There are mixed feelings: some have suggested treating Mars as a wildlife preserve, while others argue that existing planetary protection rules are too strict and could even hamper the hunt for life by making the most interesting destinations the hardest to explore. So far, most discussions on the protocols have been about how strict they should be, not when to end them. “When the developers are on the launch pad, it’s too late,” he told the Astrobiology Science Conference in Chicago last month. That makes now the best time for scientists, legal experts and the public to start thinking about when and how we might relax planetary protection protocols if we decide another planet is lifeless, he says. “At that stage, the discussion might not be as fruitful as it could be if we start earlier.” “On our planet, we usually have these kinds of discussions too late, either after the fact or when it’s about to happen and there are a lot of feelings,” Persson says. Our track record on debating similar questions on Earth, like the use of genetically modified crops, is far from stellar. The question has no simple answer, says Erik Persson, a philosopher at Lund University in Sweden – but that doesn’t mean we should dodge it.
Read more: NASA’s planetary protection officer will defend Mars, not Earthīut if there’s nothing there, why bother? We haven’t found life on Mars yet, and if further missions also turn up nothing, at some point commercial space enterprises such as mining operations or tourism will want to avoid the costs of sterilisation.
0 kommentar(er)
