NASA Wants To Invade Mars With Glowing JellyPlants 98
namespan writes: "NASA and university researchers are looking into creating plants that emit a jellyfish-like glow as a signal of trouble, say, not enough water or oxygen or nutrients in the soil, say. The idea: send them to Mars and have them glow feedback at us about how they're faring on the red planet. They will, of course, have to compete with the radio-controlled plants mentined in an earlier slashdot story. And the Triffids." We've done several stories on glowing plants and animals in the past, but this seems to be a bit more useful and detailed.
Where Can I get one of these plants?!? (Score:1)
Man, you forget ONE English-to-metric conversation (Score:4)
~
Disgruntled NASA engineer.
It's been said before, but: (Score:2)
Surely there's a better way to detect conditions on mars without throwing plants at it. How about another robot lander (one that works) built with our modern knowledge of biochemisty?
It's been suggested that if we ever find that another planet has life on it, leave that planet alone and forget about it. I think that's a little extreme, but we should be very, very careful about cross-contamination, and launching plants modified with our somewhat primitive genetic tools into an unknown environment is going too far.
Some probems... (Score:2)
Seriously, they can barely =GET= to Mars, these days. What is the total? Of 8 probes launched, that I can think of, 1 went silent, 1 crashed & burned, 1 suffered a BSOD after it landed, 1 had an air-bag that just wouldn't deflate (Princess Diana could have done with one of those), 2 had equiptment that was essentially useless, leaving 2 that could do actual mission work to completion. (The rover mission, with air-bag, eventually worked, but they burned a lot of valuable mission time on that one.)
25% failure rates are a tad high, when you're trying to colonise a planet with enough glowing plants to detect, let alone use as monitoring devices.
If we're going to start doing SERIOUS space missions, let's do this right. First, round up all of NASAs managerial staff and drop them into thoe methane deposits they found off the east coast. They'll feel quite at home. At least, until the oxygen starts to react.
Once the deadwood is removed, replace those pathetic excuses for Operating Systems, and install *BSD and Linux. For chrissakes, they're using WINDOWS for virtually everything! It's no wonder everything they make blows up or cracks up.
Second, someone get rid of that ISS/IASS/whatever they're calling it, this week. No robot arm (until that's fixed!), serious equiptment failures, they've not installed the docking port yet, and the place is being used more by tourists than scientists. And they've not even got 1/10th of the thing BUILT yet! And once they have, there's a high liklihood of it being smashed to bits by space junk and/or meteoroids, before it's even used.
Third, rockets are WAY too inefficient, and WAY too unreliable. Don't tell me that the world's brightest can't build a simple firework that DOESN'T explode! I mean, this isn't rocket science! :)
Lastly, if the boss isn't confident enough to fly on one of these rockets, who is he to demand that genetically-modified plant slaves go instead?
Clap On, Clap Off (Score:1)
(ducking from rotten fruit being hurled at me)
--
doesn't matter! (Score:2)
Re:I think you mean *IF* (Score:1)
I knew this guy who tried to hack it, and it took the whole internet down when he did so! He could not ping ANYONE when he took it down!
I think you mean *IF* (Score:2)
To the best of our knowledge there is no life in any of the other planets/moons. There MAY be life on mars (barely eeking out an existance however) and if so is it within our right to modify the planet and destroy life on a global (mars) scale?
We have not to this point conclusivly proven that there is no life on mars, or that there ever was.. The jury is still out on this, we just don't have enough data do decide if there is life elsewhere in the solar system. (Yet.)
Re:I think you mean *IF* (Score:1)
Dude, your firewall SUCKS! Not only do you have telnet open on it and allowing root access, which is pretty bad, but unfortunetly for YOU you seem to have used the exact same root password as I did!
If you are reading this message you've obviously rebuilt it already. Try not to boast so much next time or I'll rm -rf / your machine again!!! Ph33r!
Hmm, I seem to be having some kind of weird filesystem error, luckily for you, so I have to go. Cheers!
--
Re:Terraforming Mars? (Score:2)
I like Science Fiction, but not when the science involved is sociology and political science. There are vast open spaces in these books with absolutely no plot! Just descriptions and analysis.
I have to admit he has some nice ideas in it, but you could compress the three volumes into 1 if you just kept the plot in and cut out most (not all) of the really useless and meaningless background. Yes, SOME of it is neccesary, but a lot of it adds absolutely nothing to the plot.
--
Re:It's been said before, but: (Score:1)
> great lakes, killer bees in the southern US.
Besides animals, look at Kudzu.
-Chris
...More Powerful than Otto Preminger...
I feel obligated to ask... (Score:2)
-Chris
...More Powerful than Otto Preminger...
Re:wrong benchmark tests (Score:2)
Mars has more gravity than the moon, so you're better off there also. Probably enough gravity on mars to keep people functioning properly for life, though that hasn't really been tested yet.
Mars is a good target for long term settlement because of the higher gravity. Given our current technology, it's the best choice for this reason (venus turns into an instantly better option the day we figure out how to make it cooler, or to build habitats that can take the heat with a very near 0 failure rate). There are also a lot more exploitable mineral resources on mars/venus than on the moon.
Re:Terraforming Mars? (Score:1)
Re:For christ's sake.. (Score:1)
In other news: "Face On Mars" determined to have been modified to resemble Wayne Gretzky.
Re:Why mustard plants? (Score:2)
MARS NEEDS CHUTNEY
Pants? (Score:1)
Yeah, didn't think so.
--
Nature's way... (Score:2)
Why are the folks at NASA so interested in whether Mars can support glowing jelly plants? Do they know something that we don't?!
Radio controlled plants? (Score:2)
kudzu (Score:2)
I agree with you though that we seem to be, once again, taking an Americentric view of this. We are not the Undisputed Lords of Earth, folks. What might China or Zimbabwe like to do with our solar system? Never thought to ask them, huh?
"Smear'd with gumms of glutenous heat, I touch..." - Comus, John Milton
Re:Unintended irony... (Score:2)
Eric
Wow! Mars 1 giant TV screen (Score:2)
//rdj
wrong benchmark tests (Score:2)
Sorry I'm far from a scientist but shouldn't NASA be benchmarking on how to actually get people to the moon. If I'm not mistaken, man can only stay in space for X amount of time before deterioration of the bones start to occur. If this is the case would it even matter if plants could exist on the planet if people couldn't eventually get there?
Maybe someone would care to share information on the human anatomy in space, I know I've passed by URL's before indicating why astronauts couldn't stay in space for prolonged times, maybe someone has bookmarked it or studied it. With that in mind, I wonder what will be done via way of speed, ship, etc., to get there. Has NASA been in the works with some ultra high speed shuttle or something.
you missed his point (Score:4)
He thinks this program was created by Miss Cleo who (according to him) was reading her tarot cards and predicted to him "Duh fayte of dee planitz iz inna yore handz tell dem at slashdot.org to call me now for my free psychic readin"
As long as they stay off our land!!! (Score:1)
- Milo Hyson
What if they mutate and... (Score:1)
Title... (Score:1)
Maybe the title should have been "NASA Undecided as to Invading Mars With Glowing JellyPlants"... Either way, I want to know if any of the other 42 options are this strange...
Re:What about pre-existing lifeforms? (Score:3)
Would you please read the article before you post? I may be wrong, but it doesn't look like you did.... here's why I say that (really, I'm not trying to put up a flamebait post here!)
In the article, it does not talk about simply releasing plants into an uncontrolled environment on mars. Towards the end of the article the following appears: " The first wave of Martian plants envisioned by Ferl and his colleagues would sprout inside a very small and protected greenhouse. " So the first experiment doesn't have the kind of intentions that you are speaking of...
So how about the future, you might (and should) ask? Well, earlier in the article, the following quote was talking about future use of plants on mars as life support systems for human colonists: "Such life support systems on Mars will probably involve growing crop plants in Martian soil within specially designed greenhouses, says Andrew Schuerger, a manager of Mars projects with Dynamac Corporation at the NASA's Kennedy Space Center." Clearly the intent is, at first, to keep the plants in a controlled environment, and not allow them to range free.
While that's all well and good, you also said: " Let us get some humans on the planet and set up some expirements to test for life before we think about Mars agriculture." And your point may be reasonable, to some fearful extent, but it is also addressed in the article:
"Learning to grow plants on Mars will be an important precursor to humans living there. Future explorers will need oxygen, food, and purified water -- items too costly to ferry from Earth to Mars on a regular basis. But plants can help provide those essentials inexpensively and locally as part of a self-contained "bioregenerative" life support system."
So the idea you suggest, sending a manned mission, is exactly what this research is trying to facilitate.
Now, maybe I am wrong on this, or maybe I am reading too much into your comment, but I do agree with the general spirit of your point that we should be careful about importing non-martian native organisms into the Martin environment. A real worry, along those lines, is what happens if the plants in those enclosed environments do get released, and possibly what forseeable situations would lead to such a thing occurring?
I dunno, it just seemed that your worries could have either been explained better or resolved by closer examination of the article. Indeed though, as I said, I do agree that there is something to at least consider or worry about before we send plants to Mars.
Of course they'll glow. (Score:1)
Re:I'm appalled at the arrogance of NASA and the U (Score:2)
I don't know what you do for a living, but I'm sure that someone finds it worthless no matter how you might defend your interest/stance on the issue.
The fact is, an astronomer isn't going to find the cure for AIDS and he/she isn't going to stop war, feed the hungry, or try and take away anybody's guns (besides, if someone tries to take away MY gun, they'll get shot.)
Just because YOU think that those minor issues take priority over space exploration/exploitation doesn't mean that the rest of the right-thinking world agrees with you.
Remember, at one time, people thought the search for the new world was a waste of resources.
Luckily for us Americans, someone decided to make that journey.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
no.... (Score:1)
Re:I'm appalled at the arrogance of NASA and the U (Score:1)
Mmm, yes, total shame about the countless billions the government spends on Astrology.
Dork.
Stefan
Re:Unintended irony... (Score:1)
Re:Terraforming Mars? (Score:3)
All your planet are belong to us.
Seriously: with Earth, there is a significant pre-existing ecosystem we have to respect lest we screw up humanity's only (at the moment) life support system. With all other planets (and moons, and asteroids) in our solar system, there is not, thus we are free to mess with them as we please. Similar arguments apply if you invoke the "right" of ecosystems to exist unmolested: by and large, there ain't no ecosystems outside of Earth right now.
Granted, if we want to check to see if there is microbial life on other planets, we should do this before terraforming, but that's just a matter of dispatching the right probes while we're still determining how best to terraform. In fact, the data from said probes would probably be a useful step in the process of terraforming, since if life was detected, we would have the option of altering the native life to alter the planet rather than completely custom designing our own plant colonizers.
I keep reading it wrong (Score:2)
Re:Radio controlled plants? (Score:2)
Bob the Angry Flower [angryflower.com].
Hint folks... He's not a pansy.
--Fesh
Re:Some Nerd you are. (Score:1)
Re:Terraforming Mars? (Score:1)
Re: what if they mutate [and become OT]? (Score:2)
the New Enviornmentalism! (Score:2)
So, wouldn't you have to establish a Wildlifeless Preserve, to uh, preserve the natural state of wildlife on Mars (which is to say, either dead or never alive)?
I guess it might make sense, but you'd have to sort of redefine preservation a little. Most nature preservation efforts and laws focus on things that are either alive, were once alive, or somehow relate to things that are alive. After all, nearly every square inch of Earth's surface contains life for some sort, so that's our bias. Even Antarctica - although not exactly in teaming multitudes or anything.
So what might this mean here on Earth? If there were a truely lifeless place on Earth, would it be better (in therms of the enviornment) to try to keep it that way, or do we have something of an obligation as living organizms to try to spread life to new places?
Sort of reminds me of some stuff from schismatrix [cyberpunkproject.org].
--
More appropriate way for plants to communicate... (Score:2)
If were going to do it... (Score:1)
Re:No way... (Score:1)
Re:It's been said before, but: (Score:1)
We build satellites in clean rooms, not only to make sure the satellites themselves work properly, but also to make sure that there is no such contamination from Earth possible. And if we're scared of Martian infection, so that we plan on isolating any soil samples that come back from Mars, what gives us the right to potentially put any life on Mars in danger with our contamination? And I know someone else already mentioned this, but if we're not even sure of how plants survive in different locations on Earth, then how the hell are we supposed to determine, and control, how those plants will survive on another place that we know, relatively speaking, almost nothing about?
I'm not saying that we shouldn't go to other planets, but there is just so much that we could learn from life on Mars if some was ever found. I just wish that there were more people concerned with a) fixing life on Earth, for starters, before we mess up someplace else, and b) fixing the space program and its associated products so that a spacecraft carrying those plants doesn't end up crashing into the damn Moon, or just fly around Mars for the rest of eternity.
sigh... I guess I'll just have to run for president.
hacked again! (Score:1)
Re:I'm appalled at the arrogance of NASA and the U (Score:1)
Re:I'm appalled at the arrogance of NASA and the U (Score:1)
A better plan (Score:2)
Round up all those SUV-driving, cellphone-talking teenage girls, and launch them instead. Then simply monitor for attempted calls for help as they struggle to breathe... until one of them gets smart and finds Arnold's alien atmosphere device, anyway... naaah, it'll never happen.
Unintended irony... (Score:2)
Re:wrong benchmark tests (Score:1)
Re:Pants? (Score:1)
I felt kinda stupid after I registered that an 'l' was in there.
- Ando
You are the weakest link, goodbye.
You don't... (Score:1)
just add gravity (Score:2)
Anyway, I'm no expert in this area, but if you're interested in practical tips for exploring Mars without spending NASA-sized sums of money, you should check out The Case for Mars [amazon.com], which puts forth what appears to be a very well-researched and thoughtful plan.
Some Nerd you are. (Score:2)
Glowing plants, not jellyfish, has N possible payoffs. Are you smart enough to figure them out? No? Then why don't you let the NASA guys figure out what these N possible payoffs are.
Don't you get it? Life is a gamble with no guarantees. Risks and payoffs is the name of the game. Are you telling me that you want to risk *not* sending plants that glow in the dark to Mars as an analytic tool? This is the ultimate in self sufficient robotic analysis! You get to measure the soil, water, oxygen, and mineral conditions through a self propogating self sustaining device, a genetically engineered mustard plant!
Geek dating! [bunnyhop.com]
Re:Some Nerd you are. (Score:2)
Jellyfish genes in plants. What are you talking about?
Geek dating! [bunnyhop.com]
Why mustard plants? (Score:1)
Re:Terraforming Mars? (Score:1)
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
Re:the New Enviornmentalism! (Score:2)
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
Terraforming Mars? (Score:5)
Seriously, has there been any convention on what is appropriate/inappropriate to do to Mars? Once it's infected, begins an unstoppable course if interferring with another world's development (or maybe they tried something like Chiu's magnetic rings and this is what happened to to their once lush planet, what with over population and all...) is there a RL Prime Directive?
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
Re:you missed his point (Score:1)
Re:I'm appalled at the arrogance of NASA and the U (Score:5)
How in hell can sending glowing jellyfish to Mars have any possible payoff. Are these guys on crack ?
Well let's see. Such research could be used to produce crops on earth too. If they can engineer a plant that can live on mars it surely can live in the Sudan. Plants that glow when they are stressed, yep usefull in agriculture, let's you know when to water or whatever
Do the Americans think they OWN Mars ? Surely Mars is owned by the United Nations who entrust that nobody destroys it.
Nope, they don't thing they own mars, they think nobody owns mars. So who will stop them. According to UN treaty no govenrment body can own any other planet or moon
Finally is it just me who is struck by the sheer outrageous obscenity and waste - all this money spent on throwing things at Mars when there are many problems on Earth that are far more pressing: AIDS, War, Famine, lack of gun control in our inner cities, etc etc etc.
I wish this argument would go away. but here goes the counter
War: Nope, our tax dollars won't prevent that
Famine: Yep, spending money on genitically enginering these plants ccould sure benifit the worlds food supply
AIDS: Maybe more money could be spend on AIDS research, but it is very well funded probably to the point of diminisheing returns
Lack of gun control: Nope, NASA's money isn't going to make the legislative process any smarter
Its about time the USA stopped funding NASA and Astrology altogether.
That's Astronomy not Astrology
So NASA quarantines anything that comes.. (Score:1)
from Mars, but it is OK to introduce biologics from Terra to Mars...
I'm missing something here...
Quick, patent peanut butter plants before NASA! (Score:1)
Just think, now all we have to is name the first astronaut to Mars with some good names like Calvin or maybe Hobbes and send them off to put tiger traps on Mars.
We'll need some bread that can survive the round trip of course, or maybe we can outfit the spacecraft with an easy bake oven
Re:I think you mean *IF* (Score:2)
Yet we will send life there? Where is the logic? Dont screw up earth, screw up mars, after all we dont know if there is life there....
The Lottery:
Re:Terraforming Mars? (Score:2)
Check out Kim Stanley Robinson's series about this very subject: Red Mars, Green Mars, and Blue Mars.
There's a breakaway faction (the "Reds") among the colonists who think that it's inherently wrong to turn Mars into a copy of Earth (rather than leaving it in its pristine state to permit further scientific study). A sort of civil war breaks out over the issue. (The sequence of titles gives you a hint as to who wins, though.)
Gordon Freeman to sue NASA! (Score:1)
But that would be pretty cool to have in my home. Gives me oxygen, food AND light, gotta love those plants!
=-=-=-=-=
No way... (Score:3)
Re:I'm appalled at the arrogance of NASA and the U (Score:1)
Re:Why mustard plants? (Score:1)
The plan will probably fall to hell if the Martians have been hankering for another condiment, though.
Dancin Santa
Re:Why mustard plants? (Score:1)
You heard it here first, folks! Start loading the barrels.
Dancin Santa
Interesting, but... (Score:5)
One issue I had: the reporter gene is presumably GFP. GFP doesn't actually glow, it flouresces. If coupled to luciferase it could glow, but then you wouldn't actually need GFP because the luciferase itself produces light. Of course you could always just light them yourself with external UV, or the natural UV on mars may be enough on its own (during the day, anyway). Also, there are many variants of GFP that glow in different colors besides green, so you could use those to offer a richer set of reporter genes.
cryptochrome
Oops! (Score:1)
NASA and university researchers are looking into creating PANTS that emit a jellyfish-like glow as a signal of trouble
Just imagine what sort of trouble!
-Toad
--
Re:Terraforming Mars? (Score:1)
I think that if Mars were shown to have no life whatsoever, it would a terrible waste to not make use of it to the fullest extent possible.
Seriously, if it were to come down to an overpopulation issue sometime in the future (say when terraforming technologies are possible), which would YOU choose to preserve and which to plonk humans all over: lifeless Mars, or the Kruger National Park? I would hope that preserving actual existing life on Earth would take priority over lifeless rock.
I think "prime directives" should apply only to planets with life. If not, then we're stuck on Earth forever, and we're screwed if anything should ever happen to Earth. Also, if we're going to protect Mars, why not the moon? We've already sent all sorts of crap to the moon so its too late for that.
Re:you missed his point (Score:1)
"For me ta draw turdy-five cardz and not draw a single jellyplant, that tellz me sumtin"
Re:Gordon Freeman to sue NASA! (Score:2)
Lead us to your head-gardener! (Score:1)
Wow, other people are quoting that too (Score:1)
Mars renamed the Blue Planet (Score:1)
Re:A better plan (Score:1)
Re:TELESCOPES ARE NOT POWERFUL ENOUGH!!! (Score:1)
Wow, good thing you caught this. Mars being so far away, I guess NASA messed up their imperial and metric measurements again.
Re:Terraforming Mars? (Score:1)
*sigh* Ok, Mars is not capable of supporting any real life. It's the only moral thing to do to turn the planet into a useable space for humans. Humanity is an end in itself, planets have no value other than how valueable they are to us. the most valuable thing is Human Life. We respect earth not because it is a good in itself, we respect it because it's our home, and we need to survive on it. Things in nature just "are", they have no volition and therefore can't be "good" or "evil"... They can only be good in reference to something, i. e. human life. If you're going to call things good or bad, you've got to have a value system. and if you love life, your value system starts with man's life. We can leave mars a barren wasteland, or we can terraform it into a beautiful habitat for us.
Ed
Let's terraform Mars, too (Score:1)
AWWWW (Score:1)
small footprint (Score:1)
----
Re:hacked again! (Score:1)
isnt that what the aliens did? (Score:1)
just think, in a few billion years their will be a whole race of jelly people who want to send plants to earth (which would be dead killed by our stupidity of course), and the cycle begins again!
'time is liek a river and history always repeats' -ff3
Windows on Mars, what a thought (Score:1)
Some guy in accounting forgot to pay the bill, and Buzz the Happy Space Cadet is preparing for landing, when the speaker booms:
Your Windows XP licence is 30 days past due, the system will shut down in 30 seconds. Call 1-888-555-5555 if you have any questions about your bill. Thank you for chosing Microsoft.
It was funnier the first time I read it. (Score:2)
They can do better than that.. (Score:1)
Re:I'm appalled at the arrogance of NASA and the U (Score:1)
The specific payoff to this is that it's the beginning of teraforming. Eventually we are going to outgrow the Earth. In order to support life easily, plant growth is essential; that's what made Earth habitable. The purpose of sending these plants up is to help us learn how to grow plants in that environment. Now, a full teraforming job like the Earth is obviously far too long-term to be useful now, but it could be much faster in a controlled environment, such as the confines of a colony.
As far as ethics go, I think we are choosing to make an unihabitable place habitable. It is probably not different than doing it on the moon, or in a desert on Earth, etc. From another point of view, it is not ethical to force our decendants to live on an overcrowded earth when we have available unused space on Mars.
Re:I'm appalled at the arrogance of NASA and the U (Score:1)
I think that the share of the total budget NASA gets is so small that it wouldn't make any difference anyway.
Most memorable part .... (Score:1)
The part of the article I thought was most interesting was:
Umm IANAP (I am not a psychic), but do they REALLY believe this plant will survive?
It's my understanding that Martian conditions are pretty harsh - what with the lack of water, oxygen, high radiation, etc. How exactly do they expect these plants to survive without life support systems propping them up?
Personally I would be amazed if plant lived, because you don't see antartica covered with mustard plants. Now perhaps they should first drop their jelly-mustard seeds over the south pole and see how they fare before sending them to Mars.
Re:wrong benchmark tests (Score:1)
Re:I think you mean *IF* (Score:1)
I'm just appalled (Score:1)
Re:Domestic Uses for Interplanetary Foliage (Score:2)
what's next? (Score:1)
Re:Terraforming Mars? (Score:1)