# If we find a structure on Mars



## Joker (Mar 17, 2016)

Let's say one of the future robots on Mars finds an ancient structure hidden in a cave.  No aliens or other apparent signs of current occupancy, but just a building visible from the mouth of a cave.

How would we go about exploring it?  

I'm talking practically, what would be the proper procedure?  How much time would it take before we moved the drone closer?

I'm not too interested in the societal impact the finding would have.  I'm more interested in how we would go about understanding it, scientifically.

Assume that there is no conflict back on Earth after finding out we weren't alone.  All the space agencies are working together harmoniously.


----------



## delericho (Mar 17, 2016)

We'll send a team of four people with very specialised skills. And a 3.048 metre pole.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 17, 2016)

I imagine that would fast track funding and development and get people out there much more quickly. In the meantime, specialised landers would check it out.

Plus, if there is no conflict on Earth and all nations are working together harmoniously, we have a crapload of money available which is no longer being spent on killing each other.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 17, 2016)

Well, that would entirely depend on the capabilities of the probe that finds it.  Each probe and rover is built with very specific capabilities that it can't really change.  

For example - most of them are solar powered.  Your building is in a cave, in the shade?  Well, then, Houston, we have a problem, because the rover won't have much power in the cave.  And, it's radio won't be built to get signals into and out of the cave.  This is also a problem.  At best, you're sending your rover into the cave to get some data, and it has to pop back out to radio home and power up, and then back in again.  This is silly.

I don't know if there is an actual procedure NASA has defined for this.  But, for argument's sake - the building has been there for what, thousands of years?  Longer than that, and it is difficult to gather how it wouldn't be covered in sand, but still,  there's no rush *this minute*.  We can take our time to build a new probe or set of probes built with this investigation in mind.  Use the prob eon the scene to gather what data you can, and design a new one to suit the new investigation.  Take a couple years, do it right.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 17, 2016)

Ultimately, it would mean finding a way for humans to survive the voyage between Earth and Mars and maintain them healthy enough to explore the structure for a while. Those people might not be archeologists and linguists. Engineers who solidify the structure and/or salavage some technology are a better bet. Linguists and archeologists are gonna see pictures for quit some time.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 17, 2016)

I think that Morrus has the right idea, in that at least the initial exploration would likely be done by purpose built probes. It would likely also result in the fast-tracking of lander and habitat development, so that long term manned exploration could take place as soon as possible.

But without the assumption that everyone is working together, someone would just nuke it.


----------



## tomBitonti (Mar 17, 2016)

I dunno; we could get more probes there a *lot* quicker than people, and, anyone who was sent might not be coming back because of contagion risks.

Sending in the rover to take a few pictures then back out to relay them doesn't sound any more laborious than waiting 6 months to download data captured during the Pluto flyby.  I'd be more worried about the chance that the rover got stuck and could not be given new instructions.  But, we have probes doing a lot of automated things already.  I image there would be a long sequence of the probe going very slightly into the cave, then back out, over and over while relaying new data.  That would be balanced against the expected lifetime of the probe, with some maximal value determined for how many trips to make which balanced the lifetime, the risk, and the distance to travel.

I could see countries not fighting new land wars, but very possibly fighting to be first to get new probes to the discovery.  My questions are whether countries would cooperate or compete to be the first to get there.  If they didn't cooperate, how much sabotage there would be.  And either way, how quickly could a new probe be gotten to the discovery.  Building probes and launch vehicles is today a years long process, with lots of uncertainty about the availability of launch vehicles.

What is the likelihood of one of the "probes" being a bomb, ala StarGate, as a safeguard?

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Morrus (Mar 17, 2016)

If countries were not cooperating, I suspect that there would be a race element to it. China would love the prestige, I'll bet.

Or maybe private companies would be involved....


----------



## Umbran (Mar 17, 2016)

tomBitonti said:


> I dunno; we could get more probes there a *lot* quicker than people, and, anyone which was sent might not be coming back because of contagion risks.




With respect - there's not a whole lot of contagion risk.  We are at much higher risk of contaminating Mars than it contaminating us at this point.  Whoever goes will have *years* to incubate infection - we'll know if they are a threat before they get back.  The real issue to coming back is energy, not contagion.



> I could see countries not fighting new land wars, but very possibly fighting to be first to get new probes to the site.  My questions are whether countries would cooperate or compete to be the first to the discovery.




Cooperate.  Why?  Simple:  The United States the the only country with a proven track record of soft-landing probes on the surface of Mars, and even we don't get it right all the time.  And,if you are in a race, and you botch that landing, you are now completely *out* of the race.  The risk of looking like complete idiots is high.  So, cooperate.




> What is the likelihood of one of the "probes" being a bomb, ala StarGate, as a safeguard?




Begin rant:

Safeguard?  Against what?  Note that this isn't a Stargate.  There is no implication of super-advanced technology.  If the Martians were going to come and get us, they'd have done it already.  Chill out, for cryin' out loud.

End rant.


----------



## tomBitonti (Mar 17, 2016)

Actually, I wonder what the probabilities would be for a structure on Mars to be a remnant of a past Earth based civilization vs. the probability that it was a Mars based civilization, vs the probability that it was from another star.

The risk increases dramatically to the second and then again to the third case.

I suspect folks would be extremely cautious re: The chance of contagion, however slight.  I doubt any material would be sent back until it was very extensively studied on site.

It would seem that the chance of advanced technology is high in all three cases: The third case is a given.  The first requires space travel capabilities in advance of our own.  For a remnant of a Martin civilization, the odds depend on the expected lifetime of a civilization (the odds are that the site is from the end of the civilization).  That's very hard to estimate, but until we have additional data (we have one sample point currently), the upper end of the range to estimate seems quick high.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 17, 2016)

Morrus said:


> If countries were not cooperating, I suspect that there would be a race element to it. China would love the prestige, I'll bet.
> 
> Or maybe private companies would be involved....




I don't know that I'd trust those synthetics to give us the straight dope.


----------



## Janx (Mar 17, 2016)

As Umbran says, the initial probe wouldn't go in the cave, due to solar recharge needs, etc.  It would take exterior shots, get close, etc while the "next" probe is prepped.

Odds are good, the current "next" probe that is under construction right now wouldn't be useful to cave exploration either, as it was designed for some more reasonable surface charter.  So we're looking at the next, next probe being a rush to stop what you're planning and get us a new probe ready in 5, make that 3 years.

this new probe, when it's finally ready would be modular/team worky.  One probe (perhaps repurpose the original probe that found the cave) would be parked outside the cave and act as a relay from mars to earth and to the spelunker probe.

The spelunker probe, now only needing to communicate with something within 100' is what goes into the cave to do the actual exploring.

We might even send a cabled recharger probe in, with one part parked outside (docked next to the relay probe), and it unrolls a power cord as it enters the cave.  This might get us into the structure say, 10-20 feet or so

The recharger probe is where our spelunker returns and docks (wireless charging?) frequently.  It also might help with relaying video/data and remote control commands.  Let's assume that without line of sight, radio distance from probes is limited (akin to wifi, say 30' or so).  So just getting the recharger probe into the door gets us 20' in, and the spelunker can now move about another 30'.

That's 50' better than the original probe that could never enter can do.

Obviously, exploring the cave/structure goes much much faster with a human in a suit.  The problem is getting a human in a suit on-site to do the job.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 17, 2016)

tomBitonti said:


> Actually, I wonder what the probabilities would be for a structure on Mars to be a remnant of a past Earth based civilization vs. the probability that it was a Mars based civilization, vs the probability that it was from another star.




I don't find it credible that we'd find the first evidence of a past Earth civilization on *Mars*.  A civilization advanced enough to cross interplanetary distances (so, major energy use, resource development sufficient to build spaceships, and so on) would have left evidence on Earth we would have found by now.



> The risk increases dramatically to the second and then again to the third case.




The risk of what?

Contagion?  No, the risk *reduces* as the biology becomes more alien.  The greatest contagion risk comes from things that are similar to what we already have (so it can take advantage of our biology easily), but to which our current immune systems are not responsive.  Truly alien contagion would need to *just happen* to want an environment like our bodies, and *just happen* to be based on the same mechanisms as our systems, and so on.  You are at more risk from a variant E. coli than from Marspox.



> It would seem that the chance of advanced technology is high in all three cases: The third case is a given.




The third case (alien visitation) does require the use of advanced technology for the site to be there, but does not imply that anything that we can actually study is present at the site. In sci-fi, The Ancients always seem to build technology that will work for millions or billions of years, but in reality?  Entropy eats everything.

Prior Earth civilization?  Amazingly unlikely, as noted before - it would have needed to use many resources, but left no sign of that resource use, or anything else.  If they didn't leave sign here, they didn't leave it there, either. 

Mars Civilization?  Mars probably hasn't had persistent surface water for a billion years.  What artificial structure would last that long?  Or, if they managed to become subterranean, why did they build this one thing on the surface... in a cave, and *nowhere* on the surface?  This doesn't make much sense.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 17, 2016)

Janx said:


> this new probe, when it's finally ready would be modular/team worky.  One probe (perhaps repurpose the original probe that found the cave) would be parked outside the cave and act as a relay from mars to earth and to the spelunker probe.
> 
> The spelunker probe, now only needing to communicate with something within 100' is what goes into the cave to do the actual exploring.
> 
> ...




Nah, you can make a tether a lot longer than 10 or 20 feet.  Or you just pay for the weight, and give the spelunker an atomic battery.  And if you have a long tether, you don't have to worry about radio line of sight relaying data out of the cave, as you can send data back up the same wire.



> Obviously, exploring the cave/structure goes much much faster with a human in a suit.  The problem is getting a human in a suit on-site to do the job.




And doing that is a lot harder than coming up with, say a kilometer-long tether.


----------



## Deset Gled (Mar 17, 2016)

I actually don't think the first discovery of a structure would be treated as a very big deal.  It would be impossible for any truly "ancient" architecture to be differentiable from natural rock formations.  Take a look at some of these completely natural occurring formations on earth:

Fingal's Cave

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingal's_Cave

Giant's Causeway 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant's_Causeway

Eaglehawk Neck

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessellated_pavement

If anything resembling an ancient structure was actually discovered on Mars, the only reasonable first assumption would be that it was actually some weird natural occurrence.  It might spark a few conspiracy theories and tabloid/internet insanity, but it certainly would not be universally recognized as alien at first sight.

But a sufficiently interesting discovery might warrant a follow-up exploration.  This would probably start my having the lander that made the discovery alter it's plans and focus more on the region around the structure.  If enough interesting data was found, the next follow-up would be another lander specifically designed to study the region where the phenomena was discovered.  Only after highly specific tests came back with interesting results would a structure-specific mission be considered.

Edit:
To paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke: At a first glance, any sufficiently ancient architecture is indistinguishable from naturally occurring land formations.


----------



## Janx (Mar 17, 2016)

Umbran said:


> Nah, you can make a tether a lot longer than 10 or 20 feet.  Or you just pay for the weight, and give the spelunker an atomic battery.  And if you have a long tether, you don't have to worry about radio line of sight relaying data out of the cave, as you can send data back up the same wire.
> 
> 
> 
> And doing that is a lot harder than coming up with, say a kilometer-long tether.




You get the idea though.  I didn't want to get too generous on how bulky this tether might be, etc.  The gist is, there's a way to get power and data into the cave, such that a spelunker probe can then do its crawling.

To Desert's point, how about we assume the structure is more super obviously artificial.  Maybe it's a black monolith.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 17, 2016)

Deset Gled said:


> Edit:
> To paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke: At a first glance, any sufficiently ancient architecture is indistinguishable from naturally occurring land formations.




I'm discussing from the standpoint given in the OP - really, it is a structure.  We can *tell* it is a structure.  There is no question.  Accept that as a given, and move forward.


----------



## tomBitonti (Mar 17, 2016)

Umbran said:


> Contagion?  No, the risk *reduces* as the biology becomes more alien.  The greatest contagion risk comes from things that are similar to what we already have (so it can take advantage of our biology easily), but to which our current immune systems are not responsive.  Truly alien contagion would need to *just happen* to want an environment like our bodies, and *just happen* to be based on the same mechanisms as our systems, and so on.  You are at more risk from a variant E. coli than from Marspox.




Do we have any data for this?  And risk isn't just of a super pathogen.  A small efficiency advantage might be all that is necessary.  Marspox and earth biota might completely ignore each other, but because of a smallish advantage, the Mars organism could still eventually displace Earth organisms.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Janx (Mar 17, 2016)

tomBitonti said:


> Do we have any data for this?  And risk isn't just of a super pathogen.  A small efficiency advantage might be all that is necessary.  Marspox and earth biota might completely ignore each other, but because of a smallish advantage, the Mars organism could still eventually displace Earth organisms.
> 
> Thx!
> TomB




I think Umbran's got several factors he's considering here:
a) right now it is easier to send probes to mars (and diseases) than it is to get probes (and diseases) back from mars.  Unlike the moon, we have no Mars rocks delivered to us by the space program.

b) germs,etc generally require a compatible environment.  For instance, an old stat I heard was that HIV could not exist outside a host body for more than 24 hours, due to its need for temperature, etc that a host provides (thus toilet seat transfers were pretty slim).  On that principal, any virus that is happily doing its thing on Mars likely "requires" an environment like mars.  Getting slurped into a space ship and it's horribly warm and moist environment would likely be toxic to its biology.

c) umbran is married to a medical type person who knows way more about this crap than I do, and this has probably been the subject of many breakfast debates... 

now it's possible a particular bug is adaptable enough to go from environmental extremes, but the probability of that is low, based on the examples of biology on earth.  It is really difficult to design something durable for multiple environments, let alone the odds of one evolving that way.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 17, 2016)

tomBitonti said:


> Do we have any data for this?




In effect, yes.  The fact that the overwhelming majority of Earthly microorganisms *can't* live in your body, or act as a human disease.  Only those that are very specifically set up to do so can manage the trick.

Note that we already have microorganisms that live in what to us are extreme conditions.  And, being adapted to those conditions, they die when they leave them.  Consider that the surface of Mars is an extreme condition, that has very little in common with your warm, wet innards.



> And risk isn't just of a super pathogen.  A small efficiency advantage might be all that is necessary.




"Small efficiency advantage" does not qualify you as "contagion".  What you're talking about is an invasive species, not contagion.  But, I posit to you that a species that survives in a searing cold, dry, nigh vacuum is unlikely to somehow out-perform the natives when brought into a warm, wet, oxygen rich atmosphere.  The oxygen concentration alone is apt to be a poison to it, much as it is for our own anaerobic bacteria.


----------



## Deset Gled (Mar 17, 2016)

Umbran said:


> I'm discussing from the standpoint given in the OP - really, it is a structure.  We can *tell* it is a structure.  There is no question.  Accept that as a given, and move forward.




The OP is asking how a structure would be studied: "practically, what would be the proper procedure?".  My point is that the practical, proper procedure would start by assuming that any structure is natural.  Therefore, the question of "how would we go about exploring it" starts with the same process we use to study any other real natural phenomena on Mars.


----------



## Janx (Mar 17, 2016)

Deset Gled said:


> The OP is asking how a structure would be studied: "practically, what would be the proper procedure?".  My point is that the practical, proper procedure would start by assuming that any structure is natural.  Therefore, the question of "how would we go about exploring it" starts with the same process we use to study any other real natural phenomena on Mars.




it feels like you're still balking where the rest of us have accepted.  Yes, if we saw certain structures, we may assume as you are that they are natural until proven otherwise.

However, can you accept the possibility (in this fictional exercise) that the image the probe sends is of a structure that is so obviously artificial that it can't be reasonably doubted?  What might that structure be, that makes even NASA agree that thing in the photo is of probable non-natural origin (remember, they get emails every day about every photo from mars about this crap).

It could be because it looks like a friggin spaceship
there's a Mars Bar wrapper flapping in the breeze
Matt Damon's dead body lies draped over it
a bright Neon sign states "Don't Panic" on its wall


Or we could go with the slow-n-boring thought experiment of it's just some more rocks.


----------



## tomBitonti (Mar 17, 2016)

Janx said:


> now it's possible a particular bug is adaptable enough to go from environmental extremes, but the probability of that is low, based on the examples of biology on earth.  It is really difficult to design something durable for multiple environments, let alone the odds of one evolving that way.




Sure.  My argument isn't about there being any particular probability of a harmful outcome.  I expect the probabilities to be extremely low.

But extremely low doesn't mean zero, and in this case, there are very large unknowns.  The question is not whether to ever send people.  The question is when.

For bringing rocks back from asteroids, since we have no evidence of life there-on, the risks seem negligible.   For a structure on Mars which is a bona fida manufactured thing, the evidence of life is a given.  Since the locale is Mars, the life is probably (but not definitely) a different lineage than our own.  Mars has very different qualities compared with the Earth: An organism adapted to live there might do terribly on the Earth.  But, organisms might be adapted to Mars of a different era, and be adapted to a more similar environment.  Or there might be that odd chance that the organism can handle an Earth environment.

If I change this around: Let's say a Rover scratches its way to a subsurface layer which is teeming with life.  No alien structures, just an unknown but definite collection of biota.  Should we plan on sending people to study it before sending probes to do a careful study beforehand?

Given current technology, I imagine we must send probes first, simply as the only currently technically feasible option.  That means probes first in any case.  Would we start planning immediately to send people, or wait for the results of the more advanced probes?

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Janx (Mar 17, 2016)

tomBitonti said:


> Sure.  My argument isn't about there being any particular probability of a harmful outcome.  I expect the probabilities to be extremely low.
> 
> But extremely low doesn't mean zero, and in this case, there are very large unknowns.  The question is not whether to ever send people.  The question is when.
> 
> ...




I would assume that in any and all circumstances of bringing a thing from off-planet to Earth would go through a series of quarantine, inspection and decontamination procedures.  Now in a good sci-fi movie, that process fails and we'll be 2 hours away from being all dead while the good doctor tries to find a cure.

But in real life, NASA most likely really did do a bunch of paranoid stuff with the rocks returned from the moon.  Neil Armstrong didn't tuck one away in his undies so he could sneak it home to his kids.  So I expect a protocol already exists for bringing stuff back to earth, and measures would be multiplied when we're looking at a case of "known" ET biological was in the area.  Just bringing back one urn from the site, might contain cthulu-knows-what cooties inside that have been sleeping (like stuff found in egypt) that thrived when Mars was warm and wet and populated.

They aren't just going to pop the hatch at Baikanur and start pawing through the artifacts with their bare hands


----------



## Deset Gled (Mar 17, 2016)

Janx said:


> it feels like you're still balking where the rest of us have accepted.  ...
> 
> However, can you accept the possibility (in this fictional exercise) that the image the probe sends is of a structure that is so obviously artificial that it can't be reasonably doubted?
> ...
> Or we could go with the slow-n-boring thought experiment of it's just some more rocks.




Theoretically, yes.  As described by the OP, no.  "No aliens or other apparent signs of current occupancy, but just a building visible from the mouth of a cave."  Anything that even remotely fits the description of "just a building" is going to be treated like "just some more rocks" until further investigation proves otherwise.

I'm not balking at the premise at all.  Just describing what I think the real procedure would be if it happened as I understand the description.  Furthermore, while degree-of-entertainment was not a factor I considered, I don't think my answer has to be viewed as "boring".  Just because you want "Alien" and "Stargate" doesn't mean I can't enjoy "Europa Report".


----------



## was (Mar 17, 2016)

If we ever find a structure on Mars, we'd probably never get to explore it.  Conspiracy theorists will denounce it as a hoax to fund the space agencies and bring political pressure against it.  Then the religious zealots will decry it as blasphemous and probably start suicide bombing rocket launches.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 17, 2016)

Deset Gled said:


> Theoretically, yes.  As described by the OP, no.  "No aliens or other apparent signs of current occupancy, but just a building visible from the mouth of a cave."  Anything that even remotely fits the description of "just a building" is going to be treated like "just some more rocks" until further investigation proves otherwise.




Yes.  We got that. 



> I'm not balking at the premise at all.




You kind of are.  The OP asked what if they found a structure.  Not what if they found something that vague resembled a structure, that *might* be a structure.  

But really, have it your way.  Your answer amounts to, "They use standard operating procedures."  You're done.  Nothing more needs be said - like the mathematician, you have reduced it to the previous case, and nothing more be said.  To quote Warcraft 2, "Work complete."

Since that is now complete, the rest of us will continue with the case that calls for more speculation, discussion, and general hashing through ideas.  Join us if you like.  But if not, have a nice day.


----------



## Joker (Mar 17, 2016)

Yes, I did mean that it was clear that it wasn't a natural formation.  Think pyramid or collapsed tower or statue.  

My question is, how careful are we going to be exploring it?  How much time will go by at each stage of the operation?

Is it plausible that it may take several decades of using drones before humans go inside?


----------



## Umbran (Mar 17, 2016)

Janx said:


> b) germs,etc generally require a compatible environment.  For instance, an old stat I heard was that HIV could not exist outside a host body for more than 24 hours, due to its need for temperature, etc that a host provides (thus toilet seat transfers were pretty slim).  On that principal, any virus that is happily doing its thing on Mars likely "requires" an environment like mars.  Getting slurped into a space ship and it's horribly warm and moist environment would likely be toxic to its biology.




HIV does have issues with open air.  But, more importantly, HIV is a virus, and as such it is tailored to usurp the cellular machinery of its host to reproduce.  IN HIV's case, the machinery must also be within a particular The chance that your cellular machinery matches the machinery of life from another planet is... miniscule.  I mean, Spock being half-human be darned, the chance that evolution got them to synch up so closely so that we are using the same codes and pieces to build proteins as something that evolved on another planet is not really something we need to be concerned with.  So, viruses (and their alien analogs) are not a concern.

It is only bacteria and their analogs we are concerned with - things that can replicate on their own, that don't need to borrow cellular machinery, and just happen to really like the environment inside your body to do it in.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 17, 2016)

was said:


> If we ever find a structure on Mars, we'd probably never get to explore it.  Conspiracy theorists will denounce it as a hoax to fund the space agencies and bring political pressure against it.  Then the religious zealots will decry it as blasphemous and probably start suicide bombing rocket launches.




While Russia, China, India, and the ESA busily colonise the planet.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 17, 2016)

tomBitonti said:


> Since the locale is Mars, the life is probably (but not definitely) a different lineage than our own.  Mars has very different qualities compared with the Earth: An organism adapted to live there might do terribly on the Earth.  But, organisms might be adapted to Mars of a different era, and be adapted to a more similar environment.




Except for the fact that it is there, as the place is now.  So, unless you are going to postulate that the thing has gone dormant and can manage to remain viable for... centuries?  Millennia?  Eons?  Then it is adapted for the current conditions on Mars.  And that's *very* different from here, and even more different from the environment inside our animals or plants.

I am not kidding about oxygen being a poison.  Oxygen *really* likes to burn things.  If you don't have machinery to divert it to useful purpose, it combines with random molecules in your organism instead, and that organism dies.  

Mars of a different era?  Mars probably hasn't been warm and wet for _a billion years_ or more.  When Mars dried up, we didn't have multi-cellular organisms on Earth yet!  You don't cling to your adaptation to an old environment *that* long.  Evolution would have taken them to adapt to their current environment, not stalled them still looking for something from a billion years ago.



> Or there might be that odd chance that the organism can handle an Earth environment.




There is always a chance, yes.



> If I change this around: Let's say a Rover scratches its way to a subsurface layer which is teeming with life.  No alien structures, just an unknown but definite collection of biota.  Should we plan on sending people to study it before sending probes to do a careful study beforehand?




Nope.  But, I think almost everyone active in the conversation is saying we go with probes first.  We can set all the biological issues aside, though, as this decision is made by economics and engineering - we can probably do several rounds of developing and sending probes before we'd be ready to send a human.  There's no reason to *stop* sending probes before the humans get there.

Also, note I mentioned upthread that the real risk is not in Mars contaminating us, but us contaminating Mars.  Biological samples from mars will become very expensive trash if they get contaminated with Earthly organisms.  And the same thing that will protect use from contaminating samples will keep the samples from contaminating us.


----------



## was (Mar 17, 2016)

Morrus said:


> While Russia, China, India, and the ESA busily colonise the planet.




...I don't know that folks would actually colonize it, unless they find some valuable resources to mine.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 18, 2016)

was said:


> ...I don't know that folks would actually colonize it, unless they find some valuable resources to mine.




Why did America do the moonshot? There are many reasons people - and nations - do things.  It's not always just resources. There are private companies trying to colonise Mars already (not very viable ones yet though).


----------



## was (Mar 18, 2016)

Morrus said:


> Why did America do the moonshot?




..The Cold War.  The fear of Soviet satellites and moon bases raining down nukes was a major motivating factor.

..It may not be idealistic, but outside of defense, commercial interests have been the majority factor behind our continued expansion into space.

..Don't get me wrong, I'd applaud anyone who went into it with altruistic motivations.  I just don't think that it is a realistic expectation nowadays.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 18, 2016)

was said:


> ..It may not be idealistic, but outside of defense, commercial interests have been the majority factor behind our continued expansion into space.




And note how that hasn't actually led to expansion.  We are still stuck in Low Earth Orbit, because that's where the money currently is.  Heavy lift capacity, required to get to the Moon and beyond, is still far too expensive for colonization purposes.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 18, 2016)

was said:


> View attachment 75578View attachment 75579
> 
> ..The Cold War.  The fear of Soviet satellites and moon bases raining down nukes was a major motivating factor.
> 
> ...




You added that "altruistic" bit yourself. I didn't say that.

In the 60s it was a Cold War with Russia. In the 2020s it'll be something else, maybe with China or somebody else. Mabe it will be a private enterprise. The point being, "resources" isn't the only reason to do something, as history has proved a thousand times.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 18, 2016)

Yup, there's also doing it for the sake of the technology that it helps to develop, as it did in the early days of the space race, when it was the only force driving technology that rivaled warfare. And you do it so that you control the high ground like a very, very bad Prequel Jedi.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 18, 2016)

The biggest risk of "alien contagion" isn't to actual humans in the form of a "Rigelian Fever" or "Space Herpes", but rather to our machinery in the form of a truly extremely alien biology.  Something on the other end of the biological bell curve, an extremophile as compared to the typical terrestrial critter. 

By that I mean setting something akin to things we've seen in some Sci-Fi before: something that isn't interested in flesh or maybe not even water, but rather, has biological processes dependent upon it consuming something like iron, or copper, etc. or involving acidic liquids instead of H2O (if such a chemistries are even possible).

And before that even becomes an issue, it would have to be a tough mofo to survive unharmed the return journey unprotected from the rigors of interplanetary space.  Now, we know there are earth critters called tardigrades (water bears) that have done that...but AFAIK, not for the periods of time involved in the Mars-Earth trip.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 18, 2016)

Morrus said:


> The point being, "resources" isn't the only reason to do something, as history has proved a thousand times.




"Resources," isn't the only reason to do *something*, but the specific something of  territorial expansion is historically pretty solidly tied to seeking resources.

Note that the Cold War didn't lead to colonization?  It led to a couple of trips to prove we could do it, and they couldn't, and then we stopped.  We weren't seeking resources, and couldn't have done it economically at the time if we had been seeking them.


----------



## tuxgeo (Mar 18, 2016)

Wikipedia has a list of Martian meteroites found on Earth. Their historical impacts here didn't introduce biological agents to wipe us out, as far as we know. 

(Maybe the fiery descent through Earth's atmosphere burned all the malevolent critters to a crips crisp?)


----------



## was (Mar 18, 2016)

Morrus said:


> You added that "altruistic" bit yourself. I didn't say that.
> 
> In the 60s it was a Cold War with Russia. In the 2020s it'll be something else, maybe with China or somebody else. Mabe it will be a private enterprise. The point being, "resources" isn't the only reason to do something, as history has proved a thousand times.




..I never claimed that you said anything about altruism.  It was my own personal sentiment.  I apologize if you thought it was some sort of poke at you.  It wasn't meant that way.

..Yes, the fight over resources is not the only reason to do something.  Historically, however, it has been the primary motivator behind expansionism.  Given the current population explosion all over the world, the fight for dwindling natural resources is only going to get worse.  It could most definitely spur on further space exploration to find new sources of raw materials.    

..The Chinese expansion into the South China Sea, the fight over water rights in South America and the numerous territorial claims being placed on Arctic are just a few examples of the ongoing quest for resources.


----------



## Janx (Mar 18, 2016)

tuxgeo said:


> Wikipedia has a list of Martian meteroites found on Earth. Their historical impacts here didn't introduce biological agents to wipe us out, as far as we know.
> 
> (Maybe the fiery descent through Earth's atmosphere burned all the malevolent critters to a crips?)




that was my assumption when I talked about transporting rocks from mars to earth deliberately.  We'd scoop them up, put them in sealed containers, sterilize the exterior, and take precautions on arrival before opening them in a sealed environment.


----------



## tomBitonti (Mar 18, 2016)

Ok, time to fess up: When I read "structure on Mars" I thought of something alien and technological.  That colored my posts.

Others clearly thought of different images.  A mention of an alien monolith.  Another of natural formations which could be mis-interpreted as unnatural.

An alternate to what I immediately imagined would be a badly worn stone structure, similar to Stone Henge or to the numerous ruins here on earth.

In the interest of sharing my misery, what image sprang to mind when folks read "Structure on Mars"?

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 18, 2016)

tomBitonti said:


> Ok, time to fess up: When I read "structure on Mars" I thought of something alien and technological.  That colored my posts.
> 
> Others clearly thought of different images.  A mention of an alien monolith.  Another of natural formations which could be mis-interpreted as unnatural.
> 
> ...




Actually two things jumped into my mind, almost simultaneously, when the idea of a structure in a cave was mentioned. One was something like a constructed doorway, using at least our own level of technology. The second was the sort of worked cave structure that we would associate with either an Earth-style prehistoric culture, or perhaps like Vardzia.


----------



## megamania (Mar 18, 2016)

Joker said:


> Let's say one of the future robots on Mars finds an ancient structure hidden in a cave.  No aliens or other apparent signs of current occupancy, but just a building visible from the mouth of a cave.
> 
> How would we go about exploring it?
> 
> ...




Photo, photo and photo the structure, the cave, the outside area.  Then find lose samples to bring home (somehow) to age and test.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 18, 2016)

tomBitonti said:


> In the interest of sharing my misery, what image sprang to mind when folks read "Structure on Mars"?




I specifically tried to keep my mind as general as possible, without specific image, to first consider what's *generally* needed for such an exploration, and what is specifically needed afterwards.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 18, 2016)

megamania said:


> Then find lose samples to bring home (somehow) to age and test.




Getting things off the surface of Mars is hard.  Not because launching the rocket is hard, but because getting the rocket to the surface to launch it back up is hard.  

All the fuel for that rocket must (currently) launch from earth, be taken all the way to Mars (and moving that fuel takes fuel).  It must then be soft-landed on the surface, and then take off again.  There's a reason why we haven't done it already.


----------



## Janx (Mar 18, 2016)

Umbran said:


> Getting things off the surface of Mars is hard.  Not because launching the rocket is hard, but because getting the rocket to the surface to launch it back up is hard.
> 
> All the fuel for that rocket must (currently) launch from earth, be taken all the way to Mars (and moving that fuel takes fuel).  It must then be soft-landed on the surface, and then take off again.  There's a reason why we haven't done it already.




So presumably this project is going to need multiple avenues going on.  Probes and relay setups just to get eyes on the ground early on, which will still take years.

getting a MAV style lander/take off vehicle setup near the area for when we really do want to get something back to earth

getting a human team out there to do research on the site, and be able to use the MAV to get back home.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 18, 2016)

Given the fuel costs- as well as environmental support concerns- it is probably more efficient to start with probes that are designed to perform specific investigations in situ and transmit their data back to earth.  It might be a couple generations after its discovery before an archeological investigation on a Martian structure could be done by humans.


----------



## tomBitonti (Mar 18, 2016)

Umbran said:


> I specifically tried to keep my mind as general as possible, without specific image, to first consider what's *generally* needed for such an exploration, and what is specifically needed afterwards.




What is done, though, will depend a lot on what in particular is seen.

I would think, since such a discovery is rather quite extraordinary, the first steps would be to verify what was initially seen, and to take all possible steps to make sure the discovery is real.  The whole pipeline for incoming data would be examined to make sure no fraud was taking place, and the data, if found to be real, would be examined for any possible misinterpretation.

Following, I would expect a great deal of tension between doing additional investigation and perturbing the site to a minimal degree.  I'm thinking of modern minimally invasive archeology techniques.  We would want to not perturb a possibly very fragile site: Important details could be effaced, or the site could be contaminated.  Perhaps the first step would be to back off from the site, with a long deliberation of how to proceed.

After a long deliberation, we would proceed very slowly and very cautiously -- continuing with the theme of minimally perturbing the site.

I imagine that after a long process, a new probe would be designed and sent.  Given current technology, I can't see us sending people for a very long time.  Ideally, new probes would be done as international cooperatives.  That fits how things are done now.  But I can't rule out countries going it alone for nationalistic reasons.

What kind of probe would be sent is an interesting question, but I'm not qualified to comment on it.  Space technology is a field unto itself, and folks with degrees in that field will have to say what is realistic in terms of how much of a payload could be sent, what sort of power, propulsion, communications, memory and control systems, and sensors, would be advisable and possible within the engineering constraints.

This is all for a dusty ruin, which seems most likely as what would be discovered.  If the discovery showed any signs of an advanced technological nature, I imagine what happens would be more as I envisioned in my original posts.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## RangerWickett (Mar 19, 2016)

First, the moment we discover anything that appears to be created by an alien intelligence, we must 'air gap' planet earth. No networked devices should be allowed to receive data directly from sources outside our local network of satellites. It's an exceedingly remote possibility, but we should not risk the chance that something like this happens:

A rover investigates the structure.

The rover is subdued, reprogrammed, and ordered to send innocuous dummy information back to earth.

Contained in that dummy information is an evolutionary program that will determine the design of our software, learn its vulnerabilities, and nest itself into our networks while disguising its presence. 

Once it reaches sufficient processing power to become a functional artificial super intelligence, it engineers a way to get us to launch our nukes, wiping out all civilization and setting the human race back far enough that a clean-up fleet is able to arrive and wipe the planet clean.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 19, 2016)

RangerWickett said:


> First, the moment we discover anything that appears to be created by an alien intelligence, we must 'air gap' planet earth. No networked devices should be allowed to receive data directly from sources outside our local network of satellites.




With respect, unless you are talking about a hard-wired connection, "outside" doesn't have any relevance.  Either the data comes with proper authorizations, or it does not.  If they are as good as you suggest later in the post, no security measure will matter.



> The rover is subdued, reprogrammed, and ordered to send innocuous dummy information back to earth.




So, your concern is reverse-Independence Day?  The aliens can and will, without clear and obvious threat, set out to destroy us through computers, and they're able to do so based on one example?  Never mind that it contains only limited examples of the many sorts of hardware and operating systems we actually use?  This makes as little sense with computers as it does with biology - just as you can't, based on the example of one organism, design a virus that will wipe out all life on Earth, based on one computer you cannot create an exploit that will apply to all computer systems.  Heck, this was a selling point for Apple for a long while - all the exploits on Windows didn't apply to Apple machines...

Heck, some of those nuke launch systems are probably sill updated using floppy disks, with no network connections to the rest of the world!  

But okay, fine.  Let us say that's the danger.  This argues for us to send probes that have *no security measures whatsoever* on them.  The aliens, then, will have no understanding of what form our defenses take.  They'll use the usual buffer-overflow and other exploits we've known how to deal with for ages, and their ugliness will die nascent, never reporting back to its Martian Overlords.

Then, they'll send their huge battle fleet, which, due to a terrible miscalculation of scale, will be swallowed by a small dog.

(Sorry.  I just felt the thread needed a Hitchhiker's Guide reference, and this is where it fit in  )


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 19, 2016)

We also have Justin Bieber.  Not quite as powerful as Vogon Poetry, but still...


----------



## Janx (Mar 21, 2016)

RangerWickett said:


> First, the moment we discover anything that appears to be created by an alien intelligence, we must 'air gap' planet earth. No networked devices should be allowed to receive data directly from sources outside our local network of satellites. It's an exceedingly remote possibility, but we should not risk the chance that something like this happens:
> 
> A rover investigates the structure.
> 
> ...




Umbran kind of covered this, but I'm left wast left with as case of "frp, drp, erp, gack, bdah!" when I read this.

Sure, I enjoyed ID4 as much as the next guy.  But as a software developer  I know that code is constrained by the CPU used.  You can't cross the boundaries.  So whatever chip is on the probe, likely isn't an Intel x86 architecture (or whatever we call the current AMD/Intel CPUs in production now).

You also can't really send more data than you can use.  A virus has to be nimble.  I can't send a virus that can infect a probe AND has the brains to build an AI AND has the mission for the AI in the size of the attack payload  that the probe can handle, let alone when it gets to the Earth as transmitted data, it's going into a data file, not an executable.  Nobody executes the bytes coming back from a probe, let alone any subsystem, because the contract between two systems is data, not exectuable code (remote firmware updating aside, which is also one directional).  If a virus is not executed, it does not have any bite.

So , sci-fi aside...

Odds are good any structure we find is dead.  It might have old tech or old viruses.  And yes, if we brought any of those artifacts home and somehow wake them up, that might be risky.  But our initial futzing around with probes is actually pretty safe.  The sending of code or germs is largely one way, until we get a way to transport back to earth.


----------



## Vagabond234 (Mar 21, 2016)

For that, we need to send a team of humans.  Pray Elon Musk gets it done!  Machines are way too slow and not dependable.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 21, 2016)

Vagabond234 said:


> Machines are way too slow and not dependable.




Not dependable?  You know that NASA has a track record of making probes that survive for *years* past their original design parameters, yes?

Nobody is perfect, but for flinging something a million kilometers, hitting a speck *softly*, and having a device work after landing, they're not shabby.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 21, 2016)

Umbran said:


> Not dependable?  You know that NASA has a track record of making probes that survive for *years* past their original design parameters, yes?
> 
> Nobody is perfect, but for flinging something a million kilometers, hitting a speck *softly*, and having a device work after landing, they're not shabby.




Yes, NASA's probes are definitely dependable, with a very small failure record considering the environments in which they perform and the stresses they are under, when being delivered to their targets. They perform their functions almost flawlessly. What I would say that they are not, is flexible. You can only pack so much into such a small package. Humans are arguably less dependable, harder to get on target, but infinitely more flexible.


----------



## maxnmn80 (Mar 23, 2016)

I would send first Bruce Willis well armed, just in case.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 23, 2016)

maxnmn80 said:


> I would send first Bruce Willis well armed, just in case.




He'd get wasted.  Send Sigourney Weaver.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 23, 2016)

Ryujin said:


> What I would say that they are not, is flexible. You can only pack so much into such a small package.




That's certainly true.



> Humans are arguably less dependable, harder to get on target, but infinitely more flexible.




Well, not *infinitely*.  The human will not actually be any more flexible than the laboratory you send with him or her.  And that lab won't be able to restock consumables, or get new equipment in short order.  Part of human flexibility lies in our social infrastructure, which doesn't exist on Mars.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 23, 2016)

Umbran said:


> That's certainly true.
> 
> Well, not *infinitely*.  The human will not actually be any more flexible than the laboratory you send with him or her.  And that lab won't be able to restock consumables, or get new equipment in short order.  Part of human flexibility lies in our social infrastructure, which doesn't exist on Mars.




A probe that is faced with a situation for which it was not designed will likely fail. A human faced with such a problem has a fairly good chance of coming up with alternative solutions. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 23, 2016)

Ryujin said:


> A probe that is faced with a situation for which it was not designed will likely fail. A human faced with such a problem has a fairly good chance of coming up with alternative solutions. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.




I know.  But note how most times when you have to come up with an alternative solution, you need some *thing* to enact that solution.  It comes from being tool-users.  We need tools.  

The point is to drive home how "just send humans" is a bit glib.  MacGuyver is fictional.  Humans will not be all that capable or flexible unless we send a really huge amount of *stuff* with them.  It may be cheaper to have a rover fail, and redesign and send the next rover, rather than send humans to cover every contingency.  

Noting that humans are flexible is really noting that humans are generalists.  That means you don't send humans for *specific* tasks, you send them when what you want to do is really broad.  "Explore this one building," may not be general enough to justify sending people.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 23, 2016)

Umbran said:


> I know.  But note how most times when you have to come up with an alternative solution, you need some *thing* to enact that solution.  It comes from being tool-users.  We need tools.
> 
> The point is to drive home how "just send humans" is a bit glib.  MacGuyver is fictional.  Humans will not be all that capable or flexible unless we send a really huge amount of *stuff* with them.  It may be cheaper to have a rover fail, and redesign and send the next rover, rather than send humans to cover every contingency.
> 
> Noting that humans are flexible is really noting that humans are generalists.  That means you don't send humans for *specific* tasks, you send them when what you want to do is really broad.  "Explore this one building," may not be general enough to justify sending people.




... or when you are unsure of what the specific task at hand will be; ie. the unknown. I'm quite familiar with the idea of having the right tools. Frequently problem solving involves having the right tool and using it for a purpose for which it was never designed


----------



## Umbran (Mar 23, 2016)

Ryujin said:


> ... or when you are unsure of what the specific task at hand will be; ie. the unknown.




Yes, but this isn't exactly time-sensitive, now is it?  As already mentioned - it can be (no, really, would certainly be) cheaper to send several waves of robotic probes than to send one human.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 23, 2016)

Umbran said:


> Yes, but this isn't exactly time-sensitive, now is it?  As already mentioned - it can be (no, really, would certainly be) cheaper to send several waves of robotic probes than to send one human.




Something that I also alluded to, in an earlier post (ie. send more probes first)


----------



## Janx (Mar 23, 2016)

Umbran said:


> Yes, but this isn't exactly time-sensitive, now is it?  As already mentioned - it can be (no, really, would certainly be) cheaper to send several waves of robotic probes than to send one human.




I would bet, in fact, that is faster.  Not in sense of travel time, but over all prep time.  we could fling a probe at mars every couple of years (launch windows, travel time, etc).  Meanwhile, it could be a decade or two before we have ships, etc in place to send humans to go there and come back.

So that's at least 3-4 probe missions before we can actually do a human mission. (give or take some rough guesstimates).


----------



## Janx (Mar 23, 2016)

Ryujin said:


> A probe that is faced with a situation for which it was not designed will likely fail. A human faced with such a problem has a fairly good chance of coming up with alternative solutions. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.




I dunno, Matt Damon's only got a 50/50 track record of getting home when stranded on alien planets.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 23, 2016)

Janx said:


> I dunno, Matt Damon's only got a 50/50 track record of getting home when stranded on alien planets.




Well, after all, he is Matt Damon. Send Affleck up there instead. PLEASE send Affleck.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 23, 2016)

Ryujin said:


> Well, after all, he is Matt Damon. Send Affleck up there instead. PLEASE send Affleck.




Mmmm...no.

"Justin Bieber of Mars" sounds like a better idea to me.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 23, 2016)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Mmmm...no.
> 
> "Justin Bieber of Mars" sounds like a better idea to me.




I'd rather send him out on the next extra-solar probe, thank you very much.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 24, 2016)

Good point.  Hate for Interplanetary Cops to ding us for littering on Mars.

But, by the same token, we should probably just shoot him into the sun- proper disposal and all that.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 24, 2016)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Good point.  Hate for Interplanetary Cops to ding us for littering on Mars.
> 
> But, by the same token, we should probably just shoot him into the sun- proper disposal and all that.




The idea of shooting him into the Sun reminds me of the episode of "Stargate: SG1" in which they accidentally introduced an extra-heavy element into a star thereby causing it to start going nova. Can we really risk that? At least sending him off in a probe has the advantage that it would likely be at least hundreds of thousands of years before aliens came looking for revenge.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 24, 2016)

Ryujin said:


> The idea of shooting him into the Sun reminds me of the episode of "Stargate: SG1" in which they accidentally introduced an extra-heavy element into a star thereby causing it to start going nova. Can we really risk that?




It is okay.  He isn't actually all that heavy.  That's just his overacting.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 24, 2016)

Umbran said:


> It is okay.  He isn't actually all that heavy.  That's just his overacting.




I'm thinking heavy like a metaphorical lodestone or albatross around the neck of all my fellow Canadians. The "Observer Effect" might just give us an apocalyptic reason to be ashamed, as opposed to the current one.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 24, 2016)

Ryujin said:


> I'm thinking heavy like a metaphorical lodestone or albatross around the neck of all my fellow Canadians.




S'okay.  The rest of the world doesn't blame you for him.  

I mean, unless you performed some sort of ritual, in which you chose him as the national scapegoat and have been mystically dumping the crappiness from the rest of the population into him, and then exporting him.  Then, we may have to have Words.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 24, 2016)

Umbran said:


> S'okay.  The rest of the world doesn't blame you for him.
> 
> I mean, unless you performed some sort of ritual, in which you chose him as the national scapegoat and have been mystically dumping the crappiness from the rest of the population into him, and then exporting him.  Then, we may have to have Words.




No comment.


----------

