critical material in separate sections.
| |||