Digest Number 52

> In the argument of which comes first - go to Mars or Develop Near
> Earth resources - I think Mike Combs hit the nail on the head in one
> of his previous postings when he said:-
In the argument of which comes first - Mars or orbital industries
near Earth - I have an additional argument against the former:
biocontamination. If we land people on Mars, it is virtually certain
that microorganisms from Earth will be released onto the Martian
surface, unless so draconian measures are used against that contingency
that it would be far cheaper with unmanned landers anyway. It's
possible that these microbes all die anyway, but it's not certain. And
if we later discover microbial life somewhere under a rock or beneath
the sediments, we may be hard put to determine if that is indigenous
Mars-life or something we brought there. This has been a regular
concern when dropping probes before - the Viking probes were thoroughly
sterilized, and there was concern that the probe that entered Jupiter
was not.
Remember that humanity is now in an excellent position to totally
screw up our chances of finding out if there is indigenous life on Mars,
and in the Jovian atmosphere and below the Europan ice crust for that
matter. All we have to do is put some unsterilized object there ---
Rather, I imagine the Mars exploration to go somewhat like this:
First, orbital industries are established, with whatever combination
of lunar and asteroidal resources we find best. Space habitats of
increasing size are built. A space habitat has an engine tacked onto
it, and is sent to Mars orbit. From this permanent orbital base, Mars
is observed remotely and with sterilized landers, until we know with
reasonable certainty whether there is Martian life.
If we discover that there is none, we lift the quarantine.