5 months ago
The problem, mentioned in this article, is systematic one, not specific for this particular mission. Nowadays NASA operates in a mode, where failure is not an option. Any mission should be successful, which leads to costs explosion. But this wasn't always the case. Earlier failure rate was high and thus missions were duplicated, just in case if one vehicle crashes/malfunctions. A good example for this were Viking landers and 2004 rovers.
5 months ago
Sometimes a post makes a much bigger point than its immediate context:
If there is any serious question about how to get samples back from Mars, there can be no serious plan to send people to Mars.
This article seems serious...
5 months ago
Many proposals on sending people to Mars seem to (deliberately?) sidestep the question of coming back. Often they quietly assume that they simply won't come back.
5 months ago
Sounds like a reasonable assumption given the length and danger of the trip. I’d assume the first colonists to sail across the Atlantic operated under a similar set of assumptions.
5 months ago
Yes.
Expect downvotes for claiming that we can't realistically get to Mars on any realistic schedule.
5 months ago
Just logged in to downvote this anti-scientific garbage. Who allows this garbage to propagate via feeds?
Ignore the OP, pay attention to actual science, and why safety measures matter:
https://www.reuters.com/science/nasa-rover-finds-potential-s...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/09/10/life-on...
5 months ago
You are totally missing the part about rocks from Mars reaching Earth all the time. If it were an issue, it is already too late. Plus, we have already brought back samples from other bodies with out bothering with such precautions. Also, nothing in scientific findings (nor in the popular press articles you cited as "science") suggests that this is anything other than mineral traces of life that has been dead for millions (more likely billions) of years.
Finally, you may want to drop the ranting tone if you expect anyone to take you seriously.
5 months ago
It's not quite the same. Any Mars rock that reaches us naturally has likely spent millions of years in the vacuum of space and then been heated to very high temperatures as it falls through the atmosphere.
5 months ago
Obviously we don't want ancient Mars viruses or whatever killing us all. But we also don't want to contaminate the samples with Earth-stuff.
5 months ago
Afaik it is very unlikely anything from mars can affect us in any way. All our bacteria and viruses have millions of years of coevolution.
Best example is how almost all cat and dog infections do not affect humans. And cats and dogs are mammals!
5 months ago
Sure, but you missed my entire point, which was we don't want to contaminate the samples.
The entire point is looking for evidence of life and organic material. Would be a shame to spend all those billions just to not be sure if the organic material we're looking at came from Earth or Mars.
5 months ago
The onerous requirements have nothing to do with protecting the samples in their sealed containers; the issue is overblown fear of contaminants on the _outside_ of the containers reaching Earth, It's comparatively easy to seal a container remotely, before it leaves the surface, compared to the task of sanitizing it against all hypothetical threats while in transit.
No one's arguing against protecting the samples from exposure to Earth life; the contention is to what extent we need to "protect Earth life" from the cooties hitchhiking on the sample return system.
5 months ago
Wouldn’t we be able to tell under an electron microscope?
5 months ago
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Maybe, but it would take a lot of detailed study to be absolutely sure.
5 months ago
I don't want to drop anything. Anti-scientific is anti-scientific.
Go read some books.
5 months ago
Having met Casey Handmer personally, I'm confident the last thing he could be accused of is being anti-science. The man knows quite a bit about his domain of expertise!