Imagine there was another Earthlike planet in our system

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Heck, the B22 spirit bomber.. which they have a couple dozen of.. EACH cost the same as Curiosity. Not counting the bomber's R&D budget.

Fact check: Procurement costs for the B-2 were just under $1B per bomber, with total cost at about $2.1B per aircraft when development costs are included (compared to $2.5B for the Mars Science Laboratory program -- Curiosity). This was a result of the reduction in total buy from 132 to 21, which meant that the R&D and production tooling designed to build over 100 aircraft have to be spread over just 21 -- a lesson that carries over to this discussion on space travel, because if you can increase production volumes beyond one-offs, the average procurement cost declines substantially.

This suggests too that repeat MSL missions, provided they don't vary much from the current design of Curisoity, would come down in cost as the preliminary development is completed (though numbers would have to increase substantially as build and test of single spacecraft is still expensive and have never reached mass-production proportions).

 

[Umbran]

a lesson that carries over to this discussion on space travel, because if you can increase production volumes beyond one-offs, the average procurement cost declines substantially.

Quite right. Space X, for example, is depending on this. Becoming a repeat provider of launch capabilities (expecting to do on the order of 10 each of Falcon Heavy and Falcon 9 launches each year) is what brings payload costs down to around $1000/lb.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You think, "some kind of study," equates to, "can whip up a globally virulent and deadly bioweapon without testing"?

I'm sorry, but that's not how biological sciences work. You cannot design things in theory and have them just work. We couldn't even perform this feat for a terrestrial species, much less an alien one.

No, I'm assuming bioscience advances alongside and apace with the spacefaring tech that gets us out to the asteroid belt and back with a big-ass rock in tow, targeting an alien civilization, in a timely fashion...which we also can't do right now.

At a minimum, you would need an understanding of the Martian ecosystem sufficient to know what the pathogens that affected the sentient species were, knowing what vectors existed within their species & culture, and so forth. IOW, everything necessary to weaponize a pathogen for humans- which we have done with anthrax and smallpox, as well as rice blast, which targets crops, not the creatures that eat them- INCLUDING testing. (Rice blast is nasty, because it is composed of over 200 crop destroying fungi, and a starving enemy is a defeated enemy.)

At this time, we (probably) do not have any bioweapons as nasty as the 1918 flu. But part of that is because the massive funding that went into those programs largely dried up. Enough humans rediscovered their ethical grounding. There may be some secret/rogue labs still doing that research, but they are far and away the exception.

But if the world were basically united on a path to genocidal destruction of an alien species you can bet dollars to donuts the funding would be there. Blank checks would be written. Requests for test subjects would be filled.

My remarks about "probulation" were a joking nod to what the REAL aliens are doing in their first stages of investigating our biology in prep for their conquering of Earth.

 

[Derren]

At this time, we (probably) do not have any bioweapons as nasty as the 1918 flu. But part of that is because the massive funding that went into those programs largely dried up.

No matter the funding, without a lot of samples of DNA and viruses from mars it is impossible to make a bioweapon against them.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

...without a lot of samples of DNA and viruses from mars it is impossible to make a bioweapon against them.

I agree.

My main assertion with pushing bioweapons as the weapon of choice was that, all costs considered, it would be the most cost-effective method to use, as per Rangerwickett's query.

Dropping mass from orbit is almost undoubtedly the cheapest method on the front end, but there are huge time and cleanup costs associated in the tail end, as well as the cost of destroyed resources in the target zone, both natural* and artificial.

A well-designed bioweapon leaves those resources largely intact, and minimizes post-genocidal cleanup costs.






* somewhat alleviated by the addition of whatever the meteors add, but that is at best a wash- more efficient to mine them in space, in all likelihood.

 

[Erekose]

Hypothetically speaking I can suspend my disbelief at the concept of Mars being replaced with an Earth-like planet and all of the details expressed by the OP. However, I can't believe the following . . .

Yeah, but they're on a messageboard thread on Mars right now typing "Yes, but the Earthlings don't have Martian Bruce Willis!"

There is only one Bruce Willis

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Hmmm...I recently suggested that Chuck Norris' missing beard was on a mission to North Korea.

What if Chuck and the Beard decided it would be best to clone it and send it on a mission to Mars...just in case.

 

[Umbran]

No, I'm assuming bioscience advances alongside and apace with the spacefaring tech that gets us out to the asteroid belt and back with a big-ass rock in tow, targeting an alien civilization, in a timely fashion...which we also can't do right now.

We have already sent probes to the asteroid belt. The only thing that my scheme has that would still need development is the solar sail, and we're already working on those. We've never even seen an alien biology before, so I wouldn't expect our abilities on that front to "keep pace".

And, by the way, my solution isn't "timely". It takes a long time, in human terms. He asked for cost-effective, not fast

At this time, we (probably) do not have any bioweapons as nasty as the 1918 flu.

Well, note also how the 1918 flu completely failed to destroy civilization. We'd need something drastically worse than the 19818 flu, and that's not easy. It not only has to have an extremely high fatality rate, it has to take its time doing the job, or else the disease doesn't get transmitted.

But if the world were basically united on a path to genocidal destruction of an alien species you can bet dollars to donuts the funding would be there. Blank checks would be written. Requests for test subjects would be filled.

Maybe you and I have different ideas of how easy it would be to acquire sufficient test subjects. I'm expecting to have to grab hundreds of individuals from Mars, and keep them alive (so, food enough to keep them alive and healthy. This is somewhat different than a cargo run, and includes some pretty hefty logistical challenges.

My main assertion with pushing bioweapons as the weapon of choice was that, all costs considered, it would be the most cost-effective method to use, as per Rangerwickett's query.

I think we are working from different assumptions. He asked for destruction of a civilization, and that's all. No cost recovery of resources from colonizing Mars afterwards is included in the requirements- destroying the planet itself is an option.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And, by the way, my solution isn't "timely". It takes a long time, in human terms. He asked for cost-effective, not fast

Timeliness, though, is still a necessary factor to consider: the longer the time it takes to launch the attack, the more time there is to counter it. If you have to start over or include multiple waves of asteroid bombardments to succeed past their (as yet unknown) countermeasures, that drives up costs.

And if one of their countermeasures includes being better at vectoring mass than we are, they could well re-target an asteroid towards us- a cost we would have to consider. And it is one we'd best try to calculate before launching the attack. Finding out post attack could Delphically wind up causing the fall of the wrong empire- an unacceptably huge cost.

Well, note also how the 1918 flu completely failed to destroy civilization. We'd need something drastically worse than the 19818 flu, and that's not easy. It not only has to have an extremely high fatality rate, it has to take its time doing the job, or else the disease doesn't get transmitted.

1918, like the Black Death before it, did a damn good job of it, but failed in no small part because, well, it wasn't today. Many of their carriers died before infecting others, causing the contagions to stumble and fail. Influenza, for instance, has an incubation period of 3 days. It is also fairly hardy, and can survive without a host for a few days as well.

Fast forward to today, with rapid sea transit* and, more importantly, frequent and fast global air travel. Patient Zero with a modern counterpart to 1918 can circumnavigate the world, personally exposing hundreds if not thousands simply by sharing a plane with him. Even with a garden variety flu, some estimate that the as many as 50% of the people in such close quarters to Patient Zero for an hourlong plane trip could be infected. (Note: not all infected become sick, but they can still be contagious themselves.)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/interview/influenza-shirley-fannin/

IOW, a modern version of 1918 might not need much weaponizing at all, given the way modern society operates. So if the Martian society had similar global travel capabilities to ours, an analogously virulent pathogen would do just fine. If, OTOH, their population were less prone to congregate or didn't travel like we do, you'd need a completely different kind of pathogen. Something more like anthrax, which can lay dormant for decades and spread with the wind...

Maybe you and I have different ideas of how easy it would be to acquire sufficient test subjects. I'm expecting to have to grab hundreds of individuals from Mars, and keep them alive (so, food enough to keep them alive and healthy. This is somewhat different than a cargo run, and includes some pretty hefty logistical challenges.

Its essentially the reverse of a modern mission to Mars.

The ease of acquiring test subject depends on how Machiavellian and secretive you want to be, as well as the nature of the targets themselves. If the Martians have a hive mind, for instance, getting test subjects may well be impossible to do. (That wouldn't stop a rice blast tactic from working, however if the alien biosphere has analogues to fungi.)

But how many alien abductions have been reported in human history...and utterly dismissed? How many mundane abductions are never solved every year? If they were indeed the result of alien scientists collecting test subjects, they'd already have more than enough humans to start their bioweapons program.

Side note: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tZar4wRP40&sns=em

If you don't want to abduct them, and you want to go the Machiavellian route, simply invite them to open a diplomatic base on Earth...and ask for reciprocity. Both embassies could be dual purposed as bioweapon development labs.

I think we are working from different assumptions. He asked for destruction of a civilization, and that's all. No cost recovery of resources from colonizing Mars afterwards is included in the requirements- destroying the planet itself is an option.

I already conceded that point. If there is no plan to land & reap the benefits of the planet, orbital bombardment is THE way to go.





* ship speed has increased somewhat, but the biggest factor is that there are more fast ships in general as a subset of all ships.

 

[Umbran]

1918, like the Black Death before it, did a damn good job of it, but failed in no small part because, well, it wasn't today. Many of their carriers died before infecting others, causing the contagions to stumble and fail. Influenza, for instance, has an incubation period of 3 days. It is also fairly hardy, and can survive without a host for a few days as well.

Fast forward to today, with rapid sea transit* and, more importantly, frequent and fast global air travel. Patient Zero with a modern counterpart to 1918 can circumnavigate the world, personally exposing hundreds if not thousands simply by sharing a plane with him. Even with a garden variety flu, some estimate that the as many as 50% of the people in such close quarters to Patient Zero for an hourlong plane trip could be infected. (Note: not all infected become sick, but they can still be contagious themselves.)

Reading up about the 1918 pandemic, no. That pandemic went in two waves, two slightly different strains. The first was mild, and in civilian life, selection favors a mild strain - if you get really sick, you stay at home. If you have only a mild sickness, you go out and to work and encounter more people - so the mild form spreads more easily.

But there was something special in 1918 - WWI. In the trenches, those with mild flu stayed put. Those who got really sick got put on trains to crowded field hospitals. It was the very sick who got exposed to more people, so the deadly strain spread.

Modern times still favor the mild strain, for the same reasons. We do travel faster, so nastier strains do get farther, but it isn't that we are selecting for them, merely selecting less strongly against them.

Oh, and by the way, have you considered the risk factor to humans here? Yes, most of the time, if you remove an organism from its home environment, it doesn't do well. But, every once in a while, you'll find one that just coincidentally can live in the new environment. This is doubly so for microorganisms, that generally have less stringent requirements, and much faster generation times. You've read War of the Worlds, right?

Its essentially the reverse of a modern mission to Mars.

No it isn't. A modern mission to Mars is talking about sending two or four people, and not bringing them back. We are talking instead about sending a ship, landing it, picking up perhaps hundreds of alien individuals, and keeping them alive for a year and more for the trip back. The life-support requirements are much heavier. And you can presume that for this one, you don't get the Martians to help you refuel while you're on their planet...