NASA says its plan to bring Mars samples back to Earth is safe, but some people are worried

Frank Kummer works for The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Since September, the Perseverance rover has been picking along an ancient riverdelta on Mars, its robotic arms reaching out with steel drill bits to core rocks, scoop soil and suck small amounts of the red planet's atmosphere into titanium tubes.

The plan calls for a sci-fi symphony of technology that includes launching another vehicle to Mars to bring the unterilized samples back to Earth, drop land the samples in Utah, and shuttle them to a secure facility.

There are about 35 samples that will be tested for signs of ancient life. Preparing for people to step foot on the red planet is one of the goals.

Some members of the public attended an open hearing on the plan because of the recent Pandemic. A retired FAA engineer from South Jersey is wondering what problems an unsterilized microbe from Mars might present.

NASA and the European Space Agency are conducting a mission to return a sample of Mars.

"This is the next logical step in our quest to eventually land humans on the surface of Mars," Thomas Zurbuchen, head of science at NASA, said during a virtual public presentation in May. The samples from the ancient river Jezero are believed to be the best chance to reveal the early evolution of Mars.

NASA explained the mission to bring samples of Mars back to Earth.

There is a low chance of risk.

Some people in the public have wondered if something in those samples could be a dead body. They wonder if China and private companies will have the same level of security as NASA. There is no time frame for the exploration of Mars by Space X.

A draft of an environmental impact statement on the mission is expected in the fall, but public comments on NASA's initial presentation are now closed.

Recovery efforts with respect to natural, biological and cultural resources will be examined in the environmental impact statement.

Even if the risk is relatively low.

NASA can't say with 100% certainty that it won't bring back dangerous things. In May, some of the commenters identified themselves as scientists, doctors, or professionals. Others didn't reveal their identities.

"Any samples should be studied off-world and remotely due to the risk of planetaryContamination," wrote one person.

NASA should not bring samples from Mars back until we know more about how the samples will affect our safety. The first thing to do is test for possiblebacteria that will hurt our health.

One of the commenters was Thomas Dehel. Dehel earned a master's degree in electrical engineering and a law degree after retiring from the FAA. He operates a website dedicated to the mission and is not affiliated with it.

He wants NASA to go ahead, but he's concerned about it.

Dehel said they wouldn't know if it was sterile or not. That's my main point. We should know if we bring something back to Earth that is sterile, or if there is any kind of biological life left on the planet.

The biosignatures of past life could be destroyed by sterilizing samples. The samples cannot be brought to the International Space Station before being examined. The space station does not have the necessary equipment for testing, according to NASA.

The notices for the May hearings were only published in two newspapers, one in Florida and one in Utah. The mission will take place in two areas, liftoff and landing. Low turnout in two public virtual presentations in May was caused by the public being largely unaware.

The work of Gilbert Levin, a scientist who worked as a principal investigator for a life detection experiment during NASA's Viking mission to Mars in 1976, has been cited. The investigator for the Mars Sample Return Mission, who was 97 years old, died in 2021.

The Viking landers injected a solution containing radioactive carbon 14 into the Mars surface. The belief was that any living organisms would emit the isotope. It happened in two different locations 4,000 miles apart.

Humans are not prepared to defend against a pathogen.

NASA said that the substance was mimicking life, but not life. Scientists say there are other explanations for the results given that they know more about the composition of the soil on Mars.

There are remnants of past life.

Mars is seen as hostile to life because it has a thin layer of atmosphere. In the past it was thought that a thicker atmosphere would keep the surface warmer than the average temperature of -81 degrees.

Nathan Yee, a Rutgers professor who has worked with NASA, agrees that it is unlikely that anything is alive at the surface where Perseverance is collecting its samples.

The UV radiation bombards Mars, according to Yee. UV radiation breaks apart the genomes of organisms. UV sterillers are used to killbacteria in water and aquariums. Home use of portable UV sanitizers is possible.

Unlike Earth, Mars does not have magnetic fields that can protect it from the sun's harmful rays.

Yee said it would be difficult to survive those conditions. meteorites from Mars have landed on Earth, according to NASA.

It's doubtful that the microbes would pose a threat if they were alive.

There has to be a long, long time of evolution for microbes to learn how to interact and attach onto animal cells, enter animal cells and use the machinery of an animal cell to replicate. It's a very complex dance.

It's possible that samples contain remnants of past life. According to recent data, there may be life on Mars.

Yee wants to know what NASA will do if it finds life in a sample.

The Philadelphia Inquirer is a part of the same family.

The Tribune Content Agency is a part of Tribune Content Agency.