Talk:Mars sample-return mission/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

More general use

I have modified the lead to indicate that an MSR Mission might not (though might) be a particular joint mission proposed for/by NASA/ESA. Maybe I really wanted to create a "Mars sample return mission" article, but correct Wikipedia capitalization is an art form that still escapes my understanding. Any help would be appreciated! (sdsds - talk) 03:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

ESA/NASA Joint Mission

I don't have any information at all that NASA plans to undertake a JOINT mission with the European Space Agency. Anyone with references should provide them. The reference in the article says nothing of a joint mission. This was why I proposed this article for deletion in the first place. Hypothetical joint missions need not be mentioned as probability or fact. As a result, if the article is not deleted (which now I think it is worthy of staying due to the fact it is written about a proposed future mission by NASA), then it should be revised with a reference to support a joint mission or a rewording that says a joint mission may be possible due to something such as the immense costs and technical complexity. --Marsbound2024 15:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The closest thing to a joint mission is said here: Mars Exploration Program It "envisions significant international participation" such as with the French and Italian Space Agencies, but does not explicitly say the ESA. Here is a quote:

The program envisions significant international participation, particularly by France and Italy. In cooperation with NASA, the French and Italian space agencies plan to conduct collaborative scientific orbital and surface investigations and to make other major contributions to sample collection/return systems, telecommunications assets and launch services. Other nations also have expressed interest in participating in the program.

--Marsbound2024 15:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

ESA discusses its MSR mission plans at http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Aurora/SEM1PM808BE_0.html. (sdsds - talk) 17:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Where does it mention ANYTHING about a joint mission, though? Without that fact, the article talking about a possible joint mission has no evidence supporting it and can be concluded as false. --Marsbound2024 19:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I support the suggestion that, assuming no one comes forward with a reliable source, almost all of the text from the original version of this article [1] should be removed. In particular, the second sentence of the current lead, and the second section. What should remain? The (as yet unwritten) section about NASA plans for an MSR mission, and the (as yet unwritten) section about ESA plans for an MSR mission. (sdsds - talk) 23:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I also support this. I will volunteer my time to rewrite the article with relevant information with appropriate references if no one else does. --Marsbound2024 23:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Historical part

• I think that there should be a historical part since MSR is a very old story. For instance, after 1997, under the strong impulsion of French Minister Claude Allègre, there has been an effort in France for a joint CNES/NASA JPL mission called Mars Premier. This effort was targeting a Mars Sample Return Mission in 2005, and collapsed due to the double failure of 1998 (Mars Polar Lander and Mars Climate Orbiter). I am sure that if someone digs deeper there are other stories. Hektor (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

More Information to add here

I'm not the most knowledgable on this topic and would rather leave it to others, but it seems there's a lot of information left out of this page. For instance, there's quite a bit of discussion in an article from 2005: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/mars-future-05f.html that isn't present here. Surely, these preliminary plans have become a little more clear in the last couple years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.86.95 (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that things are picking up on the MSR front - we're looking at more than just a "dream" now. I've updated the article with some of the very interesting bits from a recent presentation by Fuk Li (via futureplanets.blogspot.com), but I'm sure there is more valuable stuff out there.--AndersFeder (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

More information to be integrated - NASA now testing drilling for MSR: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-wet-run-for-a-dry-planet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.56.188.176 (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Outdated

The Mars sample return mission actually will start with ExoMars project in 2016, with an unspecified sample return date. I assume this article was written before the ExoMars international collaboration took effect, and updating it would mean writting about the ExoMars programme. We may want to consider to move relevant ionformation into the ExoMars "History" section and then delete this article. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Help needed on current plans for Mars sample return missions

The current situation of future plans for Mars sample return missions (such as Mars sample return mission, Mars Exploration Joint Initiative, Aurora programme, Mars-Grunt and ExoMars) needs to be updated, especially what current plans on contributions and time-tables are from NASA, ESA and Roskomos. If anybody can contribute with references, it would be most welcome. Tony Mach (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for new "Concerns" section

On the talk page for Manned mission to Mars then it's been suggested that my section on concerns about Mars sample return would be more appropriate here.

So I'm probably going to move it over to this page. It obviously needs some editing first. Putting it here in the talk page (unedited original for now) for discussion first if anyone wants to comment. It is clear that something needs to be said here, as the reader of this article in its present form would have no idea about these issues and concerns.

If there are no comments then I will just "be bold" and do my best shot at adding a new section, as it clearly needs to be done.

I am not sure if you are just commenting on the topic or actually suggesting changes. Assuming you are suggesting changes, I would not quote Sagan now because our knowledge of Mars, science & technology, and sterility protocols have been updated significantly since the 70s. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I am suggesting a change yes. The article doesn't mention backward contamination concerns at all. Is it you who just commented out my edit to the article? I have copied the latest version back here and so it can be removed from the main article. I suggest for now retaining the alternatives to Mars sample return section (which was also commented out), and can discuss the rest at leisure. So will do that now. I did the edit because no-one had commented here at all on my suggestion. Robert Walker (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I know that our knowledge has been updated considerably since then, however the things that Carl Sagan say still apply today. Especially, when he speaks of the dangers involved, and the need to carry out a "vigorous program of unmanned Martian exobiology". The trouble is that since he has died there is no-one else who is so eloquent and passionate about these issues and with the same public standing as Carl Sagan. So he is the natural person to quote. I know that there are many papers by Di Gregorio, but he doesn't have the same standing. I feel that if Carl Sagan was still alive he would still say the same things he said in the 70s, as we are still pretty much as ignorant of the possible biological load of samples returned from Mars. If anything with discovery of more and more versatile extremophiles since then, the risk is greater rather than less. That's why I chose to quote from him even though he is of course speaking in the 1970s. Robert Walker (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Have made an attempt at a shorter version below, but should return to this later, do say if you have any thoughts on it. Also good references appreciated if anyone has better ones. The Planetary Protection Office recommendations amount to saying that we can make the probability of contamination of Earth very low indeed if all the precautions they recommend are taken. But this doesn't reduce the probability to zero, and so does not address Carl Sagan's concerns in the quote or the concerns of the ICAMSR.Robert Walker (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Done a bit more work on it, what do you think? Robert Walker (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Done some more work on it, and I have given a more neutral tone to the section by giving at each stage the precautions that are taken to reduce the risk. It seems okay to me now and to answer your criticisms. I include a couple of Carl Sagan quotes, but ones that are to do with the general ethical issues rather than particular now dated scientific matters. Does it seem okay now? If there are no comments, I'll try adding this in as a new edit in a few days time. Any suggestions, also any other sources? Also given the amount of material on the subject, wonder if it might be an idea to have a separate short article on "Backward contamination concerns for Mars sample return" - just keep the existing para as is here, and then link to this fuller article at the end of the section. It is just a thought, not sure what is appropriate. The existing short version in the article as it is now is nice because it summarizes the issues in an easy to grasp way. But it doesn't go into enough detail to satisfy someone who wants to explore it further and look into it in depth. Robert Walker (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd love to comment but I am not sure what you are doing. Please sign your 'comments' and specify if doing a draft or commenting. I'll step back and review this article whenever you are done. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, this is the draft. The idea is to replace the "Back contamination concerns for a Mars sample return" section with this, or possibly have it as a separate short article, retaining the existing section in this article as a short summary linking to this as a fuller exposition?

It also has a suggested new section: "Concerns with the high cost and comparatively low science return" and I have added one extra ref to the "Alternatives to a Mars sample return"

What do you make of it?Robert Walker (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Added a new section on the legal situation - which shows how the public will need to be involved. Was glad to find a good paper that summarizes the legal situation so clearly, and this is a very brief paraphrase of some of the things said in the paper. This shows that it is a decision that scientists, even international groups of scientits, or NASA, can't make by themselves. It needs to go through a long legal process including public debate, which is sure to bring up all the concerns mentioned here, and also involve discussion of the merits of any alternatives to the MSR such as in situ studies on Mars. talk) 02:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for a new article "Back contamination concerns for a Mars sample return"

Had another look at this today, and it is nearly as long as the current page on Mars sample return. So, I think would be overbalanced to add all this to it. Yet it is a matter of much public concern and there is a great deal of published literature on it. So I think it is important enough to deserve an article of its own. Leave the current material on this page as is, as a brief summary. Also add to the current page a short summary of the legal situation (as below but much shorter), and the intermediate point of view that more exploration is needed on Mars simply to decide which samples to return.

Then do the entire draft below as a new article.

So would like to make this an actual suggestion, please comment with your thoughts. If no-one replies in a few days I will give it a go anyway, and see what happens Robert Walker (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

---

(start of new draft)

Yes, i'd prompt you to create a new article. By the way, I strongly suggest you work on your drafts on your user page ([2]). Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay will do, if this remains the consensus. Seems the best thing to do :). Will leave it a bit longer first, in case anyone else with an interest in this article wants to step in and say anything, then go ahead and create the article. Yes, that's a good idea. I saw a suggestion somewhere about using my sandbox though can't find it now, so did a bit of that recently, and sorry for all the edits on this page. Robert Walker (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with a new article, IF there is information of sufficient depth and breadth to warrant one, as it appears there may be. Agree that the place to work the draft is probably in your sandbox; and then you could potentially invite other editors to weigh in/review/etc. as you complete development. One observation however, in the draft below there are a number of statements and paragraphs that do not appear to be verifiable, and therefore should not be a part of a new article unless they are sourced with citations. I'd be happy to tag a few of them if invited to do so on the draft in your sandbox, once you get that set up. If you'd like that, send me a Talkback when ready. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay great, I'll do that, make a draft in my sandbox and then invite comments when it is ready. I think everything should be verifiable but will check carefully when the time comes, and will welcome tags for things to verify, thanks for offering to do it. Not sure what "send a Talkback" means though. Usually other wikipedians have just added a section to my talk page, do I do that, edit your talk page to add a note to say it is ready? Thanks. Robert Walker (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Back contamination concerns for a Mars sample return

I have now put the draft for this article into my user space here: User:Robertinventor/Back_contamination_concerns_for_a_Mars_sample_return - now at Concerns for an early Mars sample return

I have made extensive use of quotations, because it is a subject where there are many points of view on the matter. I am careful to attribute the author for each of the quotations to make clear that it is the point of view of the author and not of wikipedia. In this I am following the wikipedia guideline in Wikipedia:Quotations#Recommended_use_of_quotations:

Editors of controversial subject should quote the actual spoken or written words to refer to the most controversial ideas. Controversial ideas must never appear to be "from Wikipedia".

The aim is to write an article that shows the concerns, shows what NASA is doing to address them, and to explain why some scientists think that NASA is not going far enough, and to go through the legal situation, and the alternative options to a Mars sample return. I want it to be neutral in tone, of course, and to mention all the different views in the debate.

The main things I am likely to miss are, first that I may make statements that are not referenced, because of familiarity with the material. Also it is easy for me to veer away from neutrality because my own POV is with the view that a Mars sample return is not appropriate at this stage. I want that view to be clearly represented but the other ones also represented as well.Robert Walker (talk) 01:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I think it is ready for first comments Robert Walker (talk) 02:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

FWIW - the article seems Excellent and Worthy - made a few (very) minor corrections while reading - hope they're ok of course - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, so glad to hear it turned out okay :). Yes do go ahead, though its in my user space for now, just treat it like the final page and fix anything you spot etc. Robert Walker (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Robert. Glad you are putting this "out there" for review.

• I just made some initial edits to the material, in the lede, and especially with respect to four different "ESF"-named references that were, in fact, to four somewhat different parts of the same doc. I have now named each of those four citations differently. The only problem is, I don't know which of the "repeated ESF" citations should be to which of the four different parts of the manual. Might I suggest that you go over those repeated uses of the citation, and make sure that the subsequent uses are to the correct part of the ESF manual? The part the actually supports the referenced statements? Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• I like the quotations that you are including with some of the sources. There is a better way, methinks, to reflect a quotation inside a citation using the {{cite}} template. I'll try to get back there and do one in that format to show how it is done, so that others can look at it and see if that approach might not get us a better result. But I'm out of time for now. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay thanks, N2e, do give that a go when you have the time and let's see what it looks like. Also thanks for all the "citations needed", will go through and fix them. Robert Walker (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I have now taken the first two citations that had extended quotations in them and have put them in the very helpful {{cite}} template format (both of them happened to be amenable to "cite report" but there are other cite template formats for books, news, journals, etc. ("cite book", "cite news", "cite journal", etc.). See if you don't think that handles the large quotations in citations a bit better. (I made the changes in the new article you have created in the Wikipedia article space.) Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW I noticed the need for a short section on telepresence for analysis of the samples on the surface and return to astronauts for preliminary evaluation in Mars orbit, an idea which is discussed and I have references to. Also I feel there should be at least a mention of the "vexing question of the latency period" which Carl Sagan mentions in his book, that for instance the latency period for leprosy is more than a decade. I'll see if there is a more modern treatment of this issue. So anyway I will deal with this also fix the issues so far, when I next work on it some time in the next few days. Thanks for your edits, comments and suggestions so far :). Robert Walker (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

One problem I have with the article is how to deal with the ICAMSR. Despite the name "International Committee Against Mars Sample Return", it is more like an activist group of a small number of scientists promoting views against MSR. They don't currently have a page on Wikipedia. However I can create one. Am not sure what the Wikipedia policy is about creating pages for activist groups. Will try to find out, can anyone help?

I think they are easily notable to be mentioned in the article as there are many news stories that quote them, as well as members of the group posting articles in peer reviewed scientific magazines. They are led by a scientist who has controversial views about the Viking life experiments (scientifically valid enough to be published in science journals, but a minority view that hardly anyone else holds), and their website has material promoting these views as well as promoting the issues with MSR. So for instance scientists who agree that MSR requires caution may well not agree with these other views on the Viking experiments. The Charter of the ICAMSR also is a particular approach and view on the issue, and is not a consensus view amongst those opposed to near term MSR.

It is not really a question about notability, as they are notable enough so that any article about MSR contamination concerns has to mention them. The question is more about how best to treat them in the article. I feel that a separate short article in wikipedia about them might be the best approach. It might be hard to do that article well though from a NPOV. I can do my best at it. It might also help in the current article just to say that they are an activist group when I mention them, to make the situation clear. Robert Walker (talk) 10:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay I've made it into a separate article now, comments welcome on the talk page for the article. See: Concerns for an early Mars sample return. I have also created a short page for the International Committee Against Mars Sample Return as suggested above, how does that seem?Robert Walker (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Merger Proposal from "Concerns for an early Mars sample return mission"

Moved content from above article into the back contamination section of this article. IMHO, the offshoot article is an unnecessary POV content fork. Will nominate said article for deletion. Robert Walker may want to reinstate his (long) version of that article prior to nomination. Warren Platts (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

OK.... Since Robert the Inventor reverted the merger (w/o comment), I hereby formally propose that the article "Concerns for an early Mars sample return" (in it's form as of June 16) be merged into the back contamination section. If anyone wants to see what the main article would look like, it'll be in the history of this page. I'll give it week. If no one objects, I'll redo the merge. (I don't count uncommented reversions as valid objections.) Warren Platts (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Warren, a merger has to go through a proposal for merger first. Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers. It clearly doesn't fit "1. mergers that are so obviously necessary and appropriate that no one is expected to object" as I have objected to it. So has to go through the formal process. That is why I reverted your merger and will revert any merger attempt you do without going through the proper process. I did an edit comment on the merger and didn't feel it was necessary to say anything here about a reversion of an unauthorized merger. Anyway now explained in detail for anyone who wants to know. Robert Walker (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Please note, the article has now been nominated as an AfD by Warren. See below.

AfD for Concerns for an early Mars sample return

This article, which originated in a discussion on this talk page, has now been nominated for deletion by Warren:

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Concerns for an early Mars sample return is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concerns for an early Mars sample return until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Re: decision to merge - I can't work on this any more as in my view the proposal to present it with almost no mention of divergent POVs (indeed apparently also almost no mention even of the NASA and ESA study groups concerns) is one that is totally inappropriate for the topic. So will have to leave this to other editors now Robert Walker (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, merged the short version of the Concerns for an early Mars sample return. Redirect at that article to International Committee Against Mars Sample Return Cheers, Warren Platts (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Bias of section on back contamination

1. I totally don't have any energy to fight this any more or edit the section myself after the AfD with Warren. But don't see why I can't add a couple of tags to it to alert other editors.

2. This section puts forward a POV held by only one published author in the literature, Robert Zubrin. As a result I have added a cn to the most blatant unsourced statement in the section and labelled the section as POV.

Re the cn: you can't really say what the mainstream view is as there has been no major poll or survey of views on the probabilities of a large scale negative effect on Earth's inhabitants or environment by a returned martian life form. However, the official view of the ESA, NASA, COSPAR (international group of scientists) and Planetary Protection Office is:

The committee found that the potential for large-scale negative effects on Earth's inhabitants or environment by a returned martian life form appears to be low, but is not demonstrably zero.

(quote from the NRC,page 48) - same thing is said in the ESF study and the PPO website.

3. There is no way that "probably zero" correctly summarizes that quote. It is like saying that the chance of throwing a six on a dice is probably zero because you are far more likely not to throw it than throw it

This suggests, that low means 1/6, but that's not the case. Low means, that the chance for the escape of a Martian particle is below 1/1,000,000. The chance, that this particle is something biological is again low, regarding the frequency of living particles relative to the total number of particles in the sample. A living particle will in most cases have no detectable effect to the environment. So, the worst case of biohazard has a probability of 1/1,000,000, in the case that the sample consists of nothing else than highly dangerous spores; but until now not a single living spore of Martian origin could be found on Mars, not even complex organic molecules, with a sensitivity of a few p.p.m. The average case for biohazard probability will be much lower than 1/1,000,000, probably below 1/1,000,000,000,000 (assuming less than 1 spore per one million particles) on the basis of samples so far investigated, including zero, if there isn't life on Mars. That's not like a dice.

The risk to set free some living organism, trapped for millions of years, when digging into rock on Earth is much higher. (See http://www.bioresearchonline.com/doc/250-million-year-old-bacterial-spore-comes-ba-0001). Normally noone takes care about this.

See

- http://robotics.estec.esa.int/ASTRA/Astra2013/Papers/Senese_2811296.pdf ("the probability that a single non sterilized particle larger than 10 nm in diameter is released into the terrestrial biosphere shall be below 10e-6.")

- http://mepag.jpl.nasa.gov/reports/iMARS_FinalReport.pdf

- http://sci2.esa.int/Conferences/MarcoPolo-ws08/Planetary_Protection_-_Andre_Debus.pdf

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosafety_level#Biosafety_level_4

for handling returned samples.

93.193.101.67 (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The comparison even with a lottery ticket misses the point. It's not like any Martian microbes have a random number generator in their genome that every so often makes it cause a cross-species mass extinction. Either it can or it can't. Either the risk is zero, or it's one. The likelihood of it being one is "extremely small", as the quote states.

And your point about underground Andromeda Strains--or lack thereof--is well taken. Every day there are several thousand rigs worldwide drilling into bacteria-containing formations that are 10's of millions of years old. If it's really the case that bacteria and not a comet killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago--as was actually seriously suggested by ICAMSR--it seems we should all be dead by now. Yet somehow we have survived. Must be dumb luck, though. If Robert truly was logically consistent and had the courage of his convictions, he would be spamming oil drilling articles instead of Mars articles since oil drilling poses a much greater existential risk.... Warren Platts (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

If any other editor wants information to help with expanding this section and correcting its bias, they can find a backup of the deleted article in my user space - something you are permitted to do after an AfD as a way to keep the material for later use elsewhere in wikipedia as needed.

4. In this case it is a useful mine of references, and I believe would be invaluable for editors wanting to work on the topic. User:Robertinventor/Concerns for an early Mars sample return backup Robert Walker (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

1. Tags are not to be used as consolation prized, Robert.

2. Unsourced baloney.

3. OK, now you've asked for it: the risk probably is zero; or else it's one. There is no in between. You are intentionally conflating subjective Bayesian prior probabilities as to the truth of a proposition with classical frequentist probabilities by bringing in a 6-sided die. I say that's intentional because you are always bragging about your math and philosophy background. Therefore, you KNOW very well the difference between the two. Your strategic displays of incompetence aren't going to fly this time; I am not going to give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk up your comment to your ignorance. You are intentionally spreading disinformation on the Wikipedia. You will not be allowed to continue.

4. There is a shortage of volunteers at ICAMSR. Go collaborate with DiGregorio and write a book together. Your days of spamming Wikipedia with your contamination hysteria are over. I see you've spammed your propaganda in practically every article on Mars in the Wikipedia. Those "contributions" will be redacted. Warren Platts (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

For any other editors of independent mind who might want to check these statements for themselves - take a look at the numerous quotes from the ESF, NRC and Planetary Protection Office saying this, and take a look at the original sources for these quotes and see for yourself. Do they say that they consider that there is a potential for environmental disruption from a Mars sample return? Do they give that as their main motivation for such strong planetary protection measures for the sample return? Decide for yourself. I am not gong to get involved in another long discussion of it though, just wanted to put a note here for any sympathetic editors to discover :). My energies and efforts on this particular topic are clearly better placed somewhere else rather than wikipedia - somewhere else where my contributons are welcome :).

Other editors can find the links here: User:Robertinventor/Concerns for an early Mars sample return backup. A good one to start with is the Planetary Protection Office summary here:

The potential for large-scale effects, either through pathogenesis or ecological disruption, is extremely small. Thus, the risks associated with inadvertent introduction of exogenous microbes into the terrestrial environment are judged to be low. However, any assessment of the potential for harmful effects involves many uncertainties, and the risk is not zero. [my emphasis]

Quote from the Mars Sample Return: Issues and Recommendations (summmary) from the Planetary Protection website.

instead of accepting anyones interpretation of this quote, what about taking a look at the page itself, read it carefully, and decide for yourself what they mean. Do they mean you don't need to worry about it at all? Or do they mean that you need to be careful about it even though it is low probability? And in the quotes from the ESA, where they talk about the need for international debate because the effects of a MSR in worst case could impact any country world wide - what do you think they are talking about there? Try reading the source and see what you yourself think they are saying. And many other sources available here for anyone who wants to do some independent research, don't bother about the main text - try following up the sources in the extensive bibliography and see what you reckon. User:Robertinventor/Concerns for an early Mars sample return backup .

And what do you think of the accuracy of a paraphrase of this in wikipedia as the risk '" is very likely to be zero"? Robert Walker (talk) 23:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

take a look at the original sources for these quotes and see for yourself. Yeah. Do they say that MSR is unsafe? Do they say that we need to do more in situ research before MSR can be safely undertaken? Do they say that MSR poses an existential risk? A: no, no, no... If only you took your own advice and actually read all your sources. E.g., like the one where you came away with the idea that NASA was going to be landing the Andromeda Strain in 2018. Like I said, the people at ICAMSR need some help. They need a lot of help. Someone with a special talent for walls o' text is especially needed. You could probably get a job being the new website administrator over there. Maybe start a blog over there. Publish an article in Journal of Cosmology. I'm sure Chandra Wickramasinghe would love to publish your stuff.... Warren Platts (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Bias and errors in the back contamination section

(Continues discussion on Project Mars talk page)

Please discuss this in the discussion section below.

I see four major errors in this section which lead to a bias towards the views of Mars surface colonization advocacy.

1. It says that the risk is likely to be zero. The PPO says that the risk is thought to be very low but not zero. Warren maintains that these two statements say the same thing. If so why not use the PPO version?
2. It says that a biohazard 4 facility is sufficient. The studies say a biohazard 4 facility is required but not sufficient, and go into a lot of detail into ways that a Mars receiving facility has to be better than a biohazard 4 facility.
3. On the legal situation it only mentions the domestic legal requirements in the cited article and omits all mention of the international legal requirements mentioned in the same source.
4. It represents concerns about environmental disruption of the Earth as an ICAMSR concern only. In fact this is a concern that dates back to Carl Sagan and is shared by all the official studies as a worst case scenario. It is thought to be very low probability but all the studies agree that it is a possibility. Amongst all the notable published sources I consulted, only Zubrin disagrees.

New Version

Here is a new version where I simply have taken the text as is, and fixed those errors.

I put the "Differing views on a MSR" into a new section because it helps, in my view, to make a clear separation between the official views in one section and dissenting views in another section. Also I put Zubrin's views in this section too as I think it is important to make it clear that his views are as extreme as those of the ICAMSR at the opposite end of the spectrum.

It is not right to present it as a polarization between the ICAMSR and everyone else. It is a polarization between the ICAMSR and Mars colonization advocates with the official NASA / PPO / ESA views in the middle.

Everything I say here is citation supported. See Concerns for an early Mars sample return backup where these points are covered in detail with extensive citations. If this version is approved, I will add in the citations of course, before it goes into the main article. Robert Walker (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead Robert. I will delete it. Then we will see who objects. This little debate is not taking place in a complete vacuum. If it was really obvious that you are being suppressed unjustifiably, presumably, some other editors would say something. As far as I can tell, you have an ally or two who hate the idea of Mars exploration--though not for the main reasons you and ICAMSR espouse. Let's see what they say.... Warren Platts (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Potential for back contamination

Since it is currently unknown whether or not life forms exist on Mars, the mission could potentially transfer viable organisms resulting in back contamination — the introduction of extraterrestrial organisms into Earth's biosphere. The mainstream scientific view as expressed by the NRC and ESF studies and the Office of Planetary Protection is that the risk of harmful back contamination is probably very low, but cannot be demonstrated to be zero. In the worst case scenario (thought to be very low probability) this could lead to environmental disruption and impact on countries outside the nation responsible for the mission. As a result, returned samples from Mars will be treated as potentially biohazardous until scientists can determine that they are safe.

The sample return mission will be designed to break the chain of contact between Mars and the exterior of the sample container, for instance by sealing the returned container inside another larger container in the vacuum of space before return to Earth. In order to eliminate the risk of parachute failure, the current plan is to return the capsule to the Earth without the use of parachutes: the capsule will fall at terminal velocity and the impact will be cushioned by the capsule's thermal protection system. The sample container will be designed to withstand the force of the impact.

To receive the returned samples, NASA has proposed to build a biohazard containment facility--known as the Mars Sample Return Receiving facility (MSRRF).

The proposed sample return facility must be a biohazard level 4 laboratory. However it must also contain unknown biohazards and the sizes of any putative Martian micro-organisms are unknown. In consideration of this, the ESF put additional requirements. Ideally it should be contain particles of 0.01 µm, or larger, and release of a particle of no larger than 0.05 µm or larger is unacceptable under any circumstances. It also must double as a clean room to preserve the science value of the samples. A clean room is normally kept at a higher pressure than the external environmnent to keep contaminants out, and a biohazrad laboratory is kept at a lower pressure to keep the biohazards in. This introduces conflicting requirements and requires a novel architecture that will take some years from design to completion.. Preliminary studies have warned that it may take as many as 7 to 10 years to get it operational and an additional two years is recommended for the staff to become accustomed to the facilities. .

Legal requirements and need for public debate

The ESF report also considered the legal situation. In the event of a release of the contents of the MSR capsule during return to Earth then the state responsible has liability in respect to any damages caused under the Outer Space Treaty. This liability is unlimited in either amount or in time. The situation as regards liability is less clear if the release occurs after return to Earth.

The proposed NASA Mars Sample Return mission will not be approved by NASA until the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process has been completed. The NEPA process would require a public review of all potential impacts that could result from MSR, including worst case back contamination scenarios. It is likely that a formal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would have to be prepared. . The quarantine situation would also need to be clarified. There are also numerous international regulations and treaties to be negotiated in the case of a Mars Sample Return, especially those relating to environmental protection and health.

The ESF report ends with a series of recommendations. On the need for public debate they say

RECOMMENDATION 10: Considering the global nature of the issue, consequences resulting from an unintended release could be borne by a larger set of countries than those involved in the programme. It is recommended that mechanisms dedicated to ethical and social issues of the risks and benefits raised by an MSR are set up at the international level and are open to representatives of all countries

Several other papers and studies have come to the same conclusion.

Differing views on a MSR

Carl Sagan was first to raise back contamination concerns. In Cosmic Connection (1973) he writes:

Precisely because Mars is an environment of great potential biological interest, it is possible that on Mars there are pathogens, organisms which, if transported to the terrestrial environment, might do enormous biological damage.

This possibility has been confirmed in all the later studies, as the worst case scenario. It is considered low probability but can't be ruled out.

Later in Cosmos (1980) he wrote

(That's more than 30 years ago, 30 years of research.93.231.170.235 (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC))

Perhaps Martian samples can be safely returned to Earth. But I would want to be very sure before considering a returned-sample mission.

The PPO and NASA and ESA view is that with present day technology, Martian samples can be safely returned to Earth provided the right precaution are taken.

There are dissenting views however.

The International Committee Against Mars Sample Return maintains that it is not possible to return samples to Earth safely at this stage. They urge more in situ studies on Mars first, and preliminary biohazard testing in space before the samples are returned to Earth.

Does better pre-selection by more in-situ studies augment or reduce bc risk?93.231.170.235 (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

At the other extreme, Robert Zubrin (Mars surface colonization advocate and director of the Mars Society) maintains that the risk of back contamination has no scientific validity.

Where is the difference of R.Zubrin's statement and that of the PPO? They are talking of two different things: Although if there is no scientific validity for a BC risk, it's nevertheless possible to treat the sample as if there could be a risk. That's no contradiction. Science has to prove, that there is biologic activity (would actually be more than happy, if there could be found definitive evidence for fossils); the PPO has to disprove, that there is hazardous material in the sample. That are two very different questions, especially as long as the sample isn't analysed.93.231.170.235 (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Hope you don't mind was getting hard to read, I've moved things around so that they are each in their own topic area, keeping the sequence of the replies. It was getting quite confusing

Topic Ban discussion

This is why there should be a topic ban for Robert Walker. This article is badly in need of updating, but RW's obsession with "contamination" entails that any editor interested in improving the article must spend 'hours playing Whac-A-Mole with Robert instead, despinning his repetitive, tedious, and factually inaccurate ICAMSR propaganda. It's disruptive. Warren Platts (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for replying at the end of the section. Robert McClenon told us that there is a procedure for topic banning an editor. I have not been topic banned for writing about the topic of contamination issues on pages and talk pages of Mars Project. Also in your previous conversation on this page, you stated your intention to remove all my contributions on this topic which you then did.

This topic ban is a personal policy decided on and implemented by yourself. I want to add WP:OPINION and CN tags to your section here due to these errors listed and your presentation of a POV not backed up by the cited sources. Will you immediately remove them as you did before? Robert Walker (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

There you go again, putting words in my mouth. There is no personal policy. IMHO, you should be banned from WP:MARS because of lack of WP:COMPETENCE, especially bias-based incompetence. You simply cannot write without injecting your POV. Your content does not improve the encyclopedia.

Do you permit me to a WP:OPINION tag to the article to alert readers to these issues? If you don't then it is clear you are still implementing your topic ban of me. Also you deleted all the content I wrote on contamination issues in Project Mars without any preliminary discussion. If it is not a personal topic ban, then please restore that content and then go through discussion of the material first instead of simply removing it.Robert Walker (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Or if you mean it is not a personal policy, please direct me to the discussion where the topic ban was agreed on and implemented. Robert Walker (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added the tags. Are you going to delete them - despite the POV-section tag clearly stating it shouldn't until the dispute is resolved? And does this also mean you also will continue to reverse any edits I do on this topic in Project Mars? Or am I permitted to do edits now with the normal policy of BRD rather than BRR which makes editing impossible for a wikipedian who keeps to the rules? Robert Walker (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Will delete. Warren Platts (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Because you are topic banning me? Robert McLennon asked if you are still topic banning me. Seems to me that this shows you are. Do you agree? If not, what is your reason for removing them when the discussion is still open and not resolved. Robert Walker (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It has already been resolved that your propaganda must not be allowed to stand. I am merely going with the community consensus. When the consensus turns against me redacting your propaganda against a non-existent space mission, I will gladly walk away from this morass... Cheers, Warren Platts (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Point #1 disucssion

As to your point #1 above, more word twistage: I never said that ◊(x is zero) ≡ ~(x is zero). You, the mathematician, are of course well aware of the difference, but prefer the latter form since it's not as clear. In particular, to a naïve reader, the latter form could appear that the risk estimate is a classical frequentist probability, as if MSR were a lottery ticket or an actuarial risk of death or something--this is something that it explicitly is not. We've been through this before. You have explicitly encouraged a frequentist interpretation of the risk with your dice analogy--no doubt because it's the more scary interpretation. Either this is a disingenuous ploy on your part, or your vaunted mathematical training must never have touched on the frequentist interpretation of probability. Either way, it doesn't matter--I don't even care: the point being that either way you slice it, you lack the WP:COMPETENCE to edit this article. I'm not trying to be insulting, it's just a sad fact IMO. Sorry it's come to this. Warren Platts (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

In short you say, your version that "it is likely to be zero" is accurate and the PPO version that it is "thought to be low probability but not zero" is inaccurate. The detailed reasons don't matter - obviously you consider them to be different, and the one you consider to be accurate is your own version and the one you consider to be inaccurate is the one presented by the PPO. This makes it a clear case of WP:OPINION. Robert Walker (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong as usual. Why do you refuse to confront the frequentist/Bayesian dichotomy head on? I know, of course. I've actually had enough dealings with you to know your modus operandi. You have exhausted my good faith bank account. There is no more benefit of the doubt with you as far as I am concerned. You have an agenda, and it's not spreading the truth... Warren Platts (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

In short you say, your version that "it is likely to be zero" is accurate and the OPP version that it is "cannot be demonstrated to be zero" is inaccurate. And you say that anyone who describes the probabilities in the way they are described by the OPP is mathematically incompetent and should be banned from editing Project Mars for doing that. Do I summarize what you just said correctly? Robert Walker (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

'it is likely to be zero' is an accurate paraphrase. You continue to dodge the frequentist/Bayesian distinction. Why is that? That is a direct question. Warren Platts (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I refuse to discuss Bayesian probabilities because you present it as original research and do not give a source for your explanation and do not wish to be involved in discussing your private theories on these talk pages, especially when the dispute is about your use of OR. Your probability argument doesn't make much sense to me and seems OR. If it is not OR, please give a source, and I don't mean a source on Bayesian probability, but someone who actually uses this argument to show that in the case of a MSR it is more accurately presented as "is likely to be zero" rather than "cannot be demonstrated to be zero" Robert Walker (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course you refuse to discuss frequentist probabilities. But not because you have never heard of them, right? To repeat the discussion we had a month ago, here is the relevant quote that I paraphrased again:

[T]here is consensus among the scientific community ... that the release of a Mars organism into the Earth’s biosphere is unlikely to have a significant ecological impact or other significant effects. ... [I]t is not possible to estimate a probability that the sample could be harmful or harmless in the classical frequency definition of probability.

You want to convey the impression that the "risk" is a frequentist probability. That's why my paraphrase really irks you. It makes clear the truth. Warren Platts (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The original says

On the latter point, there is consensus among the scientific community (and among the ESF-ESSC Study Group, as presented above) that the release of a Mars organism into the Earth’s biosphere is unlikely to have a significant ecological impact or other significant effects. However, it is important to note that with such a level of uncertainty, it is not possible to estimate a probability that the sample could be harmful or harmless in the classical frequency definition of probability (i.e. as the limit of a frequency of a collection of experiments). However it is possible to establish the risk as low, as a consensus of the beliefs of the experts in the field as represented by their experience

Their conclusion is "it is possible to establish the risk as low" not "The risk is likely to be zero". The problem with classical probability was raised as something that makes it difficult to establish the risk as low, because you can't use classical probability methods to assess it. The use of expert opinion is then a way to reduce that uncertainty and obtain a low probability of risk. That is clear when you read it in context in the study itself.

The OPP quote is shorter and easier to follow:

The risks of environmental disruption resulting from the inadvertent contamination of Earth with putative martian microbes are still considered to be low. But since the risk cannot be demonstrated to be zero, due care and caution must be exercised in handling any martian materials returned to Earth.

Assessment of Planetary Protection Requirements for Mars Sample Return Missions (Report). National Research Council. 2009.Robert Walker (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Will not comment on his later replies here due to totally OTT insults. Robert Walker (talk) 10:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This is great: "you can't use classical [frequentist] probability methods to assess it" Yeah. No kidding. Could you please explain to the lurkers why that is the case. Unbelievable!! Warren Platts (talk) 02:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

To explain to anyone else reading this why you can't use classical probability methods to assess it, the reason is because no-one has any figures for the probability that a planet like Mars has life on it or the probability that the life is similar to Earth life or different, or probabilities for the form the life can take, or probabilities for the risk potential for different possible forms of life on Mars.

In those circumstances a classical risk assessment can't be done as it requires you to have figures for these things, or at least a range of possible figures. In the absence of any figures at all, they rely instead on the considered views of experts. They are only familiar with Earth evolved life of course but by extrapolating from that and from what is known about the geology of Mars feel it is possible to give a view of the probability. They can't however give exact figures such as you normally give because the don't have enough information to do that. That is what the quote means if you read it in context. Bayesian probability theory is not mentioned. Robert Walker (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Uh huh. And just what kind of probabilities are the considered estimates of experts? Hint: they are not frequentist probabilities. This is mentioned. Thus I call BS. Since they are not frequentist probabilities, then they /must/ be Bayesian probabilities. Any other kind of probabilities exist only in RW's fecund imagination. The above is deliberate disinformation spreading. Warren Platts (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Question for Robert

Can you even explain the difference between a classical frequentist probability and a subjective, Bayesian prior probability?

It's here Bayesian_probability#Bayesian_methodology. Note that the approach that says the probability of a hypothesis is either one or zero is the frequentist approach. So wherever you found out about it, you seem to have got it the wrong way around.Robert Walker (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Now we're getting somewhere. The frequentist probability that Martian life is as dangerous as the Andromeda Strain is either 1 or 0. It is not like a die where the probability of a 6 coming up is 16.67%. Thus when someone says that the risk of Andromeda Strain is 10^-18, what they are really saying is that likelihood that the risk is 1 is 10^-18. Or to put it another way: the risk is very likely to be zero. The 10^-18 is not a frequentist probability. This is made explicit in very quote you posted above. Warren Platts (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Why discuss this topic when you haven't found a single source to support your original theory that the OPP statement is inaccurate and shouldn't be summarized in the section,. and that your version is the accurate one that should be used? You argue for this using some argument in Bayesian probability theory that makes no sense to me at present. Where is your citation to support this argument and this criticism of the OPP summary? Without a source, it is OR. Robert Walker (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

For you to say it's unsourced when you just quoted the source is just crazy. I do not say the OPP statement is inaccurate. I fully understand the intended meaning. Evidently, you do not. Could it be that your entire obsession is based on this simple misunderstanding?Warren Platts (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

You can do simple obvious basic maths without a citation such as finding out someone's age from their birth and death dates, and adding and mutiplying and such like. But you can't otherwise add work based on original mathematical arguments to wikipedia without citations. Robert Walker (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Huh? The bottom line is that your objection to the wording "the risk is very likely to be zero" is precisely because it is a precise and accurate description of the facts. This of course flies in the face of your agenda to muddy the waters. Warren Platts (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

If I throw a Laplacian coin 100-fold, and get the same picture each time, what is likely? That the coin on both faces has the same picture, or that it has two different pictures on its two 50:50-sides? The Bayesian probability for a MSR is used, because the probability for biohazard is below (frequentist) detection limit. There are data, and they don't show any indications for a risk. No matter how many data you collect, you will never be able to prove in a strict sense, that a risk (in the sense of a-priori probability) is exactly zero. And even if a risk is exactly zero (Bayesian), you cannot prove from this, that the event is impossible, if there is an infinite set of options. So no matter, how many samples you collect before a MSR, you'll never be able to show that a hazard is impossible. But the same way you will never be able to show a-priori in a srict mathemetical sense, that the next letter you type doesn't cause the extinction of the human species in a way you couldn't anticipate. But is that a reason to miss no opportunity to state, that there is no proof, that the risk to cause environmental disruption by pressing a key is zero, and therefore wait at least 10 more years before pressing a key, before more research is done?93.231.175.222 (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Contribution to Back Contamination article

I have added the proposed material for this page to the Back-contamination article instead. This is a test edit. I expect WP to remove it or replace it with his version from this article. If that happens then he is clearly still policing this topic ban and it means I can't edit the article Back-contamination.

If it remains, then I can expand it into a proper article.

I think it is better to alert WP right away as he will find out sooner or later and if his personal topic ban is still in place will delete all content I add there. There is no point in attempting to write on the subject if he is going to topic ban me and will be permitted to go ahead with this ban.

What makes it a topic ban IMHO is that he removes the material and in response to a revert + request to discuss immediately removes it again. I don't do second reverts in that situation, as per Wikipedia policies on edit warring, so am helpless in that situation, which is why he is able to police this topic ban, anyway will see what happens. Robert Walker (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Losing an AfD is not an invitation to add the deleted "content" elsewhere... Warren Platts (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Robert McLenon suggested I write about contamination issues in an area of wikipedia that WP isn't working on, since we can't collaborate together. He seems to have changed his mind on this but at the time I added this contribution it was following his suggestion. Material from an AfD can be reused. No reason was given in the AfD for a topic ban. It consisted mainly of hominem attacks on my competence to write on the subject, again without particular examples to put my competence into doubt, just by repeated insults with nothing of substance to back them up. Robert Walker (talk) 07:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)