If we find a structure on Mars

[Deset Gled]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.