A team of researchers proposes a theoretical shift in our understanding of the spread of microorganisms in space, particularly on Mars. The research team believes that space pollution is inevitable, and future Mars colonists should use microorganisms to reshape the "Red Planet." Some scholars think this suggestion is premature.
In a paper on microbial ecology from the European Federation of Microbiology, microbiologist Jose Lopes of Nova Southeastern University in Florida and colleague W. Rachel Pescio of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro To and Alexander Rossedo propose major revisions to the theories behind current space exploration and planetary protection policies to make them suitable for the spread of microorganisms in space.
Rather than worrying about contaminating outer space objects, something NASA and other space agencies are particularly careful to avoid, Lopez and his co-authors argue that we should be more intentional about introducing microbes into outer space. The spread of microorganisms should be used as part of a colonization strategy to modify the climate on Mars. A key argument made by the researchers is that preventing contamination is nearly impossible, as the authors argue in the study.
‘The introduction of microorganisms should not be considered accidental but inevitable. ’ A policy change like this would stand in stark contrast to conventional thinking on the matter. We spoke to some experts who said the current protocols to prevent us from contaminating another planet may well be serving a good purpose in our field, and we can't abandon them so easily just yet. Plus, experts say there's still a lot of science that needs to be done on Mars and elsewhere before we start something so irreversible.
Currently, large scientific societies have reached a consensus on preventing planets such as Mars from being contaminated by microorganisms. NASA, ESA (European Space Agency) and other space agencies conduct comprehensive and expensive sterilization before launching spacecraft to nearby celestial targets.
Planetary Protection (PP) theory can be traced back to the late 1950s and the establishment of the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) affiliated with the Council of International Scientific Associations. COSPAR develops, among other things, recommendations and protocols aimed at protecting space from microorganisms. Relatedly, the United Nations Outer Space Treaty, which has been signed by more than 100 countries, clearly states that the parties to the treaty should study and explore outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, to avoid harmful pollution and the introduction of extraterrestrial Subversive changes to the earth caused by star matter. If necessary, appropriate measures should also be taken for this purpose. If a State Party to the Treaty has reason to believe that it or its nationals have plans in outer space, including on the Moon and other celestial bodies, and that this would cause potentially harmful interference with the peaceful exploration and development activities of other States Parties, including on the Moon and other celestial bodies, before taking any Reasonable international consultations should be conducted before any action is taken.
The rationale behind this idea is that our microbes could contaminate important places in the solar system for scientific research, thereby undermining our chances of detecting original microbial life on Mars and other planets. For example, finding traces of DNA or RNA on Mars would not mean that they originated on Earth, as these molecules may represent fundamental and universal principles of cosmic evolution. Perhaps more seriously, there are fears that life on Earth could snuff out alien ecosystems before we even have a chance to study it.
On the other hand, Lopez and his colleagues argue that preventing our bacteria from invading extraterrestrials will be nearly impossible, so we should have a rational discussion about how best to exploit microbes to their advantage. . Specifically, the authors are referring to topography, the theoretical practice of engineering a planet to become more Earth-like.
The surface of Mars as seen from space
The authors point to Earth's history as a precedent for acknowledging the importance of microorganisms in promoting the habitability of the planet Its functions include the production of oxygen, the mediation of gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrogen, and the decomposition of carbon dioxide, organic and inorganic substances.
"It is well known that life on Earth would not be possible without microorganisms," Lopez said in an NSU press release. living together and forming a larger whole). To survive in the barren wilderness we have explored so far, we must bring probiotics to Mars. This may take time to prepare and screen, and we do not advocate rushing. Sowing, but only after a rigorous and systematic study of the planet "
The key point in their argument is the recognition of our transition from explorers to colonizers. The authors claim that life does not appear to exist elsewhere in the solar system. They wrote: "In the past, more than 70 space missions and probes that left the Earth's orbit have not found any facts or clues to prove the existence of life. These can all indicate that only the Earth has life in the current solar system."
Lopez and his colleagues believe that if we are to seriously advance plans to colonize Mars, we must consider the role of microbes.
But they say spreading bacteria around Mars isn't something to be done blindly, but requires plenty of foresight.
"Instead, we envision an exhaustive research program into microbial colonization, recognizing the limitations of current technology. We therefore advocate a more conservative plan for the introduction of microorganisms into space, because we also want Recognizing that human colonization cannot be separated from microbes, the researchers proposed the Proactive Inoculation Program (PIP). Such plans would precede other long-term missions and would also involve screening candidates for useful microorganisms. Dangerous microorganisms will be excluded and only the most productive ones will be included in future missions, the authors wrote.
If humans are seriously considering colonizing Mars, other planets, or neighboring moons, then we need to identify, understand, and send the most useful microorganisms as pioneers. Screening or cultivating the most tolerant microbial species or communities, provided they can be proven through careful, systematic research and the latest data, rather than randomly picking bacteria and throwing them on the space station.
Microorganisms that can survive extreme conditions will be the first to spread to Mars, where they will be buried several feet underground to protect them from the freezing environment and surface radiation.
However, as the authors acknowledge, it is unrealistic to achieve complete control over microbial species and their genomes sent into space, and once sent, it is impossible to take them back. In other words, we can never achieve complete control or complete knowledge of the course of a task, nor can we stop it once it is started.
The authors provide no details on when the first batch of microbes will be sent out or how long it will take for them to have the desired effect. This is an open question, for example, whether microorganisms (even extremophiles) can function on the surface of Mars, because the air pressure on the surface of Mars has long hovered at only around 0.7 kilopascals, which is not far different from that in outer space. Mars' low gravity and intense solar radiation hitting its surface make everything even more confusing.
But even if it does work, the huge timescale of the plan will dissuade optimistic Mars colonists. On Earth, these processes include hundreds of thousands or even millions of years of lengthy microbial churning (such as the production of oxygen through cyanobacterial photosynthesis.)
Bruce, a professor of earth sciences at the University of Colorado and an expert on Martian topography ?Jakowsky said that, as he wrote in an email to Gizmodo, the authors were proposing sea-changes to the world's planetary protection protocols.
Jakowsky said: “These recommendations look contrary to what we have done with PP for decades. I am eager for every opportunity to discuss how PP should be implemented and whether it should be subject to further changes, but I will We are worried about the consequences of such a global change and not thinking objectively about it.
Todd Hoffman, a physicist at the University of Oxford, said that the authors claimed to completely disinfect the spacecraft, so we simply don’t think about it. It's a logical fallacy that we shouldn't try, but of course we should try and we have a good chance of succeeding in implementing a planetary protection program, either due to Earth's protocols or due to exposure to the ravages of space. Sexual impact, or because of the harsh conditions that already exist on Mars
As far as we know, the Curiosity Mars rover did not bring microorganisms to Mars
"Since 1976, quite a few probes have landed on the surface of Mars. Until now, they have been subject to COSPAR's thorough sterilization protocols. "To this day, they have not detected microorganisms on Mars or Earth," Huffman wrote in his email to Jimodo. This means COSPAR does work. So not only is their argument inconsistent, their claim that it's impossible to separate microbes from Mars is unfounded. " he said. He added: "My point is, if this agreement is not broken, then don't change it. The COSPAR protocol can keep Mars away from interference when humans study native life on Mars. Unless we want to further relax their powers, we shouldn't undermine it. "
Huffman does not disagree that we will eventually bring microorganisms to Mars in the manner described by the author, but letting go of the COSPAR protocol before confirming that life does not exist on a planet is a huge scientific mistake. He Said: “At least for now, we should keep these microorganisms on our planet away from Mars, Europa, Enceladus, and even Titan. "
"I think the potential contamination of the alien biosphere is a serious ethical issue because it is a consequence that will always be with us. Clifford wrote to Jimodo in an email. Like Huffman, he worries that Earth's bacteria will make our scientific work more difficult, and we have no evidence that planetary protection programs are not working now.
"If life evolved on Mars or in subterranean oceans on the icy moons of exoplanets, it would likely have been on those bodies for billions of years," Clifford said.
The detection of life on these celestial bodies has profound implications for our understanding of the prevalence of life throughout the universe.
As for the suggestion that implementing the Planetary Protection Protocol is too expensive, Clifford said the associated additional costs are worth it and typically only account for about 20% of the mission cost.
"As we explore potentially habitable environments in the solar system, we need to answer as clearly as possible whether there is any indigenous life before we send humans there," Clifford said. "And if these environments prove to be devoid of life, then the need to comply with current planetary protection standards becomes unnecessary. However, if we discover life, then I think we have to have serious discussions about the trade-offs we have with colonizing and exploiting the resources of the solar system desire and the ethical issues that lead to the extinction of the first samples of alien life we ??have discovered.
At the same time, he does not believe there is a mission to colonize the solar system before we have a chance to thoroughly search for alien life." Regardless of whether this search takes fifty years or even centuries. " He said. Before that, Clifford said: "There are still many lifeless places in the solar system, such as the moon and some asteroids, and humans can explore them, colonize them and draw resources from them.
Lopez and his colleagues have clearly hit a sore point. None of the experts we spoke to raised objections to using microbes as part of colonization and geoengineering at some point in the future. On the contrary. , they are annoyed by claims that we are about to move from the exploration phase to the colonization phase and that we should start using our resources and microbes when we are close to being able to send humans to Mars. This debate is going to get extremely heated.
Author: George Dvorsky
FY: Curry Star
Please obtain authorization for reprinting, and pay attention to maintaining integrity and indicating the source