NASA's Mars exploration plans need 'paradigm shifts' to succeed, report finds

[Admin]

NASA has released a new document that highlights planned programmatic paradigm shifts in Mars exploration over the next 20 years.

NASA's Mars exploration plans need 'paradigm shifts' to succeed, report finds : Read more

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I don't see how we can be planning Mars exploration out into the 2040s with much certainty at this point. We don't know if NASA, China or SpaceX will be successful in putting much advanced robots or humans there. Both the funding and the technological development progress are unusually uncertain at this point.

But I think we should be trying to formulate a plan for whoever gets there to be careful to not contaminate Mars with Earth life forms before we can determine if there are or ever have been any Martian life forms there. We need to safeguard the scientific opportunities that we will not have another chance to learn from.

 

[Classical Motion]

I would think that any life we contaminate Mars with would be higher life forms, not the kind that can take raw chemical compounds for nutrition. Our contamination wouldn’t last long.

Of course that’s just a thought. We have huge families of environmental MICROBE DNA and we don’t have a clue as to what they do or how they survive.

They might use raw matter too, in air or soil environments.

But that can not be prevented, it’s part of all we are.

 

[James Parker]

NASA has shown little capability to perform human exploration in the 21st century. Why not just contract SpaceX to do a manned Mars mission? They offer the highest chance of success with the lowest cost and the greatest simplicity.

 

[Classical Motion]

SpaceX needs strong competition or they will sour too.

 

[contrarian]

"I would think that any life we contaminate Mars with would be higher life forms, not the kind that can take raw chemical compounds for nutrition. Our contamination wouldn’t last long."

Any bio-contamination we introduce on Mars, of whatever form, is not likely to last long in the punishing radiation that is hammering it every day. Some structural components from Earth (or built up from Martian rocks etc. ) would be required for any successful bio-habitation. And that would have to be maintained. We should be focused on life on Earth, and just send robots. No better way to study Mars, and help life here.

 

[Classical Motion]

We have got some probes coming up for the outer systems. And of course they are excited about finding life.

They won’t. And I don’t think we need to worry about contamination in either direction. There is no life out there and no where for our contamination to survive.

It’s just my opinion. I am more interested in tracking the true orbits of those moons thru those debris fields. That’s where the magic is.

 

[Philly]

NASA has shown little capability to perform human exploration in the 21st century. Why not just contract SpaceX to do a manned Mars mission? They offer the highest chance of success with the lowest cost and the greatest simplicity.

SX has their hands full just trying to build the equipment that will get us there. Let's say by 2034 in 10 years, they are able to send 100 tons on a MarsShip for the price of $300 million. Landing a fuel producing plant for another $500 million and refueling the ships on Mars is part of that. All fantastic! Except for one thing.

If we have never developed the equipment to live and work on Mars and have to wait another 10-20 years before the infrastructure to live and work on Mars is ready it won't matter if we have the capability to get there. The time to start building the Mars infrastructure is now. SX is busy enough with just trying to build the rockets to get us there. Food, fuel and water are needed, much better if we can create or find it on

Mars rather than shipping it there from Earth. Even for a Moon base. Buildings made from on-site materials will also be critical. Self directed AI Robots will also play a huge role. A holistic approach as to the required equipment needs to meet the launch capabilities that SX is developing now. It won't matter if we can land 100's of tons on the Moon or Mars if that equipment is decades away because it wasn't developed in the 2020's.

I believe it is a waste of time for some of these small start ups to try to build rockets, that race is over. The next great opportunity is in Moon/Mars infrastructure to load up on Starship once it is working. Companies of the future SpaceY and SpaceZ will make billions selling equipment and infrastructure that will fly on Starship.

Starting that process company now in 2024 is the critical moment. Not in 2034 when 20 Starships are landing on Mars. If your company has the best and cheapest solutions, guess what will become the standard?

 

[Torbjorn Larsson]

The updated master plan now includes a larger Moon cargo transporter and a rover, nothing that is targeted towards Mars.

Here are the most important of NASAs Mars plans:

Under the current plan, the MSR lander would launch in 2035, and the sample-return mission wouldn't occur until 2040.

Meanwhile, China is accelerating its Mars plans.

In a September update at a space exploration conference, Jizhong Liu, the chief designer of Tianwen-3, said the mission is on track to launch in 2028.

According to Space News, Tianwen-3 will include a lander, an ascent vehicle, an orbiter and a return module; it also may use a helicopter and a six-legged robot for gathering samples at a distance from the lander.

A 2028 launch would bring Tianwen-3 back to Earth in 2031.

https://www.livescience.com/space/mars/china-aims-to-be-1st-to-bring-samples-back-from-mars

And I don’t think we need to worry about contamination in either direction. There is no life out there and no where for our contamination to survive.

The primary contamination problem is for sample gathering and analysis, which are hampered or destroyed by brought organics and cells.

Any extant martian life would be crustal and the first time we could sample that is with ExoMars sufficiently long drill to pass the sterilized surface. Our own lifeforms are not adapted to the environment and should be outcompeted when they start to penetrate the crust under e.g. habitats.

We have huge families of environmental MICROBE DNA and we don’t have a clue as to what they do or how they survive.

That's history. Now we assemble and annotate whole genome data, and can tell what metabolism they do and even tell some on their environments. As an example from another field, the latest LUCA reconstruction told on the ecology by way of the metabolism and the cellular immune system:

The analysis, published in Nature Ecology and Evolution in July, sketched a surprisingly complex picture(opens a new tab) of the cell. LUCA lived off hydrogen gas and carbon dioxide, boasted a genome as large as that of some modern bacteria, and already had a rudimentary immune system, according to the study.

But it’s unlikely that LUCA would have evolved complexity in isolation, the authors argue. Since its metabolism is consistent with both relying on and potentially supporting other microbes, LUCA was likely part of a broader ecosystem, from which its lineage was the sole survivor.

At the very least, that ecosystem contained viruses: The researchers say LUCA likely housed 19 CRISPR genes, which bacteria use to slice up viral threats.

From these genes, they estimated that LUCA lived about 4.2 billion years ago — roughly 300 million years after the moon was formed from the collision of a Mars-size planet with Earth.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/all-...cended-from-a-single-cell-meet-luca-20241120/

The full tree with the split between biology and geology in deep ocean hydrothermal vents have been dated to 4.5 - 4.3 million years ago, and the deepest split between Archaea and Bacteria to 4.3 - 4.2 billion years ago.
https://theconversation.com/extreme...nomes-of-the-organisms-that-live-there-219072 , the above work.

 

[contrarian]

We have got some probes coming up for the outer systems. And of course they are excited about finding life.

They won’t. And I don’t think we need to worry about contamination in either direction. There is no life out there and no where for our contamination to survive.

It’s just my opinion. I am more interested in tracking the true orbits of those moons thru those debris fields. That’s where the magic is.

I agree that they won't find any life forms in those cold and darker regions.

It seems unlikely that any of those moons would have evolved an "energy cycle". Life on Earth likely arose from large amounts of reduced carbon compounds from thermal vents. Life has continued to this day by the appearance of photosynthesis, which almost everything relies on, one way or another. Our energy cycle.

You can have all the things required for life on some of those icy moons, but if you don't have an energy cycle, it seems impossible to survive for very long. Those moons might have had life long ago, but the lack of an energy cycle would not allow life to persist for extended periods of time.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

There are lots of potential "energy cycles".

Some are quite simple. For instance, it is possible to harvest the energy from radioactive decays, which produce ionizing radiation that produces chemicals that can be used biologically for energy. We have bacteria here on Earth that apparently do that.

And, that could occur just about anywhere, provided that there is a solvent for chemical transport, and provided that there is enough time and suitable environmental volume for evolution to produce the necessary complex cycles.

 

[Classical Motion]

I believe that the outer moon’s trajectories and orbits have revealed a huge crack, a rip in the veil of cosmology. The orbits of the moons and planets are one turn closed helices, not ellipses.

The outer moons fly thru debris fields, like particles thru cloud chambers.

Instead of two perpendicular incident accelerations, it’s two angular perpendicular accelerations.

A small stretched out orbit forming a larger orbit. A stretch out open rotation that closes and forms another rotation. A moving origin rotation. The origin rotates.

Not like man made satellite orbits. Ellipses.

Man believes he understands gravity with math and demonstrated orbit. These man made temporary orbits have verified these theories.

But just like light, this is a false affirmative.

Modern science is cemented in these false affirmatives.

 

[contrarian]

There are lots of potential "energy cycles".

Some are quite simple. For instance, it is possible to harvest the energy from radioactive decays, which produce ionizing radiation that produces chemicals that can be used biologically for energy. We have bacteria here on Earth that apparently do that.

And, that could occur just about anywhere, provided that there is a solvent for chemical transport, and provided that there is enough time and suitable environmental volume for evolution to produce the necessary complex cycles.

While this is true, the compounds produced are highly variable and not suitable for many other life forms.

With glucose, you have a universal energy "key" that works well for almost every living organism - it is also the correct stereoisomer. That is because it is produced by a life form, and not the random products produced by ionizing radiation.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Contrarian, your thinking seems to be limited to a very small "box".

The previous article to this one in Space.com was https://www.space.com/space-explora...framework-to-study-how-complex-systems-evolve .

It includes:
"Researchers have explored alternatives to terrestrial biochemistry. All known living organisms, from bacteria to humans, contain water, and it is a solvent that is essential for life on Earth. A solvent is a liquid medium that facilitates chemical reactions from which life could emerge. But life could potentially emerge from other solvents, too.

"Astrobiologists Willam Bains and Sara Seager have explored thousands of molecules that might be associated with life. Plausible solvents include sulfuric acid, ammonia, liquid carbon dioxide and even liquid sulfur.

"Alien life might not be based on carbon, which forms the backbone of all life’s essential molecules – at least here on Earth."

 

[contrarian]

Having a Ph.D. in biochemistry has put me in a small box. It is called life on Earth.

Most biochemists are in the same box. We just don't see most of those possibilities as being likely.

It is not reasonable for most of us to believe that life can arise in sulfuric acid, for instance.

And anything other than organic compounds lack their nearly infinite complexity, which seems most essential of all for life anywhere as most biochemists would see it.

We all have our differences in opinion.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

"Life on Earth" is indeed a "small box" for thinking about what else might exist in the universe.

For instance, you posted about "those cold and darker regions", but we are now learning that some of them are not so cold. - at least one is hot enough to melt rock. And, "dark" might very well have applied here on Earth too, if the origin of life occurred in hydrothermal vents deep in the ocean.

So, I am thinking that your confidence in the completeness of your model for "life" is over rated.

And, I realize now that if all I knew today was what I knew when I completed my own doctorate (long ago), I would be woefully incompetent in today's world. And, I would not have predicted then much of what I know now.

 

[contrarian]

"Life on Earth" is indeed a "small box", but only because no other rational means have been even remotely presented for any other route to its appearance. All the fanciful notions of how life might arise in the clouds of Venus etc. are dreamed up largely by people who have little understanding of chemistry, much less biochemistry. And you can take this or not, but biochemistry is orders of magnitude more complex than almost all other chemical disciplines.

I got my doctorate a long ago too, but remain totally competent in today's world. And, I still predict now what I would have predicted then.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

When did you predict volcanism on Io and plumes of water vapor being emitted from Enceladus?

When do yo predict that humans will create artificial life?

 

[George²]

Life that is to some extent artificially intervened has been around for a long time. Already when we voluntarily or deliberately started to select animals and plants with the qualities we need. Not so long ago we were already assembling living organisms at the genetic level. Creating an ark from scratch, even more so on a different than our carbon base, might have some use in the future. But beyond that, it might be dangerous in a way that we can't handle.

 

[Helio]

"Life on Earth" is indeed a "small box", but only because no other rational means have been even remotely presented for any other route to its appearance. All the fanciful notions of how life might arise in the clouds of Venus etc. are dreamed up largely by people who have little understanding of chemistry, much less biochemistry.

Yet isn't it our lack of understanding of things like abiogenesis that makes us more open to guessing? The Venus idea was met with scientists scrutinizing it and finding new and, IMO, better alternatives to any biological origin.

Given your background, what are the best areas on Mars for life forms? There does seem to be significant evidence for underground liquid briny regions. Sub-surface life would stand a far greater chance, I assume, of not getting cooked by solar radiation and cosmic particles.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

There is also the hypothesis that Earth was frozen over well after life originated here. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth . So, that did not seem to extinguish life on Earth. By logical extension, if life originated on other celestial bodies that are now frozen over but seem to have subsurface liquid water, why so much skepticism that they could also have some sort of life forms presently or previously?

 

[contrarian]

Given your background, what are the best areas on Mars for life forms? There does seem to be significant evidence for underground liquid briny regions. Sub-surface life would stand a far greater chance, I assume, of not getting cooked by solar radiation and cosmic particles.

Clearly sub-surface life on Mars is the only reasonable place to consider at this time. Just read a story on the potential for brine near the surface of Mars. It can presumably withstand freezing well below that of water. However, brine does not seem like a good place for life to exist due to the high salt content. Recall that you can salt fish and pork etc. and store them for long periods of time at RT because it acts as a preservative. Very few things on Earth can live in a high salt environment. This is because of the highly reactive nature of the inorganic ions which would interfere with many of the relatively delicate biochemical interactions essential for living organisms. And anything that does live in high salts, like brine shrimp, almost certainly evolved into that environment from a less hostile one.

Having noted this aspect of brines does not exclude the possibility of life on Mars today, but it seems unlikely to some. Again you have the problem with an energy cycle that produces compounds that life can feed on continuously. Such a cycle and life on Mars may have happened in the past, but unlikely to continue today due to the radiation mentioned.

Another interesting notion is the rare earth hypothesis*, which postulates that life on other worlds is far less likely due to various reasons. The concept suggests that life requires a very special set of conditions for it to arise and persist for extended periods of time. While this seems probable, the number of star systems in the universe is vast. ESA predicts there are 10^20 - 10^22 stars in the universe. That is a lot of star systems, and even with a rare earth scenario, there almost certainly would be more than one capable of giving rise to life. Since the only way to be certain of this is by monitoring transmissions for alien signals, we might be waiting quite a while for any unambiguous signals to appear.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis

 

[Unclear Engineer]

The post that got us into this thread drift was mine regarding planning to avoid contamination of Mars with terrestrial life signatures before we get a chance to determine if there are any native Martian life signatures.

Based on your insistence that life forms on Mars would need to be very similar to life forms on Earth, that seems to support my concern.

We already have some experimental results that were intended to determine if there are active life forms on Mars. The results were positive, but not considered to be unequivocal. So, the question remains, both for current and any previous life forms indigenous to Mars.

Considering that we are intending to use whatever ices and brines we can find on Mars, the potential for contamination seems large, wherever we go there.

I would like to see plans to answer the scientific question properly, rather than assume the answer and argue about the ability of whatever observations we do take to be able to prove it one way or the other.

My best guess would be that life did independently arise on Mars and elsewhere in the solar system, but did not get the chance to evolve into complex surface dwelling species anywhere except on Earth, due to the environmental differences in surface conditions.

 

[contrarian]

One problem with contaminated water on Mars is already present, it would seem.

NASA presents an interesting outlook on how to deal with it :

Detoxifying Mars: the biocatalytic elimination of omnipresent perchlorates - NASA

Lynn RothschildNASA Ames Research Center (ARC)

www.nasa.gov

 

[Helio]

...And anything that does live in high salts, like brine shrimp, almost certainly evolved into that environment from a less hostile one.

Yes, and it seems likely this too might be the case since oceans existed prior to the loss of most of its atmosphere, at least in the microbial world. Of course, shrimp would be nice.

Another interesting notion is the rare earth hypothesis*, which postulates that life on other worlds is far less likely due to various reasons. The concept suggests that life requires a very special set of conditions for it to arise and persist for extended periods of time. While this seems probable, the number of star systems in the universe is vast. ESA predicts there are 10^20 - 10^22 stars in the universe.

Yes, but this may even be a low number since in recent years two separate teams now estimate there are about 2E12 galaxies in the observable universe. [It's not hard to bump the star count to, say, a one mole universe - 6E23 exoplanets & stars. ]

That is a lot of star systems, and even with a rare earth scenario, there almost certainly would be more than one capable of giving rise to life. Since the only way to be certain of this is by monitoring transmissions for alien signals, we might be waiting quite a while for any unambiguous signals to appear.

FWIW, I do enjoy updating the exoplanet listings here [Exoplanet Stats update]

There are only 6 Earth-sized exoplanets found so far orbiting G-type stars. The better case may be one orbiting an F8 star [KOI-4878 b].