It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Water on Mars... BUT NASA can't go near it...

page: 2
30
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 06:07 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

That is an excellent question. The governing body of the treaty is the UN. And we all know exactly how much power the UN really has and how much super powers care about what the UN has to say...

It would be interesting to see what happens if a party violated the treaty. Seeing that this is all new to everyone, I doubt anyone really knows...

Robert Frost, Instructor and Flight Controller in the Flight Operations Directorate at NASA agrees that nothing would happen:


The Outer Space Treaty was handled through the United Nations - therefore enforcement is supposed to go through there too. Unanimous votes are not common in the Security Council - so it's quite possible no legal action would be taken.

However, several of the Security Council members have the technology to destroy the on-orbit weapon and might do so, regardless, if they felt threatened.

If someone were to "claim the moon" - I'd expect loud posturing and maybe some sanctions. I wouldn't expect overt action in that case unless someone finds oil on the moon.

And, yes, a State is responsible for the actions of its inhabitants, with respect to this treaty.
Source


I wonder if it would be a gamble NASA would be willing to make?




posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Gemwolf

I think the source you are posting from is somewhat sensationalising the point - see last paragraph in the link below....

www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 06:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Azureblue
a reply to: Gemwolf

Water on Mars... BUT NASA can't go near it. dont think so.

The treaty will last about 5 minutes now announced 'finding' the water which they have likely have known about for a long time. Question is why are they announcing it now? May be nothing more than because now is as good a time as any. Perhaps also becuase they want to extend the hdegomey over the entire planet.


Why are they announcing it now? Because its a very recent breakthrough.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 06:15 AM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

I agree. It is impossible to "not contaminate" extraterrestrial bodies - and we have already done it each time we sent something in space.

May it be microorganisms but also chemical compounds - take the example of the moon landing: the place is full of tire tracks containing traces of aluminium, zinc and titanium; a rod of metal planted on the moon called the Flag, etc. All compounds that have chemical activity (they are not inert) and thus have the potential to react with (and thus alter) possible local microbial life.

Plus one would need to define a "source of water" - if a lake count, then does a puddle count? Does mud counts? Does soil with moisture counts? The proposition is just ridiculous.


edit on 1-10-2015 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 06:19 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

Right, except, no where in the treaty does it specify water.

The only thing it does specify, when it comes to contamination is: "Harmful contamination"...

Most of the treaty is about different nations doing land grabs, or the militarizing of space, or interfering with each other.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 06:21 AM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

Indeed. As I said in the OP, I was unable to find any references to water specifically. And since posting the OP I've read dozens of sites/summations and articles - including the original text - and couldn't find any references to water, except testing of nuclear weapons in outer or under water...? So I'm not sure where the wording used by the media comes from:
anyone from sending a mission, robot or human, close to a water source in the fear of contaminating it with life from Earth.

There are however many articles, cautionary scientific journals, etc. addressing the same concerns...

edit on 1/10/2015 by Gemwolf because: Missing word



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 06:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: swanne

Right, except, no where in the treaty does it specify water.

I was making a quick reference to the OP.


Most of the treaty is about different nations doing land grabs, or the militarizing of space, or interfering with each other.


That is the treaty I remember. "No nations can place WMD on extraterrestrial bodies", "no nations can claim territorial ownership of a celestial body", etc.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 06:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Gemwolf

Most likely where the media's words came from was themselves.....to sell news!



The treaty when it was written (back when I was only 1 year old) was a good idea, but they had no idea that there was water on Mars, or that moons around Jupiter and Saturn were made up of a LOT of water, or that there was even ice water in craters on the moon! The general thought back then was that Space was a desert and that most of the water was right here on Earth.

I think the treaty was mostly: Hey, okay, here is the Park (space), do not bully others, try to take from others, and do not liter!



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Gemwolf

Yes, I do however concede that the concern described in the original post is most valid.

If life is currently under development in some puddle of mud on Mars, do we have the right to threaten its existence (and evolution) by sending missions near it?



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Gemwolf

The frightening thing here is that an entity created by Earths global elite bloodlines has arrogantly decided that not only will it determine what we can and cannot do on this prison rock, it somehow has propagandized it's way into blindsiding the planets population into automatically accepting being the authority on what can and cannot happen on other planets!!

I do not recognize the United Nation or NASA's authority in such matters especially since historically, neither is working in my best interests.

The only thing I sort of agree with is that NASA cannot go near it - because it is not theirs either. It belongs to no-one from this planet - BECAUSE IT IS ANOTHER PLANET.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

Agreed. I recall the ending of War of the Worlds... But only in reverse, i.e. some type of germ/bacteria we carried there to wipe out life (if it exists) on Mars... Ouch. Even on our planet we know the devastation caused by invasive species...



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 06:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
It belongs to no-one from this planet - BECAUSE IT IS ANOTHER PLANET.


You do know that this is what the Treaty itself actually says, right?

And the Treaty was not drafted by NASA - it was created by the UN.


edit on 1-10-2015 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Well one way to look at it is: Survival of the fittest.

Our world developed very tenacious life, with at least one species being intelligent enough to become tool using and spacefaring. So Martian micro life? So sad, too bad. Stomp.

Of course that smacks of manifest destiny, etc, and not something I subscribe too. I mean....let's say aliens over 10,000 years more advanced than us show up here. They could be thinking the same thing, and it would not be good for us!

But: bottom line. How do we know life is in that water?

We don't. It can't hold up a sign that we read from a distance that says "Hello! We are life! Please do not contaminate us!" We actually would have to sample the water and look in it.

Even if we found fossils in rocks where water used to be, it doesn't mean that there is life in that water today.

So it's sort of a paradox: don't want to contaminate possible life....but we have no idea if it's really there or not.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

Yes, that is why I said I "sort of" agree with the treaty that the only agency able to exploit the other planets (lets call them NASA) cannot.


The frightening thing here is that an entity created by Earths global elite bloodlines has arrogantly decided that not only will it determine what we can and cannot do on this prison rock, it somehow has propagandized it's way into blindsiding the planets population into automatically accepting being the authority on what can and cannot happen on other planets!!


The bolded section above is to clarify that I am referring to the UNITED NATIONS as "the entity" so as to eliminate presumptuousness that I was referring to NASA.

I take it you clearly and automatically accept the "United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs" authority of this treaty and all things pertaining to outer space?
(irrespective of the confirmation bias it may afford because one may agree with the contents of this and other treaties)

Again, who the hell are they that they have propagandized their way into duping the planets gullible population into blindly accepting their authority?

edit on 1-10-2015 by Sublimecraft because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 06:49 AM
link   
One thing I don't understand, if Mars thin atmosphere is something like 95%+ CO2, and there is water ice under the surface....cant they dump a load of moss or other plant there to thrive and produce oxygen?

I'm sure there is plants that need very little or no water, and can even survive in harsh temperatures.

Sorry if that is a little of topic, just curious.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 06:56 AM
link   
a reply to: woogleuk

Yes, it's possible to do that, however it would take a very, very, very long time for it to work.

However: what if there is indigenous life on Mars? It's evolved to survive what is there now. Filling up the atmosphere of Mars with O2 could most likely kill it off. Large amounts of O2 might be poison to it.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: woogleuk

Actually NASA is thinking about something quite similar. They are planning on planting trees:

quest.nasa.gov...


edit on 1-10-2015 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gemwolf
So the big news of the week is water on Mars.

This obviously means a lot for space exploration, i.e. manned missions to Mars.

Obviously we all want to know more about the water and want the Rover to drive towards the signs of water at top speed to go check it out... Right?

However, they can't. According to some articles like this one and this one earth's space powers are bound by rules agreed to under the 1967 Outer Space Treaty which forbids "anyone from sending a mission, robot or human, close to a water source in the fear of contaminating it with life from Earth"...

You can read the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies here.

Only, I can't seem to find anything about water on the site? The other articles link to it... Would be something if that clause was suddenly removed?

Either way, it makes complete sense... We don't know what kind of filth and bacteria is crawling over the Rover. Yes, it was seriously sterilized before it was sent into space. But we don't know what kinds of bugs and microbes it picked up on the way. There is space poop floating around our planet left by astronauts to begin with. So yes, we don't want to contaminate Mars' water with astronaut poop...


Interesting enough there are several "special regions" the Mars rover is not allowed to go, specifically to prevent "life from happening" (in very broad terms)...


A new analysis of Mars "Special Regions": findings of the second MEPAG Special Regions Science Analysis Group (SR-SAG2).
A committee of the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group (MEPAG) has reviewed and updated the description of Special Regions on Mars as places where terrestrial organisms might replicate (per the COSPAR Planetary Protection Policy). This review and update was conducted by an international team (SR-SAG2) drawn from both the biological science and Mars exploration communities, focused on understanding when and where Special Regions could occur. The study applied recently available data about martian environments and about terrestrial organisms, building on a previous analysis of Mars Special Regions (2006) undertaken by a similar team.

Source & More


So, basically "These are the places earth-based life could exist"...

Interesting.


That's like saying you can't go on a new Island found in the Ocean cause you might contaminate it. Cut to the chase if Mars has value to humans we will contaminate it. This aint Star Trek. Don't waste time and money being to carful. We are part of this universe we are allowed to spread out. It what everything does. Take or be taken. duh.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 07:09 AM
link   
this whole thing is beyond stupid to me.
We are probably contaminating mars just by having a robot there, who know what might have latched onto it during it's trip there.
Isn't there some mission to take people to mars? THAT won't do anything to the planet?
just get that water and do science.
I have it in the back of my head this was really just an announcement nasa gave so people would give 2 poops about them for a little bit



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 07:18 AM
link   
I'm not a big expert on bacteria, but how would any survive on mars unless it had an atmosphere like earths? And why can't they go near the water when they had no problem driving this thing all over the landscape and possibly contaminating any above or below ground life forms? If they didn't know they where going to find any life until they got there, kind of careless to send a possibly contaminated machine to the planets surface in the first place.

I personally think if they had any control over where this rover landed and they didn't put it near a point of interest like the face on Mars or those supposed pyramid structures, then the whole things just a sham anyways, At least the pictures we get to see.



new topics




 
30
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join