tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-270899075443508100.post9014262612383531211..comments2024-01-03T20:28:17.727-08:00Comments on Future Planetary Exploration: Mars Sample Return to CostVan Kanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14227978868817989527noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-270899075443508100.post-83407086133685427322010-01-10T14:41:52.937-08:002010-01-10T14:41:52.937-08:00Hi, apparently the link is broken again.
Thanks f...Hi, apparently the link is broken again.<br /><br />Thanks for all your blog entries, they are extremely interesting.p.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14936696643192386495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-270899075443508100.post-63765329170572249082009-12-24T01:43:08.881-08:002009-12-24T01:43:08.881-08:00The problem, as always, is whether a Groundbreaker...The problem, as always, is whether a Groundbreaker SR would include enough searching for astrobiological evidence to be worthwhile (at least in the eyes of Congress). Jones' proposed mission doesn't have official biological goals at all. McKay's mission (perhaps landed in a sedimentary-rock area?) would have limited ones, but -- even if one assumes that heat sterilization of the returned sample is avoided -- the odds of returning biological evidence would be sharply diminished by the inability of the mission to visit any outcrops of sedimentary rock and to sample individual features on them that look promising as possible preservers of biological evidence.<br /><br />I'm far from being totally unswayable on this topic, but it seems to me that Phil (and McKay and Jones) have presented something very far from a convincing case -- largely because Jones himself freely admits that he has specialized nonbiological interests in Mars samples, and McKay (judging from his proposed list of sample-return goals) seems to be leaning toward the same position. I differ from Phil in that I'm willing to wait considerably longer for a much better sample, and I suspect Congress will feel the same way -- are they really going to approve a mission that will still cost $5 to 6 billion for geological goals? (Judging from the audience wrangle at the recent Decadal Survey Mars Panel meeting that followed Bruce Jakosky's presentation on the desirability of flying MSR quickly -- and he was only saying that we ought not to fly any more missions after MSL to scout around for optimal landing sites if MSL comes up empty-handed in its search for organics, which is a much softer position than Jones' and McKay's -- the Mars science community is still as divided in its feelings as I am.) <br /><br />One side note: Phil is wrong in saying that sterilization of the samples during the return to Earth would make it unnecessary to (partially) sterilize the MAX-C rover, since the purpose of partial MAX-C sterilization is to minimize the amount of terrestrial organic contaminants (dead or alive) that get into the returned Mars samples. There may still be a good argument for gamma-ray sterilization of the sample during the return home -- maybe just to minimize possible public panic during the initial government debate over whether to fly an MSR mission at all.Bruce Moomawnoreply@blogger.com